Category: Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML)

Notes

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This post has been changed since it first went up. I have moved the last three bullets on sentinels to a new post that can be found here.

  • In many cases, listeners decide (usually vaguely) what a speaker’s intention for speaking was only after they have finished speaking. If you pay close attention to yourself, you may find that as a speaker you also do this to yourself. You don’t necessarily have a clear sense of your intention for speaking until after you have spoken.
  • Once you have decided what your own intention as a speaker was, you should be able to see that your “intention” can often be decided by the choice of a single word, which pretty much just popped out of your mouth.
  • Clearly, figuring out your partner’s intention will be even more problematic. This is one of the reasons we need FIML practice. If we are not always sure what our own intentions are, how can we be sure at all of our partner’s?
  • Have you ever noticed that you might say something and your partner reacts in a way that is not quite what you meant but before you know it you are defending yourself for having fully intended to say just that?
  • I suppose you could call this phenomenon “retrospective intention” or even “retrospective attention”. When we speak, we spend a good part of the time in the past, assessing fleeting words and expressions that are almost always impossible to catch after more than a few seconds.
  • Our psychological states of the moment are filled with vague information of the types described above. The same is true for our partner. With FIML both partners can become much clearer about that sort of information. It’s a great relief to get more clarity in this area.

Metamemory and FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Here is an interesting article that has some bearing on FIML practice: Monitoring the Mind: The Neurocognitive Correlates of Metamemory.

This sentence from the article caught my eye: “To ensure the efficacy of the metacognitive system, continuous feedback between monitoring and control mechanisms is required…”

Though FIML is a mental operation that is quite distinct from the purview of this article, we can say that FIML practice basically ensures “continuous feedback between monitoring and control mechanisms” because partners work together, giving each other continuous feedback while mutually monitoring each other for coherence and accuracy in speech (and thus also memory, thought, cognition, emotion, etc.).

The article is more about self-monitoring within a single brain, but FIML practice results in stronger self-monitoring and retrieval of information by using partners to check each others’ work.

Details

~ khipu ~ Leave a comment

Most humans enjoy precision-work. If you have a hobby that you’re at all serious about, you probably know what I mean.

If you’re into riding motorcycles, you probably spend significant time and energy tuning up your machine, all the while paying great attention to very small details. You may enjoy discussing at length with other motorcycle aficionados topics like what is the perfect tire pressure. You may even enjoy massaging your bike with a super-soft microfiber cloth to remove the tiniest smudges.

If you’re a writer, you probably take great care in choosing your words and constructing your sentences. You probably have a dictionary and thesaurus on hand and refer to them often. Many writers enjoy having others look at their work so they can get useful feedback and suggestions. I would be surprised if there’s a writer out there who doesn’t read over their work numerous times before they consider it done.

If you’re a clothing designer, you have probably agonized over such things as: Mauve or dusty rose? Scallop or picot edging? 3/4-sleeve or full-length? You may have called up a fellow enthusiast at some weird hour to consult with them on how to execute such-and-such a stitch perfectly. Of course your sewing machine is oiled on a regular basis.

You get the idea.

So the problem is not that humans don’t enjoy examining and discussing small details. The problem is that we have not learned to apply our detail-orientedness to the realm of interpersonal communication.

Strangely, it seems that there is nothing we humans are more terrified of than the prospect of asking that person who is supposed to be our beloved, “what was in your mind when you said that?” or “why did you choose that word?” And yet we’ll express great curiosity as to why so-and-so from our gardening club prefers to grow amish paste tomatoes over san marzanos. We are willing and eager to discuss such matters in depth.

Why does it never seem to occur to us that we might treat communication with our beloved more as we treat our beloved hobbies?

Eschewing FIML-type analysis and attention to detail in our interpersonal communication and choosing instead to groove on feelings of love might seem good enough or even wonderful. And perhaps it is. But FIML says there’s more available.

