I want to home in particularly on the last point - it implies that our self-concept is both malleable and within our control, allowing us to gaslight ourselves into changing ourselves. This is an important tool that we should be aware of, particularly in the modern day where things are more flexible and ever-changing than ever.
Your Substack is by far one of the most valuable and insightful resources. It could be life-changing for many who search for simple answers. (“Simple” doesn’t mean “easy”.) Thank you for the contribution.
The aspect highlighted in the title may be of immense importance for confused minds. I will respond to this one in a longer post.
I won’t claim expertise as a cognitive scientist, but there’s some evidence that people frame sensory input in different ways - some frame their experience narratively, as a story; others experience life episodically, in the moment. So, memory looks different from those two perspectives. I don’t think it’s so much about being practical or skeptical, unless memory is reduced to something that’s either useful or beside the point. I find as I grow older that what I remember matters more to me - then again, I’m a narrative type :-)
The thing is, I never frame it as a waste of time, even if I’m trying to stay in the moment. I think, at the very least, memory intrusions indicate the brain doing interesting things, some beyond my consciousness. It can spark my curiosity, which in turns leads to writing and interpreting.
Hello Martha, Sensory input framed narratively is what I am talking about, and maybe all that I know? I am not sure that I grasp experiences as "episodically". (Help me understand.) OK, let me guess, this is an episode; does it mean it is disconnected from the previous and the next episode? Or more it "stands alone", to be evaluated (experienced), as it is. It is my-memory, so there must be some back-door connection.
Thoughts "popping into my head" are steering my attention. Yes, the brain is doing some interesting things. Yet while I am writing this comment, I don't want to be turned by every cracking twig. So I guess what I am referring to is the value of focus, which is concentration, and driven by interest, (called passion when it gets strong).
So the brain (memory) is cracking all those twigs. What for? We can write about that. We don't know, but we can make some conjectures.
I love the idea of the brain (or memory) "cracking all those twigs" as we attempt to focus. I'd say that's where the tension lies in storytelling, both for writers and readers. Meanwhile, as noted, I'm not an expert on cognitive science, but you might find this article by Joshua Rothman about a narrative and episodic modes of interest: "Are Your the Same Person You Used to Be?" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/are-you-the-same-person-you-used-to-be-life-is-hard-the-origins-of-you
Hi Martha, I took a look. There are the definitions of "narrative" or "episodic". Are these a "quality" of a person, or are they just a historical look at how it unfolded, up until now? What can it tell you? In other words, am I narrative because that is the kind of person I am, or is it for other reasons that may be easily enough defined.
Examples: that I have always lived within these same "walls", in the same location, and with these same people. There are no episodes, and group social pressure is used to keep it that way. What's left but to remember the little things we all do and say?
If you have a career, or especially if you are a creative; you have to establish your Linked-In profile. Your narration is all of your "credentials", to propel you to the next level. Hey, nothing wrong with that, if that is your situation.
If you move around, it doesn't necessarily make you episodic. You move in an army career, but you are always in the same narrative of the military. If you move, and you rebuild your life, that is an episode. Even a graduate moves, and is building a new episode (after the university), not rebuilding. Or another is starting over after a failure, or another starting something new just for the fun of it and the challenge. (I wonder if I can survive in this new country? I had better learn the language.)
____________________
The Dunedin (NZ) project began with a thousand random children, and only later identified changes as they emerged. I'll quote a chunk of their process:
Quote: "Working prospectively, the Dunedin researchers began by categorizing their three-year-olds. They met with the children for ninety minutes each, rating them on twenty-two aspects of personality—restlessness, impulsivity, willfulness, attentiveness, friendliness, communicativeness, and so on. They then used their results to identify five general types of children.
Forty per cent of the kids were deemed “well-adjusted,” with the usual mixture of kid personality traits. Another quarter, 25% were found to be “confident”—more than usually comfortable with strangers and new situations. Fifteen per cent 15% were “reserved,” or standoffish, at first. About one in ten 10% turned out to be “inhibited”; the same proportion were identified as “undercontrolled.” The inhibited kids were notably shy and exceptionally slow to warm up; the undercontrolled ones were impulsive and ornery. (They had excess energy, it's good, but must be channeled.) These determinations of personality, arrived at after brief encounters and by strangers, would form the basis for a half century of further work." UnQuote
So from 90 minutes as a 3-year-old, you were given a tendency, and a category. I am not so sure how this tendency is connected to you, other than by your environment and those people in it. They say that in some cases "their dispositions were durable". They say "the social power of temperament"? Is that how you accept and add to the social pressure, to confine your group or clan? Is it a form of a "Gossip Trap"?
