# The animal in us



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Maybe this should go in the philosophy section but I have been struggling with this issue in the relationship and also more generally, especially after the recent events (my last thread).

I recently feel quite strongly that there are two distinct parts in me: an animal/intuitive/primal part and a logical part, that rationalises things that we feel or explain away things that happen to us randomly. Often, the two are in deep conflict with each other and the rational part tries desperately to come to some sort of 'common ground' which is sometimes a very awkward or impossible thing to do. The emotional part is not really flexible and the rational part can only influence/change it to a minor extent.

I sometimes don't know which of the two one is the real me. I used to assume and live my life thinking that it's the 'rational me' that is me but I am not so sure anymore. I recently came close to self-destruction because my 'emotional' part was entirely against what the logic was telling me the right decision was which I followed and it almost killed me. I then realised that maybe I should be listening to the emotional part of me more in order to survive, instead of always making decisions using logic. I used to think that using logic is a more reliable way to ensure not to make terrible mistakes. Again, I am not so sure anymore and if that's the case, it can come at an impossible cost.

But listening to the emotional part is such a mess...Maybe I should provide some examples because you probably don't know what the hell I am going on about. The main example is my last thread: where my intuition, my biology was screaming at me one thing, all the while the rational part went ahead and let things happen in spite of it. 

But there are many other examples: we often make decisions based on pure intuition and later rationalise to ourselves WHY we made that decision in order to make ourselves FEEL we made the right decision and to bring the two back to 'harmony' with each other. Falling in love is mostly a biological/intuitive process: there is no rational reason to take on that HUGE risk and fall in love with a stranger who (statistically) is pretty likely to ruin your life both emotionally and financially. Wanting to have kids is mostly a biological decision: who in their right mind wants to give up their life and live with a life-long responsibility to provide for someone else or bring them into this pretty awful world. 

Also, because the feeling or emotion comes first and then rationalisation follows, to me, it means that nothing is set in stone when it comes to human relationships or interactions. Today your wife will promise you love for eternity, tomorrow she might be overcome with feelings of desire for the milkman while she might be rationalising this in some ****ed up way. Of course logic is likely to stop her. Or at least we would expect that it would stop her. But that would be _unnatural_.
Yet many people (knowingly or unknowingly) perhaps live their lives, base their judgement and moral values as if it's the other way around (that logic can reliably guide our intuition/biology).

Another example where feelings and rationalisations are completely at odds: I am generally pretty possessive and protective over my wife and would (probably) not be able to continue our marriage if I found that she was unfaithful.

Yet I always found it odd that I was at the same time excited by the thought of other males finding her desirable, in certain situations. My sexual experience with her would be elevated as a result (hysterical bonding etc). There is a theory that explains and 'proves' that it's a real phenomenon with primates. It's something to do with 'sperm wars': where the partner's ejaculate will be stronger and have a higher sperm content if he knows that his spouse was recently inseminated by another male. This is in order to destroy the other male's sperm. Apparently most of the sperm content consists of 'killer sperm' that are there for just one purpose: to destroy the competition.

It's all completely ****ed up, my logic tells me. (And quite possibly a load of bollocks, pardon the pun). Yet I feel it sometimes and fantasise about it (among other ridiculous things). It doesn't mean I would ever let it happen (let her have sex with someone else just so that I can then prove to her to be the more dominant male or whatever) but my problem is that since I began listening to my 'primal self', all kinds of crap is coming up, and I am not sure I like it or know how to deal with it. Pandora's box.

On the other hand it would be unreasonable to ignore biology since it is older than our 'rational mind' which is a fairly recent development. And maybe still in beta-version...

How do you navigate life? Do you make your decisions based mostly on logic or intuition or a combination? How do you know exactly when to ignore your 'biological mind' and when to listen to your 'rational mind' (and how can you always be sure which is which) in order to avoid putting yourself in harm's way? 
Many of you will probably say that as an adult, one is usually aware of the consequences whenever making a decision. But this is not always true: you usually know how your rational mind is going to react, but it is MUCH harder to predict how your biological mind is going to react to something, especially where your rational mind is completely at odds with it.


