Yesterday, I described a hypothetical case of a person with a dog phobia and how the concept of neural networks could be used to explain what happens when they achieve insight and their phobic reaction diminishes. It would be logical to ask next: What determines the "correctness" of an interpretation? Another way of asking the question is to wonder how we would know when one of our templates, or memes, or a transference relationship (all variations on a theme) become less distorted. In the case of our dog phobic person, we would imagine that prior to resolution of his phobia, he spent an immense amount of mental energy battling the symptoms. He restricted his life experiences to avoid places and situations in which he might run into a dog; he maintained a hyper-vigilant awareness (which can be exhausting) in order not to be surprised by a dog. When his phobia resolved (or diminished) the energy needed to maintain his illusion of safety was freed up for other purposes. The main reason that freeing the person of his distorted image of "dog" as dangerous is necessary, is that it did not conform with reality. Some dogs are dangerous, but most are not; our hypothetical phobic treated every dog as dangerous; this left him not only terrified of all dogs but kept him from the pleasure and emotional gratification that many people can derive from dogs. Even if one looked at it from a more utilitarian point of view, a family dog is an invaluable "burglar alarm" which, rather than endangering our phobic, could actually protect him.
This kind of reorganization of templates occurs in (successful) therapy all the time. Patients know when an interpretation is correct because the new model of a particular piece of reality fits the data better than the previous template.
Can we extend this metaphor to our culture? I think it can be a useful way of understanding how the "zeitgeist" changes. An individual's outlook is the summation of all their neural networks which exist in an ever changing dynamic equilibrium. We take in new data and add it to the networks where it fits. Generally speaking, we tend to ignore discordant data or dismiss it because it doesn't fit. However, just as in Therapy, an accurate interpretation which is repeatedly derived from the data will eventually cause the templates/networks to destabilize, giving the patient the chance to reorganize in a more effective way. It is not at all unusual to make an interpretation, multiple times, in all sorts of varied ways, often with little apparent evidence that the patient is "getting it"... up until the day, your patient, as if they had never thought of or heard of the idea before, suddenly tells you just what you have been telling them for the last 6 months. "You know, Doctor B, I just realized... not all dogs are vicious!" It is a humbling experience, and illuminating. All of the preparatory work of interpretation has had an effect; the strands of the network that connected the idea of "dog" to the terror of trauma, were gradually loosening, until a critical mass was reached, part of the network crumbled, and a new synthesis could be achieved. It is very gratifying to see when this happens, even when we don't get any credit for all the work we have done.
[Sorry for that little piece of Psychoanalytic humor.]
For a cultural idea, or a meme, a similar transformation can occur. As more and more individuals have increased access to information and the means to spread information increases, new societal structures arise. When the new meme fits the available information better than the old meme, the paradigm shifts. We are familiar with this from the history of science. Newton's Theory of Gravitation worked extremely well for over 200 years, but as our observations of the universe increased in sophistication (both at the smallest and the largest scales) it was clear Newton was not completely accurate. Einstein's Theory of Relativity fit the new data better than Newton's Theory and ultimately replaced it (or, more accurately, extended it). We know that Einstein's Theory is not complete and one day there will be a new paradigm to supplant his theory.
In a similar fashion, political memes can change. In the 1960's, the new left bought into the idea that communism was a progressive ideology which promised material wealth and greater equality and freedom for everyone. This was an extremely popular idea on the college campuses and was very much involved in the anti Vietnam war protests which grew in strength and intensity from the mid-1960's on. It has had many offspring, which is a subject for another day, but the meme was sturdy despite much evidence that it did not fit the data very well. Few people were struggling to get into the "worker's paradises" and many were risking their lives to get out. As more information escaped the control of the state apparatus, it became clearer and clearer that the command economy could not match the chaotic dynamism of capitalism in producing wealth for ever greater numbers. Interestingly, the question was very unsettled under the Presidency of Jimmy Carter and his famous "malaise", however, when Ronald Reagan became President, he was convinced that his model fit reality better and challenged the Soviets to a real world test. The USSR failed the test, and the meme crumbled even before the wall fell. Nowadays, there remain some who believe that communism did not have a fair test and would be the better system if only it were tried again (presumably with them running it) but for most people, the paradigm shift which started in the 1980's shows little evidence of reversing.
There are very significant cultural and political memes in play today and I will look at some of this in the following days.
Recent Comments