The Adaptive Unconscious
I just finished reading Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious by Timothy D. Wilson and wanted to summarize some of the ideas here as they touch on several other discussions on the site. There's an article by Wilson that also gives a summary here. Wilson.
Wilson describes two "selves" governing our behavior, choices, self-assessments, predictions, etc. The table below gives some of the most relevant features of the two:
| Adaptive Unconscious | Consciousness |
| Immediate reactions— the here and now | Future action and reflection on past |
| Automatic | Intentional |
| Pattern detector | After the fact, check & balancer |
| Sensitive to negative input | Sensitive to positive input |
And one of the important results of that difference--because the unconscious is sensitive to negative input (fear for example), makes quick appraisals, and looks for patterns--our unconscious self can jump to false conclusions about others that our conscious self does not even realize we have made. Wilson cites this difference as one of the reasons why prejudice and bias is sometimes difficult to overcome and why our self-assessment of how biased we are is often incorrect.
One thing he says here and elsewhere in the book is that in self-assessment it is probably best to look at one's actions with as non-judgemental an attitude toward oneself as possible --because the conscious self is to a large extent a construction and if we are constructing it with the goal of appearing as positive as possible we will probably delude ourselves, especially about our unconscious motives. His advice here actually reminds me very much of what I've read in various books about meditation by Jon Kabat-Zinn who similarly advises looking at the "shadow" parts of ourselves without judging them. One interesting study he cites here is one in which one group of people is asked to analyze their relationship, then describe their feelings while another group was just asked to describe their feelings. It was the second group whose "feeling" label was a better predictor of whether the relationship succeeded or failed than the first group. The conclusion Wilson reaches is that the first group in their conscious analysis represents the relationship as they want it to be and so do not assess their feelings as well as the second group.
I thought some of those findings had implications for the discussion of "hate crimes"--how does one assess motive? If it is done based on statements people make about themselves, the feelings that they will act on or have acted on--it seems to me that this research suggests those statements may not at all reflect accurately on the real causes.
Another interesting experimental result he cites has to do with personality traits. He says that in experiments conducted by Walter Mischel looking at 5 personality traits (extraversion, stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness) that the traits held no predictive effect for people's actions. "Rather than a collection of static traits that we can use to classify people, Mischel argued, personality is better conceived as a set of unique cognitive and affective variables that determine how people construe the situation. People have chronic ways of interpreting and evaluating different situations, and it is theses interpretations that influence their behavior."
Wilson goes on to talk about how the conscious and unconscious can then be described as two personalities (and shows evidence that actually the two are often quite different). The unconscious personality he says is measureable not through self report but by outside observation. He sees it as rooted in childhood and genetics and not easily changed, while the conscious personality is--as the story we tell about ourselves--much more malleable.
So what does this imply about the possibility of change? Wilson first describes that kind of non-judgmental self-assessment above. Then if there are aspects that we want to change, we can consciously make the decision to do so--even rewriting the story we want to tell about ourselves. Then if we can consciuosly control our actions to fit that new story over time the unconscious and automatic responses also change.
To me the implications there about change have to do with how important narratives are--I think about, for instance what DL has posted about the health effects of women's body-images. I think we are bombarded with narratives from advertising which must be shaping our automatic responses (I will only be loved if I'm a size 8--or whatever) so somehow I think its important to tell people a different story--about this and many other things.
So my take on Wilson's conclusion is more complicated...
It can suggest the study's participants were unskilled at analyzing their sensations.
It can also suggest the study's participants were accurate, but did not know how to communicate/describe what they were sensing.
It could suggest they were inaccurate about interpreting their partner's communication about the relationship.
OR... It could mean that the other partner involved in the success of the relationship was lacking in any of those areas.
I do think it is possible if a person's understanding and communication of their sensations is closer to what is true then I think it would as accurately predict the outcome of said relationship.
Wilson's Study
DL--when you're referring to the study you are talking about the one in which people predicted the outcome of their relationships, yes?
You raise several good objections in interpreting the results. First, though I have to apololgize because I didn't give an entire picture of the results and I think one of your objections (the one about whether the participants were unskilled in analyzing their sensations) might be answered in that fuller picture.
So I'll try to give more detail here. Addressing the impact of skill--Wilson's general conclusion (not just about this study, but about analysis) is that "people often change their minds about how they feel because the reasons they think of do not match their prior feelings very well. There is a group of people for whom this is not true, namely people who are quite knowledgeable about the topic they are analyzing." (172)
More detail on that particular study: "we compared people who were asked to list reasons about why their relationship was going the way it was with people who did not list reasons. Whose feelings did the best job of predicting the longevity of the relationship? It was the latter group, who did not analyze reasons. This is consistent with the notion that when people analyzed reasons, they constructed stories based on faulty data, such as which aspects of the relationship were easiest to put into words, were on their minds, or were consistent with their theories about how they should feel, leading to attitudes that were less well informed that those of peopl in the control group who just gave their unanlyzed, gut feelings."