----------



## Uptown (Mar 27, 2010)

> I sometimes don't know which of the two one is the real me.


Prime, as a mature individual, you have learned to integrate both aspects of your personality. Both parts of your mind -- i.e., the logical rational part and the intuitive emotional part -- are essential parts of the "real you." 

The human condition is that our brains are hardwired to instantly shift to black-white thinking whenever we are startled or suddenly frightened. To ensure our survival, our brains don't allow us to do high-level intellectual thinking when we are suddenly scared. Hence, when you are walking in a crosswalk and suddenly look up to see a truck bearing down on you, your mind is capable of thinking only "jump left" or "jump right." 

Although this dichotomous "black-white thinking" is very valuable during such emergencies, it can be disastrous if we rely on it to guide our actions in personal relationships. Nearly all of us understand that well by the time we are in high school. That is, we are well aware that, whenever our feelings are intense, our rational judgement is strongly colored and distorted and thus cannot be trusted. 

These distortions cause us to perceive of other people as being "all good" or "all bad." This is why we try to keep our mouths shut -- and our fingers off the keys -- until we have time to cool down and allow our good judgment to return. And this is why we try to wait at least two years before buying the ring. 

During early childhood, for example, we all behave impulsively and rely on B-W thinking. And when the hormones surge during the early teens, most of us start behaving impulsively and rely on B-W thinking all over again. Indeed, any hormone change can cause intense feelings, resulting in the same thought distortions that those feelings produce. This is why, at various points in our lives (e.g., puberty, pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause, menopause, menstruation, and times of great stress), we all can start temporarily relying fully on emotional B-W thinking again and again.

Moreover, when a nation is under great stress due to a deep recession and starvation, it is common to see most people in that country be easily persuaded to resort to black-white thinking -- when their leaders persuade them them that an entire class of their own countrymen are "all bad." This is perhaps most evident in the way that many nations have supported a leadership that slaughtered millions of their own citizens. 

This shows what all human beings are capable of doing whenever they allow themselves to rely fully on B-W thinking during adulthood. Hence, as mature adults, we try to always maintain a healthy balance between our intuitive childlike mind and our logical adult mind. Both are essential for our survival. This, at least, is my experience, Prime.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Actually, the difference between rational Bob and animal Bob may simply be that rational Bob can usually select the proper mental model and provide the proper inputs, while animal Bob may simply choose something quick with little concern over matching, resulting in black and white thinking. Stress and other external factors impact the model selection process.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

john117 said:


> Actually, the difference between rational Bob and animal Bob may simply be that rational Bob can usually select the *proper mental model* and provide the proper inputs, while animal Bob may simply choose something quick with little concern over matching, resulting in black and white thinking. Stress and other external factors impact the model selection process.


But 'proper mental model' according to whom? I mean who will be the judge whether the inputs and model where 'proper'? I used to think like this too. But what if a decision that rational Bob made caused such agony that it would cause animal Bob to decide that self destruction is the only way forward? 
Would it still be considered a 'proper mental model'?
I sometimes feel we erect all these models to hide the true, much more obscure and fluid reality.

Don't forget that rational Bob has only been around thousands of years whereas animal Bob's existence is measured in millions.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> Maybe this should go in the philosophy section but I have been struggling with this issue in the relationship and also more generally, especially after the recent events (my last thread).
> 
> I recently feel quite strongly that there are two distinct parts in me: an animal/intuitive/primal part and a logical part, that rationalises things that we feel or explain away things that happen to us randomly. Often, the two are in deep conflict with each other and the rational part tries desperately to come to some sort of 'common ground' which is sometimes a very awkward or impossible thing to do. The emotional part is not really flexible and the rational part can only influence/change it to a minor extent.
> 
> ...


The animal is WHAT you are.

The person is WHO you are.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Life is learning. You are both beast and philosopher. I don't think a lot of modern people have had the opportunity to integrate primal characteristics with higher functions.

Unfortunately, many schools of thought in recent decades have derided or tried to deny our primal characteristics.

