Thursday, September 27, 2012

Filling in the Gaps: Communication Failure in Relationships

If you're like me, you've dated or had friendships or engaged in discussions with all of the above and/or the stranger in a group you happen to find yourself in. Within any of those chats there has occurred a disconnect where what the person is saying doesn't quite match what the person says at another point or in the case of closer relationships, what the person says doesn't align with how they act in another situation. There are any number of potential responses to this, from confrontation and declarations of hypocrisy to eager questions for clarification. However, what we often find ourselves doing, especially when the relationship is one we've become invested in, is what I call "fill in the gaps."

I've worked out the concept of "filling in the gaps" in the previous entry as it pertains to intellectual pursuits and the disconnect that occurs between irrational thought, most notably of a religious or spiritual bent, and the limits of knowledge whether through ignorance or level of research. The beauty of human beings, and there are many things beautiful about us, is that when we find a cognitive heuristic that works for us we tend to apply it liberally across our lives. Confirmation bias, where we only see the information that supports our presuppositions, is a classic example and extends even to vision with people being incapable of noting a man in a gorilla suit walking into a class because it doesn't fit with the preconceived notions of what a class is supposed to be. There are several others, but this literary pontification is not concerned with them right now.

When I note the tendency to "fill in the gaps" in personal relationships I refer to the amazing capacity of people to turn into arm-chair psychologists, stretching the bounds of hubris to come up with any number of rationalizations for why disparate information isn't making any sense. We've all done it, I know I've certainly done so in a recent relationship, and if examples in our lives don't come to mind readily I'm quite positive we can easily dredge up examples from others we're connected to, situations where we sat back in wonder at why so-and-so continues to accept the mental gynmastics of their partner when confronted with behavior that doesn't match. From declarations of love followed by dismissal and forgetfulness to the silences of personal revelation followed by protests of authenticity, the people in our lives and we ourselves are confronted almost daily with examples of missing information, gaps that we create to help solve the disconnect between what we hear and what we see.

Nor is this limited to romantic relationships, as parents who protest their good parental connections are followed by deliberately shortening time to be with their child(ren); managers declaring their support for their employees and then taking a pay increase while the worker languishes; and politicians, well, do I really need to go into examples there?

To "fill in the gaps" is not a wrong action, in fact many times it saves time and nobody suffers from it. Other people and for that matter, our own self, exists as created narratives in our minds, set up for the purposes of holding a basic image that we can then project onto behavior. This helps us for we then do not have to create anew in every transaction a rationale for someone's behavior, it's already sitting there in our minds. Just as with confirmation bias however, the ease of this can fall into error when we are so set on what we project that we begin to ignore what is happening right in front of us.

There is plenty of room here to thwart this tendency into error. In dedicating ourselves to constant reevaluation of our narratives of ourselves and others, in not shying away from the difficult questions, we can begin to see that the joy of emotional connection and the sense of sinking into another that often occurs does not become a sinkhole of suffering. In the end we may find lies and self-deceptions and we may also find our inner stories of others expanding to encompass more of the person we are only just now beginning to truly see. In either case we will not be set upon by the stress and insecurity of "filling in the gaps."

Friday, September 14, 2012

Absence of Knowledge is Not Presence of Truth

There was a time in human existence when the world was thought to be flat, when psychosis was believed to be demoniac possession, when illness was considered a mis-alignment of bodily humours, and human beings were looked upon as having been instantly and completely created creatures from the breath of deity. We now have the knowledge of planetary bodies as spheroidal, a comprehensive and growing understanding of the neural connections underlying psychosis, germ theory and evolutionary biological theory. Before these scientific and imaginative creations of human cognitive achievement, there were as seen above, many notions about the facts of existence, many hypotheses concerning the everyday occurrences of life, but it was all based on a lack of knowledge, a lack incapable of being known because nobody had begun asking the right questions. These suppositions, superstitious and supernatural that they were, contained a certain truth, a fact of human existence that in the social creation of understanding experience, we will go only so far as the collective knowledge base allows. While throughout history there have been individuals who have stood up and proclaimed a more thorough understanding, these were often looked upon as fools or ignored altogether. Being that as shifts in understanding often shake the foundation of established authority structures, there is little wonder that those in power play a key role in keeping collective truth from changing. As Bertrand Russell was quoted in the previous entry, thought is inimical to power and thwarts the powerful. Individual lives are not the only ones thrust into turmoil at consciousness being raised.