I am not a parent. I know children in the same family can be very different, (have tendencies), but I have no direct experience. Even in a group of dogs, they have different expressed needs and personalities. They can change though, with contact.
I would say if people find an opportunity for self-expression and growth, they will learn from it. Maybe it will keep morphing into further interest, or maybe it will get old. And it is sure that there is not opportunity for everyone. Or it is so thin, and too slow for consideration. Building interest is what we are all talking about, isn't it? Is the objective of life on earth stability? Obviously not, or we would still be stone-age.
We have talked on this site that life is a personal balance between grounding and expansion. (I forgot where, or who said it, but we will surely talk more about it.) Grounding is the reaffirmation of "what you (think) you know". It is comforting and needed, because things are now under control. Then that gets old (boring) so we go out to see what is new, "expansion". Back and forth, and that is (a definition of), how life is meant to be.
"Building Confidence" is a step by step movement toward expansion. The confidence is more of the end game, not just more expansion. Confidence is equanimity, and imperturbability. Not because you want to live on an island. Equanimity is only so, in the eye of the hurricane. You have the presence of mind to ask, what is my part in this hurricane?
A lot of subjects for future articles. How about you Martha? How about writing an article on Why Not Think? I'll tell you how to accept an invitation.
I doubt any research, let alone one New Yorker writer, can really pin down why somebody sees the world narratively (or episodically). But in pondering the sense of self this distinction poses, it gets me to question my own premises. I’m not so much convinced by specific research that, as you indicate, doesn’t really capture the internal reality of how individuals develop. The thing is, these are tough things for cognitive or social scientists to get at quantitatively. But qualitatively, for my own narrative self, I can test out whether I really know who I am - and I like such tests.
The way any of us describes themselves - including whether we rely on memories or actively forget - is due to some interaction of nature and nurture. It’s on a spectrum like so many personal qualities that affect the way we see the world: introversion/extroversion, for instance. But nobody is ever just one half of a binary construct. I think narratively, no doubt reinforced by my professional life and milieu, but I can be episodic, too.
As for me writing something for WhyNotThink, I’m open to it at some point, but I need to focus on my current projects now. Thanks for the invite - and for all your provocative questions :-)
A scientific theory is a made-up premise. Then you try to nail it down quantitatively. Who says a made-up thing can be nailed down? Perhaps it must be discarded, but with all the years of investment in it, you will try to justify something out of it.
You may want to test whether you "really know who you are". Please don't ascribe too many fixed "qualities". I'll go back to the "grounding and expansion balance" (above). That balance and your level of prudence is who you are. Then I said "building confidence" will tilt the mix. Ultimately confidence is your empowerment to meet life. When you can "meet most everything", what can trouble you? Then even prefer/don't prefer isn't definitive.
You can write anything here. You can even test out snippets of your current projects. I hope you'll try it. Say the word, and I'll set it up.
I like these different meditations on memory, partly because I think the way humans remember is very different from computer memory - it’s not just some big database in our heads that we can actively decide to delete or recategorize - I’d say we don’t absolutely control what we remember and what we don’t. While those who endlessly repeat the same self-pitying story of the past can be annoying, I strive for more compassion there: not being able to remember a bad thing can force you to lock down a story, because that feels safer. Remaining open to reinterpreting your own memories takes a certain amount of bravery. I often fail there myself, but I do keep trying 😉
Hello Martha, thanks for weighing in. I would love to hear from you more often. I have no clue how memory really works. But still you can watch where it goes, and make some conjectures about the process. I like the "contemplation #3" above:
"The memories that come out must be supporting some facet of our repeating story. “Story” is what we tell ourselves, about ourselves, and about the world."
This morning lying in bed, lots of old memories were parading through. I judged it as a total waste of my attention. I wanted to think of a contemplation on life, or something that I would write about in the next post. (Am I just too practical, trying to get use out of every moment?) Shouldn't mind (memory) be connected to what I want to accomplish?
One of my very best girlfriends from long ago was very strong. But by what she called compassion, she always gave hours of listening to the whining of some very self-pitying lady. Is that your "friend"? Or is it someone who is continuously trying to pull you down to their level?
I have contacts with someone who is proud of their national and family heritage, in eastern Europe. I have some idea of where my father's and mother's family roots are. But I have no interest in tracing their family genealogy. Even with my own story, I feel more content just being my "today's person". I think that I have cut the strings with a lot of my past story? Maybe that is my main delusion.
I am a skeptic. I say it comes from what I see now, but who knows? I hope that it is not too annoying to others.