Just take a deep breath and realize you need both your primal and your higher functions and you can learn to use them in unison for great benefit.

I keep my barbarian in a special room and let "him" out as needed.

I learned about "him" early in life and that knowledge benefitted me greatly.

Your barbarian is very important and your rational mind should listen to "him" and respect "him".

"He" also needs guidance so use your rational to guide "his" passions but don't ignore "him".

"He" is almost always right but your higher functions need to direct the course your actions should take.

I'm sorry it took so much pain to bring you to this point but you can learn from it.

Take care dude.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Even barbarians can be rational! 

Anyway, as a kid I was exposed to this early when helping my mum with her studies, the whole IQ and EQ thing. I didn't like it then, don't like it now, but I do agree that IQ is a flawed measure of human intelligence. Dividing it into only two categories is also flawed but... we work on what we can understand. Humanity is still quite silly!

But, I don't think there is reason to choose one or the other, the goal is to have them in tune with each other, and have each other cover each other's gaps. The problem is when emotions get involved to cloud/confuse your intuition, such as fear. I'm also in a similar situation where I struggle to determine how to discern intuition from fear.


----------



## Um Excuse Me (Feb 3, 2018)

I can't wait for SunCMars to chime in on this. You have to love his prose:iagree:


----------



## Keke24 (Sep 2, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> I recently feel quite strongly that there are two distinct parts in me: an animal/intuitive/primal part and a logical part, that rationalises things that we feel or explain away things that happen to us randomly. Often, the two are in deep conflict with each other and the rational part tries desperately to come to some sort of 'common ground' which is sometimes a very awkward or impossible thing to do. The emotional part is not really flexible and the rational part can only influence/change it to a minor extent.
> 
> I sometimes don't know which of the two one is the real me. I used to assume and live my life thinking that it's the 'rational me' that is me but I am not so sure anymore. I recently came close to self-destruction because my 'emotional' part was entirely against what the logic was telling me the right decision was which I followed and it almost killed me. I then realised that maybe I should be listening to the emotional part of me more in order to survive, instead of always making decisions using logic. I used to think that using logic is a more reliable way to ensure not to make terrible mistakes. Again, I am not so sure anymore and if that's the case, it can come at an impossible cost.


I was simply going to say welcome to the chaos of splitting that occurs constantly in the BPDers mind but I'm glad Uptown presented such an in-depth explanation of the concept.

I struggled with this in one of my threads discussing my inability to accept my partner's "unsavory" group of high school friends. I felt I was nearing a mental breakdown despite the outward simplicity of the situation. My mind just could not reconcile that my partner could have the morals/values I had come to respect AND be capable of having a group of friends who were cheats/disrespectful of women etc. How could that be? My mind's processing couldn't even harp on the "birds of a feather flock together" perspective that most posters highlighted, no my mind was overwhelmed by a sudden realization that this person I had come to know after 6years was a complete farce because I couldn't accept that this person could be who I knew him to be and also entertain friends with conflicting views. 

Ultimately it was you who injected some logic which really helped me calm down. The situation was so chaotic and intense in my mind that I would have resorted to self harm to shut my mind up, had I not been able to process your arguments encouraging me to be more open to my partner's friends. Back then I wasn't aware that I was just experiencing the conundrum of b&w thinking. There's so much more clarity in thinking now that I'm aware and can recognize it happening. Indeed it can be a mind bending experience that can leave one with the feeling that their world has been turned upside down.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Great questions.

A mental model is sort of like an app on your smartphone. You choose the proper one, provide inputs, and your brain does the work. 

These models are either there as part of our genetic programming or develop as we get older. Experience, training, and such help us choose the proper model and parameters. 

Stress tends to make us take shortcuts unless we have training or experience. consider driving on snow and slipping a bit. Instinct will want you to stop ie use brakes. Training may tell you to steer and even use gas! There's no reptilian brain in action, just that stress overpowers other considerations.

As we grow our mental models are refined and we get better at choosing the right ones. 