A few notes on FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • Historically, all languages and communication strategies developed/evolved without FIML. Thus communication all but everywhere and with all but everyone relies entirely on non-FIML strategies. As languages evolved/developed, non-FIML strategies proliferated, in many ways making it more difficult for FIML strategies to arise. People became accustomed to non-FIML communication strategies, learned to enjoy them, and wanted to perpetuate them. This is still the case today. People are so used to non-FIML strategies, they cannot imagine anything else.
  • In many ways, it is because people understand only non-FIML strategies that they communicate to their loved ones by using public semiotics rather than clear interpersonal speech. They buy things, go on trips, go out to dinner, achieve status, and so on as substitutes for real interpersonal communication. Lack of FIML is also an important reason why many people enjoy their professional or public lives more than their private ones. Many people do like to bowl, but many of those same people also join bowling leagues because their private lives are unsatisfying.
  • If you do not do FIML practice with your primary interlocutor, you will be neurotic. Sounds bold to say that, but how could it be otherwise? Without FIML, you will not have clear communication with your primary interlocutor (spouse, SO, best friend, etc.); and without clear communication you will be forced to imagine what they mean and you will make mistakes and the mistakes will compound. In a short time, you will have a mistake-riddled, self-centered understanding of your primary interlocutor rather than a clear understanding of them. And the same will be true for them. This is why so many very loving, very compatible couples have problems within a few years.
  • Do you want to have clear communication with your SO? Do they want to have it with you? If you don’t do FIML, how can you get it? I don’t think you can. Do you think you can rely on feelings? On love? On good will between you? How will you prevent misunderstandings from developing if you have no way of knowing with great clarity what you are saying to each other? What is your strategy? Do you have one?
  • Make an arbitrary list of, say, ten words. Ask your SO to free-associate on each word; just have them say what first pops into their mind when you read each of the words. Have them do the same for you. Is it not clear that your associations are not the same? Maybe a few of them are, but most will be different. Now what happens when you speak sentences to each other? Can you see that you are always going to be making assumptions about what your SO is saying based on your own self-generated associations? How can you be sure you know what is in their mind when a certain tone of voice issues forth? Can you be certain you know why they chose that word or that phrasing? Of course you cannot be sure.
  • You can only know with clarity what your SO is saying if you ask them. But if you are only accustomed to non-FIML strategies, you will find that hard to do. As mentioned, communication all but everywhere and with all but everyone relies entirely on non-FIML strategies.
  • A wonderful result of FIML practice is it removes the need to wonder whether your partner has been bothered by something you did or said. This result occurs because you will gradually become confident that your partner will say something if they feel bothered.
  • Best of all, they will say something right away before whatever it is grows into something large and unmanageable. For example, if you use a way of saying good-bye that makes them feel lonely, they will bring it up right away and you can figure out what the cause was and/or how to do things differently if need be. This is a much better way to deal with something like that than for them to wait months or years before telling you, if they ever do. Imagine how just that one bad (also wrong) feeling might grow in them over time and lead to negative thoughts and actions that could have been avoided.
  • The best way to learn FIML is to break the practice down into small skills. Try the word list described above with your partner. Or start by just pointing to things. After you have had some practice, ask how some phrases make them feel or what they associate with them. Doing that will be fun and it will help you develop the skills needed for FIML practice. Stop, ask, hold your emotions in abeyance, listen, think. It gradually will become second-nature.

Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) and FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This short interview gives a quick outline of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT): Albert Ellis: A Guide to Rational Living. FIML is not REBT and REBT is not FIML but the two methods are mutually supportive and probably not contradictory in all that many ways.

FIML resembles REBT in that it is a practice that can and will reduce neuroticism and unrealistic thinking. FIML is based on real data agreed upon by both partners and in this sense it is a pragmatic, scientific approach to human psychology and communication as is REBT.

FIML is different from REBT in that it is based on a specific technique that can be taught and then used by partners without the help of a therapist. FIML works primarily with very short segments of communication. It deals with belief, cognition, and emotion, but emphasizes accessing them by being attentive to the moment in a very concrete way.

FIML is not just psychotherapy but also very much a technique for anyone who wants to optimize communication with those who are most important to them. FIML helps partners understand how emotion, semiotics, habit, personal history, word associations, and so on influence how they listen and speak. FIML is largely value-neutral in what it says, though the practice will tend to strengthen awareness, rational thinking, and sound ethical behavior.