I want to home in particularly on the last point - it implies that our self-concept is both malleable and within our control, allowing us to gaslight ourselves into changing ourselves. This is an important tool that we should be aware of, particularly in the modern day where things are more flexible and ever-changing than ever.
Your Substack is by far one of the most valuable and insightful resources. It could be life-changing for many who search for simple answers. (“Simple” doesn’t mean “easy”.) Thank you for the contribution.
The aspect highlighted in the title may be of immense importance for confused minds. I will respond to this one in a longer post.
I won’t claim expertise as a cognitive scientist, but there’s some evidence that people frame sensory input in different ways - some frame their experience narratively, as a story; others experience life episodically, in the moment. So, memory looks different from those two perspectives. I don’t think it’s so much about being practical or skeptical, unless memory is reduced to something that’s either useful or beside the point. I find as I grow older that what I remember matters more to me - then again, I’m a narrative type :-)
The thing is, I never frame it as a waste of time, even if I’m trying to stay in the moment. I think, at the very least, memory intrusions indicate the brain doing interesting things, some beyond my consciousness. It can spark my curiosity, which in turns leads to writing and interpreting.
Hello Martha, Sensory input framed narratively is what I am talking about, and maybe all that I know? I am not sure that I grasp experiences as "episodically". (Help me understand.) OK, let me guess, this is an episode; does it mean it is disconnected from the previous and the next episode? Or more it "stands alone", to be evaluated (experienced), as it is. It is my-memory, so there must be some back-door connection.
Thoughts "popping into my head" are steering my attention. Yes, the brain is doing some interesting things. Yet while I am writing this comment, I don't want to be turned by every cracking twig. So I guess what I am referring to is the value of focus, which is concentration, and driven by interest, (called passion when it gets strong).
So the brain (memory) is cracking all those twigs. What for? We can write about that. We don't know, but we can make some conjectures.
.
I love the idea of the brain (or memory) "cracking all those twigs" as we attempt to focus. I'd say that's where the tension lies in storytelling, both for writers and readers. Meanwhile, as noted, I'm not an expert on cognitive science, but you might find this article by Joshua Rothman about a narrative and episodic modes of interest: "Are Your the Same Person You Used to Be?" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/are-you-the-same-person-you-used-to-be-life-is-hard-the-origins-of-you
Hi Martha, I took a look. There are the definitions of "narrative" or "episodic". Are these a "quality" of a person, or are they just a historical look at how it unfolded, up until now? What can it tell you? In other words, am I narrative because that is the kind of person I am, or is it for other reasons that may be easily enough defined.
Examples: that I have always lived within these same "walls", in the same location, and with these same people. There are no episodes, and group social pressure is used to keep it that way. What's left but to remember the little things we all do and say?
If you have a career, or especially if you are a creative; you have to establish your Linked-In profile. Your narration is all of your "credentials", to propel you to the next level. Hey, nothing wrong with that, if that is your situation.
If you move around, it doesn't necessarily make you episodic. You move in an army career, but you are always in the same narrative of the military. If you move, and you rebuild your life, that is an episode. Even a graduate moves, and is building a new episode (after the university), not rebuilding. Or another is starting over after a failure, or another starting something new just for the fun of it and the challenge. (I wonder if I can survive in this new country? I had better learn the language.)
____________________
The Dunedin (NZ) project began with a thousand random children, and only later identified changes as they emerged. I'll quote a chunk of their process:
Quote: "Working prospectively, the Dunedin researchers began by categorizing their three-year-olds. They met with the children for ninety minutes each, rating them on twenty-two aspects of personality—restlessness, impulsivity, willfulness, attentiveness, friendliness, communicativeness, and so on. They then used their results to identify five general types of children.
Forty per cent of the kids were deemed “well-adjusted,” with the usual mixture of kid personality traits. Another quarter, 25% were found to be “confident”—more than usually comfortable with strangers and new situations. Fifteen per cent 15% were “reserved,” or standoffish, at first. About one in ten 10% turned out to be “inhibited”; the same proportion were identified as “undercontrolled.” The inhibited kids were notably shy and exceptionally slow to warm up; the undercontrolled ones were impulsive and ornery. (They had excess energy, it's good, but must be channeled.) These determinations of personality, arrived at after brief encounters and by strangers, would form the basis for a half century of further work." UnQuote
So from 90 minutes as a 3-year-old, you were given a tendency, and a category. I am not so sure how this tendency is connected to you, other than by your environment and those people in it. They say that in some cases "their dispositions were durable". They say "the social power of temperament"? Is that how you accept and add to the social pressure, to confine your group or clan? Is it a form of a "Gossip Trap"?