Mental models have been studied to oblivion and back. I could provide scholarly references but the Farnam Street has done a great job explaining it in plain English:

https://www.fs.blog/mental-models/

A lot of what we call instinct is simply people using basic rules to connect things. And it's all experience based. I was apartment hunting for my daughter and as always called the utilities to get a picture of average yearly bills. One place she was very interested came back with a curious response. Nobody stayed there for more than 6 or 8 months, lots of transients. To a 22 year old this is not an issue, but to a mid 50s guy that's a huge red flag. It's not instinct telling you it's a bad place, rather, it's linking other mental models together like a cascade. These connections are the key part, just like doing a math problem.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> Don't forget that rational Bob has only been around thousands of years whereas animal Bob's existence is measured in millions.


Not sure what you mean, **** sapiens is not thought to be more than a few hundred thousand years old. Most scientists believe that the earliest **** sapiens had the same brain that you and I do. If you're going to compare yourself to pre-human ancestors, where does that stop? Do you compare yourself to a jar of amino acids?

You're kind of like an airplane, you have instruments and a window you can look out of and you're wise to consult all of them.


----------



## purplesunsets (Feb 26, 2018)

Interesting post! I can relate to some of your post but not all of it. At one point you said you don't know which is the real you: the logical or the emotional. I've often struggled with this. When I began meditating, I started to realize that my thoughts ARE NOT me..and that was when I could begin to separate what was not me from what is me. For example, when a thought pops into my head, it could be emotional or logical (I think intuition and instincts don't often present themselves as thoughts but as physical reactions), I can recognize it for what it is...simply a thought.

So, let's say this thought pops into your head "I'm so angry I could throw something!". Well, when you observe the thought, rather than attaching to or identifying with it, the thought isn't you at all. So this emotional thought doesn't need to guide you, you can simply observe it and let it go. If a logical thought pops up, "This doesn't really add up. I don't believe her", again, you could note it as thinking and then choose to come back to the present. None of these thoughts are YOU, they are simply thoughts...chemical reactions and patterns that you've identified with over the years. 

Instincts and intuition are usually physical for me. I don't have a thought associated with it, just a physical response. You can use meditation to observe these reactions as well. 

For me, I do a lot of self-reflection to guide my decisions. I try to make decisions from a place of love and kindness, but I of course make mistakes and hurt others like everyone else. My perspective is this:

We are all doing our best with the knowledge and resources that we have !


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

john117 said:


> A lot of what we call instinct is simply people using basic rules to connect things. And it's all experience based. I was apartment hunting for my daughter and as always called the utilities to get a picture of average yearly bills. One place she was very interested came back with a curious response. Nobody stayed there for more than 6 or 8 months, lots of transients. To a 22 year old this is not an issue, but to a mid 50s guy that's a huge red flag. It's not instinct telling you it's a bad place, rather, it's linking other mental models together like a cascade. These connections are the key part, just like doing a math problem.


I have a similar theory, that it is all information collected by the subconscious mind that the conscious mind may fail to pick up - perhaps due to focus on other thoughts/distractions. Yet these signals, in theory, can be misinterpreted if not run through the rational channels, or especially when the signals are more based on paranoia. Even after piecing two and two together however to reach a consensus, there's still room for error.

As much as I relied alot on instinct myself, still human right?



purplesunsets said:


> You can use meditation to observe these reactions as well.


Last time I did meditation I started snoring and everyone was too nice to wake me up.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> I have a similar theory, that it is all information collected by the subconscious mind that the conscious mind may fail to pick up - perhaps due to focus on other thoughts/distractions. Yet these signals, in theory, can be misinterpreted if not run through the rational channels, or especially when the signals are more based on paranoia. Even after piecing two and two together however to reach a consensus, there's still room for error.


Pretty much. The mind tends to replay events and look for things and alternative actions after the fact. That can become an obsession in itself but it generally works. It's part of the feedback loop overall. That's the shoulda woulda coulda part.