REBT is a form of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Some basic ways to understand FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML practice first generates and then depends upon clear communication between partners.

When clear communication is established, FIML increases mental clarity and positive feelings. Another way of saying this is FIML practice reduces both mental confusion and neurotic feelings.

Thus, FIML can be fairly easily explained or understood by referring to these three basic outcomes:

  • clear communication
  • elevated or enhanced mental clarity
  • increased positive feelings

Stated in the negative, these same three basic outcomes of FIML practice are:

  • elimination of communication blockages
  • reduction or elimination of metal confusion
  • reduction or elimination of neurotic feelings

FIML practice does not emphasize a difference between private confusion (neurosis) and public confusion (irrational semiotics of a culture or society). We do recognize that there is a difference between the public and the private, but this difference lies on a continuum: a private neurosis is often shaped by cultural semiotics while cultural semiotics are often grounded in the neurotic feelings of many individuals.

A good deal of psychological reasoning today is based on what is “normal”, what “most people feel”, and/or what deviates from that or interferes with an individual’s ability to function within “normal” ranges. FIML recognizes social norms, but partners are not asked to judge themselves on that basis. Nor are partners encouraged to label themselves with psychological terms. Rather, partners are encouraged (and shown how) to discover for themselves how to understand themselves based the three outcomes described above. We are confident that the high ethical standards required to do FIML successfully will show partners with great clarity that sound ethics are essential to human fulfillment.

FIML is a liberative practice because it frees partners from mental confusion, emotional suffering, and the hardships of unsatisfying communication. Since FIML works with real data agreed upon by both partners it avoids idealism and wishful-thinking.

FIML enhances traditional Buddhist practices because it allows partners to share their introspections while checking each others’ work. When we speak an inner truth to someone who we know will understand and who cares about us, that inner truth will deepen and benefit both partners.  Based on the three outcomes described above, FIML partners will be able to create a sort of subculture of their own founded on standards that they both (all) find fulfilling and right.

In most of our descriptions of FIML, we have tried to use ordinary words while providing clear definitions of them if they have a special meaning in the context of FIML. One word that is especially important is neurosis. By this term, we mean “mistaken interpretation” or “ongoing mistaken interpretation.” We use the word this way because it is a basic tenet of FIML that most, if not all, mental and emotional suffering is generated by communication errors. We proudly use the words error, mistake, wrong, erroneous, incorrect and so on when describing communication problems because communication problems almost always are grounded in mistakes: someone heard wrong, interpreted wrongly, spoke wrongly, and so on. FIML practice shows partners how to identify and correct these mistakes the moment they appear, thus forestalling the generation or perdurance of full-blown neurosis.

FIML is less concerned with long explanations about the past and more concerned with the dynamic moment during which partners communicate and react to each other based on real data that can be retrieved and agreed upon by both of them. The mental and emotional clarity that results from this practice is highly rewarding and within the reach of most people with the basic necessary conditions–a trusted partner, enough time to do the practice, mutual caring.

FIML and autism-Asperger’s spectrum

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

After explaining the basics of FIML to a friend, he replied: “Oh, so just pretend you are autistic.”

It was a good joke with a good deal of truth to it. The reality is, though, that no one knows all that well what others are thinking unless they ask and are told honestly. When people rely too much on “normal” intuition in their primary relationships, far too much ambiguity develops. And from that ambiguity neuroses arise or perdure. Neuroses can entail either unsatisfying clinging to conventional semiotics or disturbing idiosyncratic interpretations of interpersonal behaviors. Both ways of dealing with ambiguity are based on mistaken interpretations, and both of them lead to suffering. I don’t see how a “normal” person can escape this without FIML any better than someone with Asperger’s or autism.

The New York Times had an article the other day on Asperger’s, Navigating Love and Autism. The article is worth reading in and of itself, but it works especially well for me because FIML training has shown me that Asperger’s problems, though they may be more of a certain type, are problems all people have. Asperger’s people may be less able rely on conventional emotional packaging than “normal” people, but in truth I don’t think anyone should rely too much on conventions in their private life. A “normal” person can more quickly achieve the illusion of intimacy and sharing and more easily maintain this illusion, but without FIML or something like it, it will remain an illusion. As the years go by, all of those ambiguities and wrongly shared assumptions will lead to lying, harmfulness, and suffering.

