Psychic Complexity and the Damage It Does

In the 19^th century novel, Virgin Soil, Ivan Turgenev's character Nejdanov commits suicide and leaves the following message: "I could not simplify myself."

His message may resonate with many people, at least at a much less tragic level. Too much household clutter, too many texts, or too many children’s events---conditions that can certainly complicate our lives. But Nejdanov pointedly refers to simplifying himself, his inner condition. Even if we do not know the story, most of us appreciate Nejdanov’s tragic emotional condition. And even considering the heavy demands of everyday life today, few of us are in that sad place. Still, many of us have messy internal states characterized by psychic complexity rather than simplicity. Chaos of the mind.

I am not suggesting that in general simplicity is better than complexity, for each has its place, even in the psyche, and I will explore the simplicity side in a later post. This post focuses on the liabilities of psychic complexity. Importantly, a person is not either psychically complex or simple. Most of us exist on a complexity/simplicity continuum. Sadly, we often fail to recognize the existence of our inner messiness (yes, we all have some) and its adverse impact on others. This leads to a continual merry-go-round of interpersonal upsets at home or at work, with friends, and even strangers. In our ignorance, we are mystified at what is happening. Since the problems can’t be us,…

For those steeped in formal psychology, a trigger warning---I am taking liberty with “psychic complexity.” I am using an off-beat version of it to illustrate in what I think is a unique way how psychic complexity is evidence of diminished emotional health and is a negative factor in our relationships. For the same reason, I am intentionally blurring the lines among psyche, emotions, and mind.

Psychic complexity exists when our inner life is not in harmony and is not in sync with the outside world. Multiple goals, emotions, expectations, needs, and motivations swirl around in our mind pulling us into undesirable states that cause us to act out, harming others. Being mostly unaware of these conditions, we cannot see the trouble we cause, and thus it continues.

Our poor behavior can arise for many reasons, and a very important one is that we have needs that MUST be met, no matter what. This state practically guaranteeing that our behavior will not be fair, reasonable, accurate or respectful. Examples include the needs to be right, to win, to be loved, to be perfect, to avoid conflict, or to control.

Think of the person who needs to control---a husband, for example who must control the TV channels he and his wife watch. When he is present, he refuses to let his wife even hold the controller device, or removes it from her hand. He makes unilateral decisions about what to watch, avoiding or dismissing her input. In his complexity (driven by a psychological dynamic), not being able to control the channel choice represents a huge threat to his wellbeing, which takes complete precedence over that of his wife.

Or think of the person who needs to be right. He will use any tactic, fair or foul, to prevail. His “conversation” is not about exchanging views or gaining understanding. It is about winning, and only winning. Recently I was having a discussion with a friend about increased military spending, something I generally support and something he does not. After a bit of easy conversation about how we each saw the topic, he started to get angry, regaling me about how wrong I was and why. The anger was a clear indication that his mind was off balance, that some need (to be right, to win, to punish me?) related to my differing view was frustrating him---my view represented a threat in some way. He was for the moment at least in a psychically disturbed state.

You might think that the word complexity implies lots of something, which it often does. In this case, lots of ways a person can respond to challenging situations. But the opposite is true. Our psychic complexity is in fact very rigid. The acting out, for whatever reason at whatever level, is programmed to achieve one outcome---expressing myself in any way I need to to ensure my wellbeing is maximized. Since my psyche has invested great emotion in a very problematic inner messiness, I am very likely to run completely roughshod over anyone perceived to be in my way.

Adverse behavior ranges from very bad to light weight. Severe examples include sarcasm, anger, ad hominem attacks, the silent treatment, yelling, blaming, or dismissing. Harmful for sure. Less severe examples include interrupting constantly, talking endlessly or loudly, not listening, misrepresenting, counter punching, thoughtlessness, or being hyper-sensitive to slights. The latter group may not look like a big deal, and at one level it is not. But even so, the behavior indicates a person whose attention is not on others, but solely on himself---a common denominator of psychic complexity, regardless of level.

Nejdanov’s tragic example of psychic disunity is obviously extreme, and at one level he suffered and died in silence. But today suffering in silence is rare. We liberally export our messy inner states, even in the least challenging interactions. And our psychic complexity not only affects our relations with others, it also affects our thinking. Lacking attention, awareness and discipline, we see the world filtered through our unchallenged inner messiness. Automatically, and usually unconsciously, we have a biased view. We know from the last post on objectivity that such unmediated filtering is an irrelevant factor, getting in the way of rational thinking or discourse, and even fairness and respect.

I see psychic complexity as a nearly ubiquitous problem. Thus it has important implications for society in general and for our relations with others in particular. Moving toward psychic simplicity now becomes a critical developmental issue.