There is room for Intuition but you have to have a lot of cues to help sort out useful vs useless inputs. Again apartment hunting as an example... DD is hunting once again and this time it's something different. Urban area, some gentrified, some hoity toity, some student housing... Google Earth is not of much help because it does not capture an ongoing picture. So we spent Thursday driving all over to see what the places look like. DD, for example, downplayed covered secure parking. I did not, considering that four guys can lift her Fiat on a shopping cart and hoist it in a hurry... Or availability of bus to school as a backup. These are inputs an inexperienced person will not have because they never got to deal with it. So we got a lot of examples of what is good in those terms and are adding all the information on a map. 

Inexperienced decision makers use a lot fewer factors in their thinking. Their models are not very refined. And instinct... Not there either, not at first. 

And now you know what I studied and taught in college


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

You are your intellect, and your animal instincts. Your brain and chemicals released by gut bacteria (who's DNA outnumbers yours). Take any of these away and you are no longer you.

I think the intellect should get final veto on actions only because it is the only part that can recognize the long potential term costs of some types of behavior.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Keke24 said:


> I was simply going to say welcome to the chaos of splitting that occurs constantly in the BPDers mind but I'm glad Uptown presented such an in-depth explanation of the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don’t listen to me, I usually don’t know what the hell im talking about 
But I’m glad it got better and hope things continue to be well with both of you.

I looked up BPD and cannot see how I don’t have it. And also my wife. At least at certain times, when anxieties and emotions take over. Is it a spectrum thing? I can see how it can become extreme in some people and certain circumstances would probably exaggerate the symptoms.

Of course I was always aware of the interplay between emotional and rational parts throughout my life but it’s mainly the recent events that are making me rethink the importance and how fundamental the primal part is and how one has to be really careful messing around with it.

Writing, thinking and speaking etc is all done with the rational part (I think?) and the way people tend to view it, I noticed, is that their rational mind tends to somewhat downplay the importance that the primal part plays in their everyday life in general. Yes the independence of the two become very clear in extreme circumstances but I’m not sure it’s just the case when circumstances are extreme.
(And I’m not sure it only applies to BPDers).

I almost feel like the rational part is just an illusion constructed by the fundament part of us in order to pretend we can make sense of all the chaos. If we were able to use the rational part like we think we can in every day life, we would not have that many conflicts within ourselves.
We would not have these struggles and ‘flaws’ in ourselves that we are perfectly aware of but can do nothing really about (few people can ‘fix’ themselves permanently).

Thinking from this position makes me feel that it is our duty to cut others more slack when they make bad decisions, not always knowing that those decisions were based on the emotional part that actually controls the whole organism to a large part. It doesn’t really make sense to be pissed off with a bear who mauls someone because it’s fundamental to their nature. There are many things that are also fundamental to human nature, including stuff like the need to procreate etc. If the rational part was really that much in control in everyday life, you wouldn’t have so many people cheating or lying about stuff and others completely outraged by it. The strong dichotomy seems to be prevalent everywhere.

Apologies for the stream of consciousness.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

SpinyNorman said:


> Not sure what you mean, **** sapiens is not thought to be more than a few hundred thousand years old. Most scientists believe that the earliest **** sapiens had the same brain that you and I do. If you're going to compare yourself to pre-human ancestors, where does that stop? Do you compare yourself to a jar of amino acids?
> 
> 
> 
> You're kind of like an airplane, you have instruments and a window you can look out of and you're wise to consult all of them.



Maybe I got the timeline a bit wrong. **** sapiens may have had the same brain but how long was it able to rationalise in the way that we do today?

For the ‘emotional’ part, I was referring to human ancestors only, which I believe are around 6 million years old (I might be wrong).

This part seems to have had quite a bit more time to exist and develop. Now the ‘new ‘rational’ kid on the block’ appeared few thousand years ago and thinks he can master & be in control of the rest of our make up 

I actually always felt we are mostly controlled by our genes and most fundamental decisions that we make are all done in order to benefit genes. Sometimes I worry that if the intellect/rational part truly manages to take over, it might be the end of our species as we know it.