It may very well be that “normal” people have more to learn from Asperger’s people than the other way around. The couple in the article seem to have figured out a way to be together that relies on something similar to FIML–they know that they need to explain themselves to each other in ways that are anything but conventional. This frees them to see the wonder of their unique individuality and to share that with each other.

More thoughts on “Empathy”

~ khipu ~ 2 Comments

It seems that many individuals who self-describe as “empathetic” think of empathy as a talent they have for “reading people”, or knowing what others are thinking without having to ask. I think this is a huge mistake that can actually lead such people to have less empathy over time. To me it seems much more appropriate to think of empathy not as a talent one possesses but as a desire to understand other people. If we think of it this way then the ever-problematic “I know” becomes “I want to know.”

If empathy is conceived as an interest or desire, it is more likely to be developed and pursued. If, however, it is conceived as a static quality or talent, it will be taken for granted, misapplied, and probably warped into just another form of hubris.

I wonder what a self-described “empathetic” might learn from FIML. I have a feeling many of them would find that they’re not so good at “reading” others after all. Perhaps they are just adept at getting along in some sort of professional capacity and have generalized their confidence about that to other social realms.

As FIML has shown me and my partner over and over again, we are comically substandard at knowing what the other is thinking. But I hope the fact that we want to know means we have empathy for one another.

Be sure to read or re-read our previous post entitled “Theory of Mind and FIML” for a much more comprehensive treatment of this subject.

Advanced FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is a method for generating crystal clear communication between participating partners. Once this has been achieved partners will notice a profound reduction in neurotic feelings–anxiety, worry, fear, suspicion, depression, boredom, anomie, etc.

Following this, many FIML practitioners will also notice that the practice has given them insights into cultural semiotics that parallel changes in art and literature. In designing FIML, we were not originally looking for this outcome, but it is there. Let me explain.

The “semiotics” or vocabulary of all art forms have changed throughout history, but especially since the 19th century. For example, in music the notion of what is dissonant or harmonic has changed from simpler classical forms, which demanded greater conformity between scales and chords, to jazz and modern music that allow for much greater freedom. Similarly, in the visual arts, the modern sense of color, balance, and perspective has changed to allow for much greater freedom of expression than in the past. The same kinds of changes can be seen in literature, chess, math, architecture, design, and many other areas.

We even see these changes in society as many more concepts and ways of living are now allowed than in the past–a more open sense of gender and sexual orientation, for example, are generally considered normal or acceptable in many parts of the world when just a few decades ago they were not. We also have a much broader and deeper understanding of race, culture, history, religion, ethnicity, and so on.

All of this relates to FIML in this way: FIML gives partners the means to understand and reorganize any and all levels of cultural semiotics they can become aware of. By semiotics I mean all signs, symbols, mores, taboos, beliefs, roles, impressions, memories, feelings, etc. that are connected to language and that thereby influence our use of language. That basically means everything in your mind, including language. Semiotics is the water the fish of language and communication swim in. Your mind is filled with a multifaceted semiotics that affects everything you do, say, and hear. Normally, we are only sort of aware of this.

FIML practice will lead many partners to realize that the semiotics–whatever they may be–in which their lives are immersed are as fully open to interpretation and reorganization as the artistic and cultural traditions described above. How partners decide to interpret their shared semiotics is up to them. FIML says nothing about that. What FIML will do is show you in a most intimate and convincing way that your capacity to fully understand your partner can also free you from traditional strictures in how you think about psychology, society, politics, history, art, and so on. If you want to play classical tunes with that knowledge, that is fine. If you want to play jazz or something you make up, that is also fine.

FIML will free you to do whatever you like with the semiotics you share with your partner.

In this way, I think that FIML practice can greatly enhance traditional Buddhist practice. At the same time, FIML may make traditional Buddhist practice more accessible or relevant to people today. FIML shows partners the emptiness of their semiotics in a way that may be more engaging than traditional techniques.

