Models of Perception
'There is a difference between being someone who is unhappy with aspects of their life and being someone whose life is characterized by finding aspects to be unhappy with.’ - me
Scenario 1: You present two individuals with various cards of abstract design, each representing aspects of a hypothetical life. Person A sees one of the cards and realizes that this card is not desirable to have in the collection; and orients towards decisions and actions that facilitate its removal. Person B identifies the same card, and claims the same desire to remove said card from the collection. You remove the problem-card and present the deck for a secondary analysis. Person A is satisfied with the remaining cards, pleased to no longer identify the problem. Person B hesitates, seeing the card is gone, but realizing that in fact there was indeed another card that poses a similar problem.
Person B will always find a card that is wrong. Meaning, regardless if the deck is shuffled and mixed into any variety imaginable, they are of the mind to always identify a card as an obstacle to a desirable state. This is a fundamental error of the individual's perception model, not of physical circumstance (or reality).
This was a revelation to me recently, as I realized that aspects of my own thinking had fallen into this trap. It is also important to realize that individuals are complex; we wear many masks and carry a plethora of perception models as we navigate the complexities of life. Not all of them can or should be perfect in design.
What is important perhaps, is realizing that some models are more fundamental to your well being than others. Primary models may hold your ideas and goals towards your professional career, relationships with a spouse or child, finances, and health. Given an individual otherwise has stability in the measures we use to maintain such primary models we are able to engage with life through them in ways that are mostly meaningful. Secondary models are perhaps those that are less logistically important in maintaining survival, but perhaps more important in the sense that they define your more intimate qualities as an individual. Your taste in music, your opinion on corporate tax rates - your fundamental opinions of self.
Maintaining the primary models adequately may be enough to offset minor issues in secondary models. I can maintain occasional feelings of anxiety during periods of stability across other areas of my life - but if those falter I lose the capacity to control these neurotically leaning models.Acknowledging that there are such models running your perception of life is one thing - but it also begs the question of how I came to acquire such models; especially the ones which cause issues in my life. I like to consider these models as either intrinsically or extrinsically acquired and likewise either intrinsically or extrinsically managed.
Intrinsically acquired models are those which you inherited separate from existing external models. For example, a child seeks out books at a yard sale and cultivates a passion for reading. Whereas an extrinsically acquired scenario may be that the mother was an avid reader and mandated the behavior until they did so habitually. An intrinsically managed model is defined by the qualities of said model which are dependent on your independent engagement with it. Your decision, for example, to as a child grow up in a religious household but decide to leave the church on your own accord was a quality which intrinsically emerged into your perception model; the external world did not endow you with this belief; rather, you curated it. Naturally then, extrinsically managed models are the models which you refine through continued input with external stimuli; instead of leaving the church in the prior scenario, friends of the family notice your growing hesitation and are sufficiently able to retain the frame of a religious believer through quick involvement (perhaps through intentional conversations that reinforce the model).
This is a hyper-simplified way of viewing the world; of course it would be hard to ascribe any one aspect of yourself as either extrinsic or intrinsic in nature - but this gives us a launch pad from which we can seek to understand further aspects of life. The point of the above messaging isn't to semantically dismantle the nature of acquiring or disposing of perception models, but rather to enrich the notion that the quest to generate deep meaning in a life which is otherwise absent from it is an issue which seems systemic to your perception of it. Likewise, each reader of this operates from their own unique models and likewise relates to a different possible 'quality' of issue, as well as different degrees of complexity or perceived consequence which may emerge from said models.
While I can't offer solutions to faulty models of perception which professionals would otherwise deem as 'clinical worthy' (psychiatric or counsel intervention) - I can point out some smaller demons which likely touch a greater percentage of the population albeit lesser degrees of impact. A common source for many of these 'faulty' extrinsically acquired models emerges from naive engagement of the world through online ecosystems; especially at young ages (hence the naive prerequisite). I likely don't even have to list them for you to infer some names, but themes regarding 'Looks-maxxing', steroid use, body building, body image issues, testosterone levels, male pattern hair loss, financial wealth, political superiority, get rich schemes, and the list goes on.