It doesn’t mean we should model our lives on Caligula...I’m just thinking out loud about the progress that I hope is not actually a regress instead, without anyone noticing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

SpinyNorman said:


> Not sure what you mean, **** sapiens is not thought to be more than a few hundred thousand years old. Most scientists believe that the earliest **** sapiens had the same brain that you and I do. If you're going to compare yourself to pre-human ancestors, where does that stop? Do you compare yourself to a jar of amino acids?
> 
> You're kind of like an airplane, you have instruments and a window you can look out of and you're wise to consult all of them.


Also it was only less than 2,000 that people thought that the 'rational voice' in their head was the voice of god speaking to them. And sometimes told them stuff like that it was rational to put babies in the foundations of buildings in order for them not to collapse or using spells to spoil your neighbours crops among other things. How far can that rational part develop until it eventually collapses on itself? (it might or might not).

PS: actually may not need to go that far. Second WW is probably enough.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> Also it was only less than 2,000 that people thought that the 'rational voice' in their head was the voice of god speaking to them. And sometimes told them stuff like that it was rational to put babies in the foundations of buildings in order for them not to collapse or using spells to spoil your neighbours crops among other things. How far can that rational part develop until it eventually collapses on itself? (it might or might not).
> 
> PS: actually may not need to go that far. Second WW is probably enough.


The beliefs you describe sound more religious than rational to me, and I am skeptical of anyone claiming to know that a religious belief didn't exist before a certain time. I also don't know what you mean by rational belief collapsing on itself.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

purplesunsets said:


> Interesting post! I can relate to some of your post but not all of it. At one point you said you don't know which is the real you: the logical or the emotional. I've often struggled with this. When I began meditating, I started to realize that my thoughts ARE NOT me..and that was when I could begin to separate what was not me from what is me. For example, when a thought pops into my head, it could be emotional or logical (I think intuition and instincts don't often present themselves as thoughts but as physical reactions), I can recognize it for what it is...simply a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was going to reply to it because I’m also interested in meditation.
I sometimes struggled with the concept of ‘the thoughts are not us’. Isn’t that also an illusion created by your thoughts? Just because you choose not to react to your thoughts (which perhaps what meditation is: learning not to react to your thoughts but try and observe them which can be quite useful since we get so bogged down by our own thoughts all the time).

But if it can be done successfully, I can see the benefits of meditation. I have a friend who seems to manage to resolve ALL of his issues through meditation somehow.

I haven’t mastered it quite yet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

SpinyNorman said:


> The beliefs you describe sound more religious than rational to me, and I am skeptical of anyone claiming to know that a religious belief didn't exist before a certain time. I also don't know what you mean by rational belief collapsing on itself.



Yes I was waffling and not really making sense...
I think I meant that we can end up in a very misguided place even if we use logic alone. 
Maybe it’s not the logic’s fault maybe we get mixed up and think we are using logic whereas we are not...
Maybe it’s when we are missing too many correct inputs. Don’t really know.

It’s clear that we need to use both intuition and logic on order to arrive at the best possible decision and can end up in a horrible place using only one or the other.
I feel like in more recent times, we humans have become much more reliant on mostly using logic as the foundation for all our decisions perhaps at the expense of neglecting the intuition, or the well being of the primal self. Perhaps there is a price to pay for this since intuition was there first and overriding it constantly may not be healthy in the long run. We just don’t know it yet (the inputs for this are missing...). Or perhaps not and I’m talking rubbish.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keke24 (Sep 2, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Don’t listen to me, I usually don’t know what the hell im talking about
> But I’m glad it got better and hope things continue to be well with both of you.
> 
> I looked up BPD and cannot see how I don’t have it. And also my wife. At least at certain times, when anxieties and emotions take over. Is it a spectrum thing? I can see how it can become extreme in some people and certain circumstances would probably exaggerate the symptoms.
> ...


Whoa 

Yes BPD is a spectrum disorder. So yes we're all on there somewhere and have minor/major flare-ups of the traits that are typically hormone driven at different points in our lives. Some of us are higher up on the spectrum due to genetic exposure and/or childhood experiences. 

I used to perceive the way we think in the way you outlined above ie logical side/emotional side. Now I'm more comfortable with the picture my therapist has painted. Simply put we develop a belief system based on childhood experiences. Within the belief system is core beliefs (beliefs about others, self, world) and NATs (negative automatic thoughts). All incoming information is processed/interpreted by the belief system which in turn influences our responses. 