I am not a parent. I know children in the same family can be very different, (have tendencies), but I have no direct experience. Even in a group of dogs, they have different expressed needs and personalities. They can change though, with contact.
I would say if people find an opportunity for self-expression and growth, they will learn from it. Maybe it will keep morphing into further interest, or maybe it will get old. And it is sure that there is not opportunity for everyone. Or it is so thin, and too slow for consideration. Building interest is what we are all talking about, isn't it? Is the objective of life on earth stability? Obviously not, or we would still be stone-age.
We have talked on this site that life is a personal balance between grounding and expansion. (I forgot where, or who said it, but we will surely talk more about it.) Grounding is the reaffirmation of "what you (think) you know". It is comforting and needed, because things are now under control. Then that gets old (boring) so we go out to see what is new, "expansion". Back and forth, and that is (a definition of), how life is meant to be.
"Building Confidence" is a step by step movement toward expansion. The confidence is more of the end game, not just more expansion. Confidence is equanimity, and imperturbability. Not because you want to live on an island. Equanimity is only so, in the eye of the hurricane. You have the presence of mind to ask, what is my part in this hurricane?
A lot of subjects for future articles. How about you Martha? How about writing an article on Why Not Think? I'll tell you how to accept an invitation.
Well enough for now.
.
I doubt any research, let alone one New Yorker writer, can really pin down why somebody sees the world narratively (or episodically). But in pondering the sense of self this distinction poses, it gets me to question my own premises. I’m not so much convinced by specific research that, as you indicate, doesn’t really capture the internal reality of how individuals develop. The thing is, these are tough things for cognitive or social scientists to get at quantitatively. But qualitatively, for my own narrative self, I can test out whether I really know who I am - and I like such tests.
The way any of us describes themselves - including whether we rely on memories or actively forget - is due to some interaction of nature and nurture. It’s on a spectrum like so many personal qualities that affect the way we see the world: introversion/extroversion, for instance. But nobody is ever just one half of a binary construct. I think narratively, no doubt reinforced by my professional life and milieu, but I can be episodic, too.
As for me writing something for WhyNotThink, I’m open to it at some point, but I need to focus on my current projects now. Thanks for the invite - and for all your provocative questions :-)
A scientific theory is a made-up premise. Then you try to nail it down quantitatively. Who says a made-up thing can be nailed down? Perhaps it must be discarded, but with all the years of investment in it, you will try to justify something out of it.
You may want to test whether you "really know who you are". Please don't ascribe too many fixed "qualities". I'll go back to the "grounding and expansion balance" (above). That balance and your level of prudence is who you are. Then I said "building confidence" will tilt the mix. Ultimately confidence is your empowerment to meet life. When you can "meet most everything", what can trouble you? Then even prefer/don't prefer isn't definitive.
You can write anything here. You can even test out snippets of your current projects. I hope you'll try it. Say the word, and I'll set it up.
.
I like these different meditations on memory, partly because I think the way humans remember is very different from computer memory - it’s not just some big database in our heads that we can actively decide to delete or recategorize - I’d say we don’t absolutely control what we remember and what we don’t. While those who endlessly repeat the same self-pitying story of the past can be annoying, I strive for more compassion there: not being able to remember a bad thing can force you to lock down a story, because that feels safer. Remaining open to reinterpreting your own memories takes a certain amount of bravery. I often fail there myself, but I do keep trying 😉
Hello Martha, thanks for weighing in. I would love to hear from you more often. I have no clue how memory really works. But still you can watch where it goes, and make some conjectures about the process. I like the "contemplation #3" above:
"The memories that come out must be supporting some facet of our repeating story. “Story” is what we tell ourselves, about ourselves, and about the world."
This morning lying in bed, lots of old memories were parading through. I judged it as a total waste of my attention. I wanted to think of a contemplation on life, or something that I would write about in the next post. (Am I just too practical, trying to get use out of every moment?) Shouldn't mind (memory) be connected to what I want to accomplish?
One of my very best girlfriends from long ago was very strong. But by what she called compassion, she always gave hours of listening to the whining of some very self-pitying lady. Is that your "friend"? Or is it someone who is continuously trying to pull you down to their level?
I have contacts with someone who is proud of their national and family heritage, in eastern Europe. I have some idea of where my father's and mother's family roots are. But I have no interest in tracing their family genealogy. Even with my own story, I feel more content just being my "today's person". I think that I have cut the strings with a lot of my past story? Maybe that is my main delusion.
I am a skeptic. I say it comes from what I see now, but who knows? I hope that it is not too annoying to others.
.