(As a side note, one great concern I have about FIML is ethics. I am quite convinced the ethics required to successfully practice FIML will convince partners that high ethical standards are essential for good living, but I cannot prove that. It does not follow logically and we do not have enough examples of successful FIML practitioners to claim that based on the numbers. No social or intellectual system, not even a strict legal system, can ensure that all members will behave ethically. I hope that FIML will be so powerful and transformational to those who do it, though, that high ethical standards will be a nearly inevitable byproduct of the practice. Time will tell.)

Cultural norms and FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

I am fairly certain that most cultures (and subcultures) do not have a way to easily accept FIML practice or theory. This means that most individuals who are exponents of a culture (basically all people) will have trouble understanding what FIML is saying to them and how to do it.

The reason for this is cultural norms are established patterns that seek and respond to resonances in other people who share those norms. A person in a culture that requires humility will tend to see FIML as being aggressive or impolite. A person in a culture that honors pride will probably see FIML as an affront to their status, something that “questions” who they are.

Cultures are, in so many ways, lowest-common-denominator neuroses shared among groups of people. (By neurosis I mean “mistaken interpretation.”) For example, in a culture that requires humility, in many cases, our seeing a person’s behavior as being admirably humble may be correct, but in many other cases it will actually be a mistaken impression of a person who is only acting the part of being humble.

Any culturally defined virtue or term can be the cause of a mistaken impression.

For most professional interactions and encounters with strangers and acquaintances, rough cultural terms are sufficient for our understanding and theirs. For close friends and loved ones with whom we spend a good deal of time, FIML practice is all but required. The problem is how to get it.

Some people will see FIML practice as confronting the very roots of their culture itself. Others may see it as an attack on the very roots of their selves.

This is ironic since all FIML seeks to do is improve communication between participating partners. It threatens nothing and dictates nothing. FIML does not tell anyone how to be. It is designed simply to help partners be clear about what they are saying and hearing at all times.

My guess is some people reading this blog will get the idea of FIML and want to practice it. If they are lucky, their partners will understand. In many cases, though, readers will find it incredibly difficult to make clear to their partners what the hell they are talking about. Cultural blockage will be formidable because people are used to speaking to each other in limited ways that obscure deep meaning.

FIML is designed for couples or small groups who want crystal clear communication and a reduction of neurotic and thoughtless responses. It may seem threatening, but it is not. It is liberating.

Some other more mundane cultural norms that FIML, when first proposed, may appear to violate are:

  • Talking more than your fair share
  • Bringing the same thing up again
  • Not accepting your partner’s reasoning
  • Not accepting “equal input” into the conversation
  • Insisting on a point
  • Being too pointed, specific, or detail-oriented
  • Not respecting others’ feelings, status, pride, etc.

FIML practice does not actually in any way violate people’s feelings, cause disrespect, or lead to the dominance of one partner over another. On the contrary, FIML does the opposite. It is a liberative practice that allows partners to achieve much greater understanding of each other.

The problems described above can, and probably will, be encountered in the beginning when one partner tries to explain FIML to the other, or tries to convince the other to do it.

The ideal way to learn FIML is together with your partner(s) in a class from a qualified teacher. Before too much longer we hope to be able to offer such classes.

Relational Frame Theory and FIML practice

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This video gives a good, brief explanation of Relational Frame Theory (RFT).

FIML practice can be understood in terms of RFT. What FIML practice does is give partners immediate access to their neurotic “relational frames” of reference, their mistaken interpretations. When we see a few times with great clarity that our neurosis is based on a mistaken interpretation (a mistaken relational frame) of what our partner actually means or meant, we will be able to change our relational frame (correct our mistaken interpretation) without much trouble.

FIML works especially well for making this sort of change in relational frames because it deals with those frames the moment they arise, while they are still just starting to be accessed. FIML also works well in this respect because it is based on real data shared and agreed upon by partners who trust each other.

Here is another article on Relational Frame Theory.