Some of us have healthier belief systems than others. Those of us who do, are naturally able to respond more appropriately to stimuli. Those of us who don't, need to work harder to avoid the instantaneous irrational responses that are driven by poor interpretations resulting from a screwed up belief system.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Keke24 said:


> Whoa
> 
> Yes BPD is a spectrum disorder. So yes we're all on there somewhere and have minor/major flare-ups of the traits that are typically hormone driven at different points in our lives. Some of us are higher up on the spectrum due to genetic exposure and/or childhood experiences.
> 
> ...


I am not sure the picture your therapist painted is that different. Or, rather, it's not so much about the difference but how to use the emotional versus logical parts in everyday situations successfully (it's basically a tool to help one navigate this stuff). 

How can you tell an 'irrational' response from a 'rational' one? You still have to use 'logic' to try and discern the two.

Also does your therapist's picture allow for the core beliefs to be tweaked or adjusted over time?
I believe they can be adjusted; we change and grow as people all the time and our core belief systems adjust as a result.

Have you read about the Parent-Adult-Child Model? https://www.hopestreetcentre.org.uk/therapy-sandbach-cheshire/understanding-parent-adult-child-model

It seems applicable.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> Yes I was waffling and not really making sense...
> I think I meant that we can end up in a very misguided place even if we use logic alone.
> Maybe it’s not the logic’s fault maybe we get mixed up and think we are using logic whereas we are not...
> Maybe it’s when we are missing too many correct inputs. Don’t really know.
> ...


I think you're making sense. Sure, you can reach a wrong conclusion by using logic, it happens all the time. It can either be due to poor reasoning or faulty data(think that's what you mean by "inputs").

Maybe we use logic more in modern times as we have more knowledge/information at our disposal. Maybe we look at how much science has learned and that gives us more confidence in reason. 

I think reason and intuition are both useful, and on certain kinds of decisions one is likely to be more useful than the other. 

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

GusPolinski said:


> The animal is WHAT you are.
> 
> The person is WHO you are.


Yes, I am arguing that it's potentially the other way around. At least, I felt it strongly at various points in my life. I feel at times there's something else 'guiding' me, and the logic/rationalisations are trailing behind (usually trying to work out which models fit my behaviour and which don't...).

I am aware and read about some of the models that @john117 linked to. It's all very interesting but it's not exactly what I was talking about. I am talking about something more fundamental than that.

Aren't there some behavioural aspects in humans that cannot be explained away with standard models?
Something that's entirely driven by genes and intuition? That wasn't taught/fed to us by parents/life/friends/events? That is entirely the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution?
Do you not feel sometimes like you are doing or feeling something and you don't know why but you know that your ancestors must have done or felt the same thing many times over and over and over and 'refined' it over the years?
I know it sounds insane. I am not high, I promise. Not very much anyway.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Logical thinking is thinking where you can spell out your thought process. "Ed has been trustworthy, and has lots of reasons to honor my trust and no reason to betray my trust."

Intuitive thought is where you think something, but can't enunciate those thoughts. "I have a hunch Ed is getting ready to rip me off."

Either can lead to a right or wrong conclusion.

Emotions are neither, they aren't really thinking. "I feel very relaxed around Ed."


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> Yes, I am arguing that it's potentially the other way around. At least, I felt it strongly at various points in my life. I feel at times there's something else 'guiding' me, and the logic/rationalisations are trailing behind (usually trying to work out which models fit my behaviour and which don't...).
> 
> I am aware and read about some of the models that @john117 linked to. It's all very interesting but it's not exactly what I was talking about. I am talking about something more fundamental than that.
> 
> ...


You're simply experiencing "it is because it is" moments. Stuff you can't necessarily explain easily. 