Fascinatingly, all the aforementioned notions subsequently proven unwarranted, existed in the near-history, in the midst of technological and scientific achievement that brought the world closer in ways thought magical merely a couple generations before. Despite these testable and verifiable examples of the veracity of scientific methodology, there persisted and indeed still exists in some groups, beliefs that are wholly absent of current knowledge but parade as truth of experience. They rely on the continued presence of a pre-civilized brain that seeks only the simple or basic answers, that rests upon traditional answers and judges as legitimate the supposed inherent power hierarchies of society. The cornerstone of this mentality is an adherence to a practice I call “gap-filling.” Here is where a person notes that some way of knowing, most often a simplified and lacking in nuance portrayal of science, has not answered x point and therefore they absence as evidence for their answer being accurate. This practice is often exemplified within spiritually-minded or mystical thinkers, who point to some particular aspect of reality, often biological, that science supposedly hasn’t answered and then declare that gap as being supportive of their particular spiritual interpretation of reality. Consciousness is a current favorite. Certainly there is no consensus in scientific communities as to just what exactly the subjective feeling of x is (this being usually what consciousness is described as), but this is not only merely one aspect of what constitutes conscious experience but is not a free pass to note the presence of the ineffable and then declare the answer to be found in some mystical philosophy. Another example is biology, where I witnessed a recent situation of declaring science didn’t know how life itself arose, only the mechanics once it had, therefore life must be synonymous with a spiritual force within the realm of the nebulous and ineffable.

Two issues come up when this practice is played out. First, there is the problem of one’s declaration being factually inaccurate, which in the above case concerning life occurred. There are indeed theories in place as to how the basic building blocks of life arose through impersonal and chemically more basic natural phenomena. While none to my knowledge are as of yet firmly established, they do take into account a great deal of known information and are plausible suppositions. Even if none such existed there would still not be room for an infusion of the rationally incomprehensible. There is a constant influx of information gleaned from testing and analysis, the amount of which requires an educational specialization for even the smallest of academic pursuits to come close to holding it all. History is replete with examples of theorizing by the ignorant resulting in embarrassment when further information is gathered. The world is flat, most assuredly, that is until it was proven otherwise. The error here not only is a disservice to the pursuit of real understanding of human experience but undermines the qualities that spiritual philosophy can provide.

Two, as just noted, it does a disservice to spiritual understanding and practice. The disservice of which I speak is of having the spiritual enterprise be more than it is, an interpretation of factual experience but not the experience itself. In other words, spiritual understanding should remain within the realm of contemplating the subjective and often transcendental feel of an experience, providing a descriptive narrative that can be shared, but not one that is supplying any further truth than a declaration of one’s personal mental status. As an example for clarification, Daniel Siegel describes mind as a descriptive term for the process of energy and information flow within and between people. It is a descriptive term only , not a thing in itself. Discussing mind as if it is an actual thing is missing the point of the term’s usage and moves contemplation away from what actually is known. So with the spiritual enterprise, it serves as an interpretive or descriptive system containing a way of talking about an experience that while does not point to anything in itself beyond the subjective feel of a situation, still has purpose as a means of providing the foundation for inter-personal communication about that subjective feel. At no time does however should it be used to fill in gaps that are more properly under the purview of rational/scientific analysis and testing.

When faced with the splendor of a rising sun or the visceral energy of a storm, one can speak in transcendent even spiritual terms in an attempt to describe the feelings and internal experience being generated, but we do ourselves and our ability to progress as a species a great harm in then taking those musings and declaring them to describe what the sun or the storm actually is. For that we have science and the continued progress afforded us by that enterprise in no way necessitates a diminishing of the quality of the spiritual experience, rather adding to the mental toolbox to broaden and deepen our spiritual pondering.

There was an error in this gadget