Open-mindedness and Irrelevant Factors

My favorite definition of open-mindedness comes from Milton Rokeach’s book, The Open and Closed Mind.

The extent to which a person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information

on its own intrinsic merits unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising

from within the person or from the outside.

Most of us are convinced that we are open-minded (objective), and we accept this without examination or critique. In reality, it seems to be another of those positive, but often incorrect stories we have about ourselves. No matter what we think, objectivity is often compromised by  irrelevant factors, particularly when we are under stress in a conflict situation. And because many of these factors operate below conscious level, we can maintain our story of objectivity without ever being aware of its falsity.

What are a few examples of irrelevant factors?

Any big need, such as to be right, to win, to be perfect, or to be loved.

Desiring the approval of others.

Passion for or against something.

Taking ourselves too seriously. 

Additionally, there are many other irrelevant factors arising from our expectations, beliefs, values, and preferences. Imagine I prefer relating to people who are outgoing, but am engaged in a conflict discussion with someone who is not. Or, suppose I believe that most people, given the opportunity, will try to take advantage of you. These will surely compromise my objectivity. And among the worst compromisers of open-mindedness may be a person’s political views. No matter how well-meaning and sincere, the person’s emotional commitment to a position or view ruins even the pretense of objectivity. But the problem is even more challenging. The reality is that most of our normal, and often unhealthy, ways of interacting with others are likely to be irrelevant factors.

Irrelevant factors obstruct open-mindedness because they have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. They are mostly self-serving efforts (if unconsciously used) to help us avoid the rigor and discipline of objective thinking and interaction. While they seem to protect us from challenges, all they really do is make conflict situations worse. Lacking conscious awareness of the impact of irrelevant factors, we blithely wreak havoc whenever our stress levels are up, particularly in conflict settings.

Do we know of even one person who really evaluates contrary information fairly, often to his own disadvantage? Do we know anyone who readily gives up a cherished position in the face of a stronger one!? If we down-to-the-bone honest, there are few. Why? First, it takes great self-confidence and a powerful desire to be intellectually honest no matter what the cost. Second, it requires that we give up any attachments to our views and positions---they must be expendable at a moment’s notice, joyfully. And third, perhaps hardest of all, it takes profound personal control of our harmful behavior, an effort that takes substantial will power and practice sustained often over years.

But not all open-mindedness breakdowns are the result of us responding to irrelevant factors or being unwilling or unable to examine contrary evidence fairly. Some arise from the brain’s cognitive short-cuts we use without thinking and which arose in part because they helped ensure early human survival. In the anchoring bias we can be over-reliant on the first piece of information we see, often discounting information we receive later. In the availability bias we over-estimate the importance of information available to us without the awareness of potentially valid conflicting information. And the confirmation bias encourages us to accept only that information confirming our existing beliefs or views.

Being unaware of these short-cuts, we cannot help but be un-objective at times. That does not totally excuse us, however. And neither does being unaware of irrelevant factors. But if we really cannot see these elements operating, what should we do? As in all troubling interactions, we must remain tightly focused and completely respectful. We can pay close attention to our mirrors, those with whom we disagree. Their verbal and non-verbal responses to us are invaluable clues to how they perceive us. This enables us to do an after-the-fact analysis of our thinking and responses to see if they were driven by factors we could not see.

Interestingly, whether we are objective is hardly our decision alone to make. It is a social factor in the sense that others have judgment on our open-mindedness. No matter what we claim, if others do not see us as objective, then we are out of luck. That is why attention to how others respond to us in conflict situations is critical. It is our main, and in some cases only, avenue to seeing and addressing irrelevant factors.

"Conflict is the Beginning of Consciousness"

Given our view of conflict as being something unpleasant, the title quote by psychologist M. Esther Harding may strike some as absurd. But we know that conflict is merely difference, neither good nor bad. What makes it one or the other is how it is carried out by the participants. The quote implies that conflict can be of benefit, but how?

Consciousness generally is the awareness we have of our existence and what is going on around us. When driving a car, we are conscious of being in the car, driving it, and scanning the road and other cars. But we may not be fully conscious of those activities; they may be on automatic as we day-dream or text or talk or listen to the radio, other aspects of consciousness. Not being fully conscious of driving may cause us to make a dangerous maneuver or get into an accident.

Eastern philosophies often emphasize “being in the present moment,” having our complete attention focused on one thing, whether that is sweeping the floor or writing a blog or hugging a child. Animals are masters for existing in the present moment. In my neck of the woods, the desert, cactus wrens build nests in viciously-spiked cacti. Returning to the nest after foraging, they fly at high speed right into the nest, easily avoiding being impaled, time and time again. It is amazing to watch, and impossible for us even if we had wings. Why? Because we are continually distracted, part of our consciousness attending to one thing and part to another. Not really in the present moment. Sort of half-in and half-out.