The nuance of these models being problematic is also quite interesting. For example, if I were to tell you my father told me often at a young age that 'it's important for me to learn to manage my physical health' this isn't at face value detrimental. We can infer that the motivation is positively oriented, and that without further evidence it would be silly to label this as 'toxic' in any concrete manner. On the other hand, online communities may have spouted that 'it's important for you to learn that not having 'x' outcome is indicative of your failure as an individual to manage your health'. The former model suggests engagement as a consequence of you being a good person for doing so - the latter model suggests engagement as a consequence of you being a bad person for not doing so.
In the short term, it is possible that the hurtful model of perception may even garner quicker apparent results in the physical domain (when continuing the assumption of physical 'health'). Though, the underlying relationship with the behavior is fundamentally unhealthy - and decisions which would be outside of the tolerant risk acceptability in the first model become acceptable in the latter; steroids, binge eating, forgoing rest, etc.
Notice I specified the importance of characterizing a temporal evaluation of the examples above. Models of perception, like physical representations of life, seem to be bound in their behavior to some extent within the same context of rules. That is, that the fitness of said model can be measured in its ability to persist and proliferate across time. I like to think of the relationship between perception models and individuals as akin to slime mold. Famously, Japanese researchers laid out food sources in a geographic pattern of the cities surrounding Tokyo and then released the slime mold into the environment. The resulting shape of the slime mold was a near copy of the existing transportation networks and in fact was found to be 'better' than the existing one when viewed through the lens of transportation logistics.
The point is, to think of the mind as the slime mold, the various sources of food as the environmental feedback, and the branches and subsequent 'parts' of the whole representing the various models which we utilize to maintain the general fitness of the whole individual in reality. You can have one or two bad apples; a small branch here or there which aimlessly misses a point of food substrate won't decimate the whole. Similarly, you may be anxious while public speaking, or perhaps have a propensity to drink too much when given the opportunity to do so. Alongside a healthy 'whole' you can sustain detrimental behavior in the 'parts'. But if too many models of reality are no longer contributing to the whole - then things can go south quick.
Another useful tidbit of wisdom here is that in the story we jumped straight to the end; a slime mold perfectly replicating a transportation network of resources across a region. What is relevant is that in the process of taking such form, it first endured an exploratory phase in which branches emerged, explored nearby regions for food, and retreated those branches which failed to deliver. Growth, decay, and repeat. This is useful in life as well. We go through many stages of life, and unlike the controlled environment of a science experiment we can and will face catastrophe. Death will occur, finances will be drained, relationships will end, and health will falter. This is to say, that the 'form' of which is representative of your whole, comprised of your many parts, is not something which could or should be stagnant across time if the goal is to maintain fitness. That the most obvious tool representative of human form is the adaptive form of the mind itself - and that the greatest quality of any tool is revealed through a wielder capable of implementing it in such intended fashion.
While the themes of this post wound down a seemingly ever changing goal post, I hope that it reminded you of things you likely already knew of yourself, but benefited from re-remembering. Here is a quick summary of the ideas emerging in this post:
Issues facing an individual can be systemic to their model or environmental stressors; your perception carries as much responsibility for creating issues as the assumed issue itself.
That these biases in our models can exist in domains of our life that have serious impact or perhaps in those which are less impactful.
That our generation and management of such models are a combination of internal and external variables.
That for naive populations the less impactful issues can largely manifest in online spheres which foster rapid deployment of models inherently designed to capture engagement.
That the evolution of these models is paramount to maintaining fitness over time; and that evolution implies growth and decay of the individual.
Lastly, I depart with one last idea. That while I related all of these ideas from the perspective of the individual, it is important to also consider the implications of the models which are representative across the whole; a city, a state, a country, a religion, a continent, etc.
That just as there are models which become detrimental to fitness in an individual's life, there are models which can emerge outside of the individual, in the external structure of shared perception models (specifically institutionalized societal knowledge which persists as a repository of models to impart upon the whole). Though perhaps existing at many more degrees of complexity, these models ultimately live by the same goal of maintaining fitness in a changing world. Just as the individual becomes blind to his shortcomings so can the society.
‘If the medium of a mirror is representative of the personified form of your perception model, then claiming to be fully aware of said model is akin to inspecting the mirror in attempts to visually determine it's composition past your own reflection. When in reality you are the reflection; as you only exist as emergent from the model itself which is contained in the reflection.’
- me