I still think many points you raise aren't answered--in particular the influence of the other partner. The other point though is that Wilson's overall point is not that we shouldn't analyze but that we need to learn better how to have these two parts of us work together. Some of the results here, for instance, and in other studies (for instance on conscious vs. unconscious racist reactions) suggest that one of the problems with analysis is that when we observe ourselves we are bringing preconceptions about what we should feel. If we work consciously to try to perceive ourselves unjudgmentally the analysis will be more accurate.
Wilson's Study
DL--when you're referring to the study you are talking about the one in which people predicted the outcome of their relationships, yes?
Correct.
Sorry if I'm being a pain. I find this stuff all very interesting.
I'm very curious about the prediction of any relationship succeeding... this whole "gut feeling" thing - and what is it specifically. I used to have friends that would ask me about whether their relationships would succeed or fail because I was pretty accurate at "sensing" ... something I can't really describe in words. This is a tad bit silly, but I've been doing a ton of reading on plants and how they "communicate" with chemicals. I entertain even strange ideas because the human body is a complex chemical organism that we don't fully understand just yet and the "pieces parts" indicate similarities in both the plant and animal kingdom.
I wonder about these terms being used, because the language of the realms (outside the physical) they are investigating has not been "mapped for translation" as of yet. I'm also interested in what distinguishes a human relationship from a plant or animal relationship... and wonder whether we could understand the languages of these animal types if we could deciper it in our own. Again, maybe a little bit flakey "talking to dolphins" and wondering what they could teach us... but really... is it just our pride that keeps us from asking "why not"?
I see hints from many different scientific texts that suggests this sort of thing may be possible. If we knew the language of the planet itself, we might have a better chance of identifying "good" vs. "bad" things we humans do and thus be better able to overcome our bad habits.
It's clear we're tipping the balance of the system itself, but we have few tools to overcome the hype and spin of capitalistic interests. By the time we find out the truth, I wonder - will it be too late for us?
Sorry for getting all save-the-planet, weird, sci-fi, granola "crunchy" on you.
God bless the Freaks!
...may they escape the grips of insanity while searching for the Grand Unification Theory. 
language of the planet
DL--that is a very cool idea! (Freakin' Awesome, in fact. 
) I don't think it's far fetched at all when I think about repeated structures in nature and language being a structure. It does remind me of a sci-fi short story in which scientists are trying to teach dolphins to speak. They succeed and then an alien appears and says they've been waiting for the earthlings to communicate with another species because this is the test that has to be passed to join the intergalactic community. And of course the alien is talking to the dolphins. 
language of the planets
Accurate/Inaccurate
What's true or false for an individual depends on the equilibrium attained in the Spiritual - Mental - Emotional - Physical planes that is necessary for the health and survival of the individual. A "state of being".
Our analysis of our personal emotional plane is limited by our understanding of our own sensations.
Our analysis of our personal emotional plane is limited by our own mental abilities.
Our end of the relationship will not be true if any of these are inaccurate or lacking.
But I also think it's equally true that our description of these sensations is limited by our communication skills
A person exists in Spiritual - Mental - Emotional - Physical planes. But the very act of communicating turns a personal experience into a social experience when we perceive/describe these planes as they relate to our existence. We describe them physically. The words and speech themselves are physical - there are no congruent "words" defined by science as we know it now to create a language of the emotional, mental or spiritual planes... and this is somewhat limiting. I'm not sure if this point was made clear by the study or not.
The success of the relationship not only requires accuracy in our understanding of ourselves and the sensations we are describing - but also understanding the same with the partner(s) involved in the relationship. If a relationship/commitment is "true" it has to be true on every plane and the social contract(communication) has to be clearly understood by both parties for the relationship to be healthy, successful and survive.
Rewriting our Narratives
The force to change - There are both social and internal forces; postive and negative.
I think I've seen generally that people have a hard time analyzing which emotions come from social forces vs. from themselves. Interpretations can show whether we rely on our own judgement vs. the judgements of society when the two are in conflict.
Once a judgement about what you value is made, and subsequently a choice - moving from that choice into behavior/action brings in types of influence: Positive (Love) - seeking the truth and Negative (Fear) - repressing the truth.
Our habits will eventually be the form and shape of the physical world we create for ourselves. Just as our eating habits control our health and weight.
The type of influence we use will usually bleed over from individual to community. Fearful introspection will bring fearful judgement of others.
Conscious and Unconscious do not have to be "2 separate people". Rewriting our story to our own ideals - rejecting social controls when they conflict with our values will bring you closer to this balance between the conscious and unconscious. This requires knowledge of our own narrative - this fearless introspection and thought. Social pressure requires effort and thought to overcome.