So, what is the connection with the quote? Stressful situations like interpersonal conflict often call out our less desirable behaviors, many of which arise from our unconscious. Since these actions are out of current awareness, they are deniable. If the actions are not deniable, then the real motives are.

Conflict shows what we are made of, what animates us. Aware of it or not, we expose who we really are in disagreement settings, as opposed to the often positive false stories of who we think we are. Conflict is the opportunity for us to examine our real selves and the expression of that real self, even though the picture may not be pretty. If we dispassionately examine the thoughts, emotions and behavior that contribute to negative conflict outcomes, we may gain an understanding of ourselves impossible in other settings. We will see what causes us to misbehave.

As we are successful with these efforts, our consciousness expands, which is the essence of the quote. We become aware of previously opaque, and often negative, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Seeing ourselves clearly, and being unafraid of that picture, is the basis for adjusting undesirable aspects arising during conflict.

All of our desires to become better people, no matter in what arenas of life, require a similar expansion. Becoming more compassionate, open, fearless, or flexible require an expanded consciousness. And the process is the same in each case. An enhanced awareness followed by action. But learning who we really are and altering how we behave under stress demand great effort. The transition is difficult, lengthy and filled with setbacks. I cannot over-emphasize the need for courage and persistence, qualities not in great evidence these days.

Societies under conflict stress are like individuals. Without an expanded consciousness, they become less civil, less compassionate, less tolerant, more fearful and angry, more hostile and more extreme. The US appears to be in this condition, as does some of Western Europe. Interestingly, each of the two main political groups in the US will agree that such unpleasantness is occurring, but attribute nearly all of it to opponents. In doing so, they abjectly fail to see that their own consciousness has not expanded. More likely it has contracted, leading to yet worse behavior in a near insane, self-justifying, and self-destructive interaction in which both sides participate. The delusion that only the “others” are responsible actually creates the very conditions that all argue need to be changed. It is so much easier to attribute one’s problems to others than to do anything hard and constructive about them for oneself.

For this is where all real positive societal changes come from---you and me, not from grand slogans about everyone becoming more tolerant. Not from groups congratulating themselves on their wisdom and moral uprightness while trashing others. Real social change begins and ends with each of us, acting out our expanded consciousness every day and in every difficult interaction. These interactions are like gold---our chance to practice what we preach. Do we have the courage and persistence?

Conversations: Restrictive or Expansive

All of us engage in conversations every day, some pleasant and others not so. Those can be light and easy, serious, strained, or even hostile, and many will entail disagreement. We often think of the latter as being unpleasant, and for good reason. Most disagreement conversations usually are. But they need not be if the manner in which we engage is uplifting and expansive rather than restrictive and punitive.

In the latter, things quickly degrade into a zero-sum condition, a conversational death spiral. In this “I-win, you-lose” mentality, each party seeks to prevail and often to crush the other. The quality and amount of information articulated, openness to contrary views, and clarity all decline, if they were present at all. Each party demonstrates his disdain and disrespect for the other, as well as for his views. Each is operating from a defensive position that produces only hostility and resentment. And the more emotion present, the worse the combatants’ behavior.

In a restrictive conversation there are one or more negative goals (although the parties usually deny this): To show the other person he is wrong, to convince him to change his mind, and to punish him. Some people who engage in restrictive conversations argue that they are polite and respectful while disagreeing, and thus cannot be seen as engaging in unproductive exchanges. While they may be polite, the game is still “I-win, you-lose.” Real openness is absent in spite of the politeness.

But what is wrong with trying to convince another person that he is wrong, or to change his mind? Isn’t that part of what happens naturally when people disagree? It can be. And it may not always be problematic. But it is surely so when the underlying motive is to win, prevail, or crush the other person. Before convincing another that your take on something might be better than his, you must first understand his perspective in detail. Otherwise you are operating from a view that is incomplete, if not totally wrong. Naturally, the other person will object, leading to an undesirable and disrespectful result.

Hence the need for thoughtful questions, respectfully delivered.

But restrictive conversations are seldom characterized by questions that expand and illuminate unclear or complex issues. Neither party has any interest in the details of the other’s views. Each sees the world in black or white terms, within which there is no room for subtlety or sophistication. The goal is singular---to win. It is definitely not to understand. The combatants engage in counter-punching, a near endless merry-go-round of conversational idiocy producing only negativity. Neither is able or willing to get off the “ride.”

