Friday, February 19, 2010

Absurd Man v. Simian Man


So, are there ways to change your behavior, to mold the hard-wiring of your brain in some way? That is the focus of a new book titled Switch: How to Change things When Change is Hard.

The answer is yes. The authors maintain there are psychological principles you can use to change your behavior and overcome some hard-wiring. We’ve not read the book and don’t plan to. We saw a review in this morning’s Wall Street Journal and the thoughts in there inspire today’s post.

See… we’ve often talked about how there are parts of us that are hard-wired to be anti-absurd. And so in the past we’ve written about ways to be more absurd and overcome this hard-wiring.

The authors have some ideas… and it begins with the idea that humans don’t have one central decision-making unit. You may think of the brain as one unit, but in fact, our brains have two halves. There is a rational and logical part of the brain. And there is an emotional and impulsive part of the brain.

For our purposes, let us call the first the Absurd Man and the second, Simian Man. The first is what writes this blog. It’s our thinking, deliberate side. The side that weighs evidence and does the heavy lifting of (trying) to figure stuff out.

The Simian Man is the anti-absurd part of our brains that make us do un-absurd things – like getting upset in traffic or ticked off at work. It is the reactive, emotional part of our brains.

Having these two sides is like having your own internal Jekyll and Hyde show. Absurd Man tries to wrestle down monkey brains and keep things copacetic, while Simian Man has his own ideas and plays havoc with Absurd Man’s neat view of the world.

Simian Man can get in the way of the liberating feelings of absurdity. In the past on this blog, we’ve often talked about this Simian Man as something to beat down and control. But we are leaning more and more to accepting Simian Man and his non-absurd impulses as part of what it is to be human. If sometimes we act non-absurd, then so be it. Recognize it and move on.

The authors, however, have a few other useful ideas we thought we’d pass on. They say that in order to change your behavior you have to address both sides of your brain. So if you want to be more absurd, you have to appeal to both reason and emotion. You need concrete information (the rational arguments of the absurd) and you need a more emotional mental image of why it is “good” to be absurd (say, peaceful images of how calm and care-free you might be, of equanimity and acceptance, of the idea of emancipation).

The bottom line is you need to bring both systems onboard for change to occur. You need good rational arguments to appeal to Absurd Man… but he can’t do it alone. You also need to appeal to Simian Man.

The authors have other principles, too. One is to recognize that we are influenced by those around us. Our environment is an important part of the puzzle of our behavior. So, in order to be more absurd, the authors would advise you seek out like-minded people and create an environment more conducive to want you want to do.

This blog, we suppose, can serve that kind of purpose. It creates, in a way, a place where like-minded people can find some reinforcement and swap ideas about the absurd and similar viewpoints. It’s helped us be more absurd in our daily living. After all, absurdity, like a good offal restaurant, is a rare thing in today’s society. Even Simian Man would agree with that.

5 comments:

  1. "Simian man can get in the way of the liberating feelings of absurdity." Yea, but defined as you did, Simian man is the only one who can HAVE the liberating feelings of absurdity.

    If we draw a better dividing line, there seems no contradiction. 1. There is no meaning. Things don't matter. If I say it "matters to me", then I am really just saying that I like it or want it. and 2. People get utility out of whatever they get utility out of. It doesn't make sense, never will make sense, and doesn't have to make sense. The only way in which 'what I like' might make sense is to say it comes largely from darwinistic forces.

    If I am free to do what I want because I see deep down that nothing matters, then what I want will still be stuff that probably came largely from natural selection: I want to eat, drink, have sex, be merry, love my kids, have friends, whatever. I can't even be free and want ANYTHING without an emotional side.

    Arthur

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only reason we're putting any effort into seeing the absurd and living free is that Simian man wants it.

    Arthur

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the post.

    Helpful overview that lots of folks have hit in one way or another in the past. Of course, many have addressed that it's helpful to change reference groups . . . a way for us to alter, to some degree, externalities, those things that--as the Stoics remind us--over which we have no control.

    Also, I recommend checking out William Irvine's "On Desire," where he uses different language and slightly different concepts to get to the same point. He suggests that we're wired with a BIS (biological evolutionary system) that we can essentially learn to "misuse" and fool, for those primal instincts (anti-absurd) can still get us all "worked up" over nothing. :)

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  4. Back looking for another awesome post. Instead, I see you haven't replied. Perhaps you're just busy, or perhaps my level of disagreement was unclear.

    I totally reject the judgments you are making about the dichotomy you present. Not only do you raise this over-simplified model, but you make one half of the model the good guy and the other half the bad guy.

    On one level, nothing matters and all value judgments are ultimately baseless. On a more practical level, the desire for freedom is good.

    If the emotional (“simian”) man did not have utility over the freedom of seeing the absurd, then you wouldn't be doing any of this. I, for one, am happy that I'm not just 'logical man' - who always remembers that nothing matters but cannot even feel happy.

    And what's so bad about yelling in traffic? The only thing worse than yelling in traffic is deciding there's something wrong with me because I did. Just add a little laugh and irony to the fact that you are (fundamentally) striving to protect yourself with your yelling - when you are going to die no matter what you do. Yell louder! We have a need to express energy, even aggression, sometimes just as much as we have a need to eat good food. It doesn't matter. Radical self-acceptance would be just watching what I do. There's nothing wrong with me the way I am.

    Back to my point. We could judge EVERY instinct and emotion we have as being anti-absurd. But you guys only pick certain ones to single out. (Caring about your cold kid, yelling in traffic, wanting to win). But the same judgments apply across the board. Why would I like sex if me, my kin, and even humanity will not survive (and, on top of that, it doesn't matter if they do anyway)? Why would I enjoy eating and friendship? Enjoying those is ridiculous. The desire for friendship was also 'hardwired' just to help us survive.

    Why would I choose life or freedom? There's no reason that cannot ultimately be grounded out in an invalid value judgment. Just let the ridiculous instincts and emotions be free and do their thing.

    There is one enjoyment that does seem to be in a different class: the awe and wonder of existing right now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian: Thanks for the note. We will check it out.

    Arthur: We are not so much in disagreement. You wrote: "I totally reject the judgments you are making about the dichotomy you present. Not only do you raise this over-simplified model, but you make one half of the model the good guy and the other half the bad guy."

    The dichotomy is, of course, biological, simplified though it may be. The judgment is one we've made in the past, but don't believe so much anymore. Note, in the post above we wrote:

    "In the past on this blog, we’ve often talked about this Simian Man as something to beat down and control. But we are leaning more and more to accepting Simian Man and his non-absurd impulses..."

    This one way our thinking has evolved since we started this blog.

    We would also add that our "judgment" on Absurd Man v Simian Man as Jekyll and Hyde was meant to be whimsical in tone, comical even. We don't believe Simian Man is "bad."

    Inigo

    ReplyDelete