Our Narrative
Sensations vs. Emotions
I think we need to carefully distinguish between a sensation and something as complex as an emotion when making our definitions for any kind of study that broaches this topic. But there is a subtlety in distinguishing between feelings/sensations and emotions.
My definitions:
Sensations are an unbiases/unconscious reaction to the forces acting upon us in any of our planes of existence.
Emotions are often a combination of sensation and how we analyze/describe that sensation... answering the question "Do we like or dislike the sensation we feel?" - what we value is implicit in this - and all of this which finally leads us to choose what to do (physically) in relation to this sensation.
Strangers to Ourselves
Advertisements--commercials... HATE! HATE! HATE! I've often found myself imagining myself throwing my TV out of the window the next time I see, "But wait! That's not all! If you call in the next 26 minutes, we'll throw in a second one FREE!!!!" ... Even without the extravogant and unnecessary, "Buuuuut Waaaaaiiiiiiiit!" closing message... commercials, in my mind, are almost as awful as alarm clocks.
One scary little trick among the advertisement advocates. They intentionally use certain words in a message in order to increase the chances of the receiver reacting in a certain way. To carry the idea of someone actively using them to manipulate a text or speech. "doing things with language". Things like subliminal messages is a tool the frikkin enemy (propaganda) relies on in the area of the unconscious mind in it's audience.
I think you bring up valid points. To add on, I like the concept of Individuation blended in. Becoming who you are. The fulfillment of one's archetypal potentials. A persons persona mediates between the ego and the outer world, acting as a compromise between the demands of the culture and the needs of the ego, which allows adaptation but obscures individuality. So if we take on too much with the persona it may take on the characteristics of a false self.
In Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Power of Thinking Without Thinking", he credits Timothy Wilson and his book as being one who has thought extensively about the adaptive unconscious... and other concepts like the "computer" in our mind. "The eternal computer, the part of the brain that leaps to conclusions is our adaptive unconscious." ... for a similar read.
advertising etc.
kat-avatar,
I'm just picturing someone in a rage taking their tv to the window to throw it out--just as they're about to let it go the announcer says "But waiiiit..."--the person gets a glazed look in his eye and says in an artifically chipper voice as they bring the tv back in, "Oh allright, then..."
Ads--Wilson has a small section on ads and says what is most effective in ads is not subliminal words (flashing subliminal messages require variables like lighting and distance from the image) but the emotive story-lines which we think we are just absorbing but are actually having emotional effects on us without our conscious awareness. I have to think that watching them with more knowledge of what those effects might be or how they work would help offset the effect? (I hope so anyway.)
Are archetypes and personas both names for the same thing (a mediation between ego and world)? In this kind of theory are archetypes/personas fixed, or do they change as a result of changing external or internal input? I guess using Wilson's theory, personas could be formed either consciously or by the unconscious (or some combination of the two)--but I think trying to change ourselves/our behavior would involve a kind of conscious attempt to rewrite our character (persona?).
Gladwell has another book called Tipping Point that several friends have recommended. The description almost made it sound a bit like Chaos Theory applied to social situations.
advertising etc.
Choose to seek.
Ok... I'm clearly in a strange mood today. I hope it amuses... 
Anyway - I think you're right Jaz - I see archetypes and personas pretty much as representing this mediation between self and world.
I'm not sure why, but in my mind I see the archetypes as approaching from the social side of things to the personal, and the personas as the personal side to the social.
I skimmed the blurb on "Tipping Point" ... that actually helps me personally to have hope for a large positive social change for humankind in the future. It seems like such a Catch 22 when you consider the logistics of influence when you're in the minority on any given position for whatever reason. But that excerpt reminds me about how seemingly small decisions can build up over time... the smaller stories that change from person to person when they wake up to something. From there, networks can make the impact exponential... "waking up" more folks to the truth. When you can't physically see it... it just seems so painfully slow somedays. It's hard to see the progress.
the seemingly small
Heh, ya got me grinnin' DL.
I think you're right about the archetype/persona direction--I think of archetypes as describing something in myths and personas as coming from our minds--but maybe in a way its a false distinction. I think the outer/inner distinction when it comes to defining the self is to some degree arbitrary.
Yeah--I like that idea--the butterfly effect.
Those are the cutest emoticons!
I'm not sure I get what this study is trying to say...
Wilson is making a comparison of things that are intrinsically different: "this is what we are feeling" vs. "this is how we analyzed what we are feeling".
It seems like the his study suggests that the Adaptive Unconscious is a more accurate indicator of if a relationship succeeds or fails vs. an individual's Consciousness. But that doesn't seem like the whole picture to me. There's a whole lot of uncontrolled measures not listed that might influence this.