Counter-punching is both simple and simplistic---whatever the other person says that one disagrees with must be instantly counteracted, denied, and preferably demolished. Anger is a primary emotional force, although other emotions are often present as well. Any tactic is acceptable: interruptions, mis-representation, lying, deflection, yelling, ad hominem attacks, or data avalanches are only a few of the disreputable methods. Clearly, counter-punching diminishes both the conversation and the combatants.

Happily there is an alternative, at least one for those with great discipline and courage.

The expansive conversation has no zero-sum game mentality. The guiding principle is increasing both clarity and understanding. It is exploratory. Neither person has an agenda, hidden or overt, to vanquish the other. In fact, each wants the other to feel safe from emotional trashing, but not from hearing challenging ideas. The parties do not fear having incorrect or incomplete ideas, and relish the conversation as a way to understand better. They have not invested huge emotion in their positions, and thus can be much more flexible in seeing alternative views. There is no need for either to change positions, although clearly this happens far more often than in restrictive conversations. Learning is a critical element. And this is true even when the conversation involves the most contentious issues, such as abortion, affirmative action, or climate change.

Creating an expansive conversation might look easy at first glance, but it’s hugely difficult to implement. Most of us engage in restrictive conversations, and have for many years, often decades. Changing the old reactive behavior patterns is extremely difficult and usually (if I am any example) takes many years of practice. That’s why I emphasize discipline and courage. Practice means using every interaction, day-in and day-out, benign or not, to work on becoming less reactive and more reflective, more questioning and more expansive. Paradoxically, we are most tested by, and derive the most benefit from engaging with people who use the highly unpleasant restrictive conversation style. Those folks are like gold, to be cherished. Only through them can we make real progress.

You see and do not see.

You hear and do not hear.

The Buddha weeps.

"Questionable" Musings

We all lose innocence, only it used to take some time. Perhaps from age five to twenty, and gradually. Today it seems the young have no innocence period. In some ways they know more about the world at eight than we did at eighteen, and that knowing came very quickly. No time to digest and no way to really appreciate what such worldly knowledge really means.

What will be the cost?

Much of Eastern spiritual thought and practice involves paradoxes. Not the everyday ones---you can’t be in two places at the same time. But those that carry a load of complexity and wisdom, resistant to simplistic “either/or” formulations. “Sometimes the only way to catch your breath is to lose it completely.” (Tyler Knott Gregson, poet)

What does this statement mean, metaphorically?

Wide-scale societal freedom (liberty) is a relatively recent development. Arising perhaps only in the last 150 years or so. It is embodied in the US Constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The French revolution valued things similarly: Liberty, equality, fraternity. But there is a big difference---equality. Consider: “Freedom means inequality,” economically and otherwise.

Like it or not, what evidence makes that statement true? Societal implications?

David R. Loy (A New Buddhist Path) says: “The Greek experiment with democracy failed for the same reasons that our modern experiment with democracy is in danger of failing: unless social reconstruction is accompanied by personal reconstruction, democracy merely empowers the ego-self.”

What is “personal reconstruction,” and how is it related to solving social and cultural problems?

“The Road Not Taken,” by Robert Frost. Part of the second stanza seems to question why the traveler took one road and not the other.

“Though as for that the passing there 

Had worn them really about the same.”

Why the apparent ambiguity?

From Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard commencement address: “The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It’s time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

A telling comment. These days we hear from the media, politicos, and activists a continuous cry for more rights for this person, that group.

Why no mention of obligations, responsibilities?

The “no-free-will” crowd says all our behaviors arise solely from the interaction of genes and environment. Stephen Cave (“The Atlantic” June 2016) says, “The contemporary scientific image of human behavior is one of neurons firing, causing other neurons to fire, causing our thoughts and deeds, in an unbroken chain that stretches back to our birth and beyond.” We do not make any choices consciously that have not already been made for us by neurons not under our control. Determinism will not die.

What sustains such a belief, especially among scientists who understand chaos and complexity?

We argue vociferously about whether there is a grand Truth (or more than one) or just our own individual truths, which may not be shared by others. That we all have our unique truths seems evident. A grand Truth applicable to all can be believed to exist but cannot be proven to exist. God, for example, or universe-wide oneness.

Notwithstanding, do all societies need one or more shared grand Truths to function properly?

Ansel Adams said, “There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a poor concept.” True of course regarding cameras, but also true as a metaphor. Reality is fluid and complex, with causes and effects unclear, and filled with unpredictable outcomes. Anxiety over this condition encourages some to construct illusory worlds, ones substituting for a too-challenging reality. Political partisans (any stripe) come to mind.

How is Adams’ statement applicable to partisans (really to anyone who lives even a partial illusory existence)?

From Victor Frankl, the Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.” Few would disagree with this.

So why is there so much unhealthy interpersonal conflict, even among friends and relatives?

Perhaps the most interesting question of all: “Who do you think you are?”