Oftentimes the mind oversimplifies things in order to connect the dots. There is enough fudge factor built in. Or, you've made up your mind ahead of time and are simply fitting the model to the decision, instead of the other way around.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> Yes, I am arguing that it's potentially the other way around. At least, I felt it strongly at various points in my life. I feel at times there's something else 'guiding' me, and the logic/rationalisations are trailing behind (usually trying to work out which models fit my behaviour and which don't...).
> 
> I am aware and read about some of the models that @john117 linked to. It's all very interesting but it's not exactly what I was talking about. I am talking about something more fundamental than that.
> 
> ...


I'm not an evolutionary thinker but I know for a fact many characteristics and behaviors are absolutely hereditary and not learned.

I have always had a fight instead of flight response when a threat was close to me, I'm a daredevil/risk taker and from a very young age my son displayed these characteristics without ever observing me practicing them and without any training.

My son was raised in a radically different environment than me and has some learned differences. He also displays remarkable similarities to me and many relatives he has never even met.

I have a cousin that is 6'4" and we have only met a handful of times, being raised in totally different environments and we are so alike in nature our wives are amazed. We even use the same soap.


----------



## purplesunsets (Feb 26, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> I was going to reply to it because I’m also interested in meditation.
> I sometimes struggled with the concept of ‘the thoughts are not us’. *Isn’t that also an illusion created by your thoughts?* Just because you choose not to react to your thoughts (which perhaps what meditation is: learning not to react to your thoughts but try and observe them which can be quite useful since we get so bogged down by our own thoughts all the time).
> 
> But if it can be done successfully, I can see the benefits of meditation. I have a friend who seems to manage to resolve ALL of his issues through meditation somehow.
> ...


Thanks for responding! Hmm, that's an interesting question. I would say no because we are simply using our faculties (thinking mind) to be aware of itself. Our thinking minds are so powerful that more often than not, they do their own thing without us even realizing. When we begin to realize we have control over our minds and we can use them to our advantage, life becomes a whole lot simpler .

Have you tried headspace? This is the only meditation I do at the moment. And I really only meditate for 10 minutes a day. I can only imagine the effects if I meditated for longer! Maybe one day .


----------



## Keke24 (Sep 2, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> I am not sure the picture your therapist painted is that different. Or, rather, it's not so much about the difference but how to use the emotional versus logical parts in everyday situations successfully (it's basically a tool to help one navigate this stuff).
> 
> How can you tell an 'irrational' response from a 'rational' one? You still have to use 'logic' to try and discern the two.
> 
> ...


My therapist's picture makes more sense to me in understanding how my BPD behaviour works ie the process behind my response to triggers and what fuels it. As opposed to trying to decipher logical vs emotional, I focus on identifying the core belief/NAT that was the driver behind my response and pick it apart so that in the future I don't allow it to control my response. 

So for example, if I woke up and my partner wasn't in the bed next to me I would instantly go into panic attack. I could not address the situation by simply telling myself OK your response is ridiculously illogical, he simply went to the kitchen to get some tea that's all. Nope, wouldn't help calm me down. On one or two occasions I did manage to calm down but was still left feeling resentful towards him. And I couldn't figure out how to get over the resentment and surely wouldn't tell him because I know how ridiculous the situation was to begin with.

However with my therapist's approach next time it happened I analyze the situation in the moment by saying ok your heart's racing, tummy hurts, chest is heavy; brain is honestly thinking why did he have to leave me, he doesn't love me (NATs); these NATs lead to victim mode aka i'm a helpless child; therefore I feel this way physically and feel hurt emotionally because my belief system which is predicated on parental abandonment during my childhood is telling me that if my partner leaves he is abandoning me. So when faced with a normal situation like this, I first interpret it as abandonment and my mind/body responds exactly how a child would if they woke up and parents were not in the room - crying etc. because the child is convinced mommy/daddy has abandoned them. 

Today, panic attacks are completely gone.

For someone who doesn't have serious abandonment issues, it would seem pretty straight forward to recognize, this response is so irrational just stop acting like a baby. My brain needs to identify the underlying issue and how it relates to my childhood experiences so I can pick up on the automatic thought processes that are occurring in order to recognize them immediately in the future. Basically retraining myself how to interpret stimuli. So yes, core beliefs can definitely be changed.


----------