Examples of FIML Practice: Tomato Sauce

~ khipu ~ Leave a comment

It’s less than a week before the winter solstice and our vegetable garden continues to support a few hangers-on such as cabbages, arugula, and leeks. But the bounty of summer is a distant memory. And so we are now starting to dig into our pantry of home-canned goods.

I have only been gardening for a few years and canning for even less. I have not yet gotten to the point where I can reliably produce the very high yields I desire. My insecurity about this is what primed me for a neurotic reaction the other night.

In an effort to conserve our limited supply of homemade tomato sauce from our own homegrown tomatoes, we occasionally use store-bought sauce instead. This is what we did the other night. When we sat down to eat, my partner almost immediately began commenting on the dinner. “Your sauce is so much better,” he said. And then a few bites later, “This store-bought sauce just doesn’t make me feel as good as yours does…there’s just no substitute for homegrown tomatoes.”

Neurotic human that I am, I could not help taking these comments as a reminder of my failure to grow enough tomatoes so that we could have homemade sauce as often as we wanted, which turns out to be pretty often. I was pretty sure that he wasn‘t intending to remind me of my failures as a gardener. But not being totally sure, I responded by growing a little bit sullen and wishing he would stop making those comments.

“Yes, yes, I know homemade sauce is better. Don’t worry, I’ll grow enough tomatoes next year. What else can I say? For now, can’t we just enjoy our dinner?” I said, probably somewhat sharply.

At this point we commenced with a FIML analysis, during which I learned that my partner had only been trying to compliment me when he made those comments. The rational part of my mind had suspected this, but FIML gave me a way to make sure, so that I wouldn’t leave the table believing that I might have been indirectly scolded. The exchange went something like this:

Him: OK, stop. What is in your mind right now? Why do you sound upset?

Me: I just wonder why you keep making those comments. I think the sauce tastes good.

Him: It does taste good. I was only commenting in that way to emphasize how much better yours is.

Me: But we know that homemade sauce is always going to be better. I guess I’m wondering if maybe you’re subtly grousing about my not having made enough to fully stock the pantry?

Him: No, not at all.

Me: So, there’s no part of you that’s criticizing me for not having grown enough tomatoes last summer?

Him: No, there’s none of that whatsoever. I was simply trying to say, “Honey, your tomato sauce is far better than any commercial sauce and I really appreciate it.”

Now, this is not just some typical make-up session where the offending party says what s/he thinks the other person wants to hear in order to smooth things over. This is a FIML exchange in which I have the opportunity to find out whether my suspicions are true about what my partner is thinking. Prerequisite to FIML are mutual agreements to tell the truth and to believe the other person. So, I can be confident that my partner is telling the truth (“No, I was not criticizing you”) and he can be confident that I believe him (“OK, then I guess I was just being neurotic”).

In that particular exchange I was shown that what I had reacted to was a phantom in my own mind. It had nothing to do with what my partner was thinking.

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

  • Greatly improve communication between participating partners
  • Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
  • Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
  • Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

  • FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
  • FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
  • FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
  • FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
  • This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

  • Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
  • Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

Theory of mind and FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The following paragraphs are from a pretty good Wikipedia article on theory of mind.

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one’s own.

Individuals who experience a theory of mind deficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others, and have a difficult time with social reciprocity.

As far as I understand the term, theory of mind is generally used to assess autism spectrum disorders and behavioral problems that result from brain injuries, drug abuse, and alcoholism. I have no problem with that.

Here’s an interesting response to the theory from someone with Asperger’s Syndrome: Empathy, Mindblindness, and Theory of Mind. The author of this piece, Lynne Soraya, mainly objects to the characterization that she does not have empathy for others. She wonders if the problem is one not of a lack of empathy but of understanding.

I agree with her in more ways than one. Misapplied, theory of mind can become a high-sounding defense of conformity and the status quo. Beyond basic levels of reasonable manners and appropriateness, theory of mind can lead us to draw many false conclusions about the people we are with. If FIML has taught me one thing with great certainty it is that, while I may have some sense of what my partner is thinking or feeling, I am very often wrong in important ways and almost always sort of wrong in many subtle ways.

Look into your own mind. What do you see? Is there some solid state there? Are all of your intentions clear even to you? Why do you say what you say? What else are you thinking right now? As soon as you answer any one of these questions, the multifaceted dynamism of your mind will change again. Can you remember what was in your mind–remember with good, clear accuracy–one minute ago? I bet you can’t. How about two minutes ago? If even you cannot know what was in your own mind one minute ago and restate it clearly, how can you expect another person to really ever know what is in your mind unless you tell them while you are still able to remember yourself?

This is where real speech lives. In the moment. Speech often comes forth from us for mysterious reasons. And our partners hear our speech in their own mysterious ways. We can know these ways, but only by talking about them, only by asking. Theory of mind can help us form some general ideas, but only FIML can give us access to what our partners are truly thinking when they speak to us or listen to us.

If I say let’s go for a walk, I probably will be able to tell from your expression whether you want to go or not, and maybe even how much you want to go. But if as we leave the building you glance at a bush beside the walk, do I know why you looked there or what you are thinking? Very unlikely.

Similarly, if you speak a sentence to me, do I know the fullness of the state of your mind from which that sentence issued? No, I don’t. Hardly ever. If the sentence is at all ambiguous or even slightly emotionally charged, I may not have the slightest clue why you said it. I can guess, but the only way I can know for sure is to ask you.

Theory of mind is OK for making crude determinations about some people in some situations, but worthless for most speech or communicative acts between equal partners.

We do not know what is in other people’s minds. We are not mind readers. We can only know with certainty what they are thinking and feeling if they tell us. And that can be difficult even for them to do because even they may not know what is in their minds or why.

This is why I say that theory of mind can be sorely misapplied to become a defense of status quo conformity, status quo semiotics.

Humans are primitive beasts with poorly functioning speech capacities. If they are not attributing status quo interpretations of others to them, they will be making up their own and those will probably be neurotic (mistaken, as we have been defining that term).

Our options as people who speak and interact are not either we are autistic or we are “normal” (have good theory of mind). There is a huge other area of human speech and interaction (and this area includes both autistic and “normal” people)–no matter what you do or say, you cannot speak to another person without employing unfounded assumptions about them unless you ask and they answer honestly.

For most exchanges with strangers and acquaintances, we don’t need to know what they are thinking and feeling. We just follow the basic rules–professional or otherwise–that govern the exchange. For intimate partners and friends, however, those rules will not work. If you want real communication with your partner, you will have to do FIML or something like it. I can’t think of any other way to know their feelings and intentions.

Brain scans

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Brain scans are getting better every day. One day, I am pretty sure, we will have inexpensive brain scanning devices that can be purchased by consumers and used at home. When that day comes, we will need a new way of talking with one another, a new way to assess how we understand each other.

Imagine two people hooked up to a brain scan device that gives very accurate readings of what is happening in their brains while they interact. Imagine also that all instances of embarrassment, lying, flattery, fear, not understanding while pretending you do, and so on show up on the brain scan device. How will people deal with that?

I think FIML will help. It surely won’t do everything, but basic FIML training will probably help people deal with the many areas of our minds that we are now used to hiding but will no longer be able to when connected to brain scanning tech.

Here is an interesting study based on data from brain scans: Extraversion Is Linked to Volume of the Orbitofrontal Cortex and Amygdala. This article says some interesting things about neuroticism versus extroversion. Basically, extroversion is not the opposite of neuroticism, but a “protective factor” that seems to guard against it. This does not make extroverts more right about things; it just makes them socially more effective in most circumstances and less liable to doubt themselves.

But FIML practice (or a lot of good introspection) shows us that being effective socially and having fewer doubts may actually indicate a “positive neurosis” in that the extrovert’s understanding of themseleves and others is based on mistaken interpretations. The mistakes may work well enough in many situations, but they are still mistakes.

My guess is that brain scan tech of the future will show these mistakes. My guess is also that society will be far richer for that. Ideally, consumer brain scan devices will allow much greater truthful lateral communication; a much greater sharing of interpersonal realities as opposed to the widespread conformance to public semiotics that is the rule now.

Of course, I am very mindful that brain scan tech could be used for horrific social control. The best way to avoid that is have a lot of people understand the technology and put it in the hands of consumers as soon as possible.