Morality. Simply put, morality is a system or collection of ideas of what is right or wrong conduct. However, within the context of psychology, we will focus on how we arrive at a sense of what is right and what is wrong. 

The main disciplines of psychological analysis have largely ignored this question of how we arrive at our morality. Cognitive, behavioral, biological, evolutionary, and humanistic psychologists have written off the importance of this development and believe this question to be irrelevant to the understanding of the human mind. I would argue that this question is incredibly important and can reveal a lot about how and why we make the decisions we do. After all, many of our decisions are influenced by our sense of what is right or wrong. 

The one discipline of psychology that has explored this question is Freud’s psychoanalysis. Freud proposed that our mind was broken into three distinct parts: the id, ego, and superego. The id is our animalistic part of ourselves that will do anything to achieve pleasure, the superego is our internal sense of morality, and the ego is the part of our mind that mediates conflicts of the superego and id. Freud’s theory includes and emphasizes the importance of the superego on our psychological processes and decision-making processes.

Conversely, I propose that our morality is inextricably tied to our “imagined self” and “actual self”.

We covered the concepts of the imagined self and actual self in the previous blog about anxiety. In review, imagined self is a term to describe the internalized construction you’ve created for yourself. Actual self is a term to describe the conception of yourself that is constructed through the actions you take. You can refer to the previous blog for a more expansive exploration of each of these terms. 

From a young age, we don’t have an imagined self, our main psychological processes are desires for warmth, food, sleep, etc. These are more primordial psychological functions. It isn’t until we continue to mature that we start to develop a sense of our imagined self. At a certain point, we start to observe the actions and instructions of those around us. We start to learn about what is right and what is wrong. This learning process gradually engrains its information with our imagined self and what we ought to be. 

This construction of our imagined selves is Hegelian in nature; we learn our sense of morality upon the recognition of an other. It is only by the recognition of another consciousness that we are able to develop any sense of right or wrong.

Since the construction of our morality and imagined self is contingent upon the recognition of another consciousness, we can readily conclude that our morality is also related to our actual self. In other words, your actual self cannot be viewed as moral unless your outward behavior is seen as moral.

Now that we have established the connectedness of our morality and our imagined/actual selves, we can look at the ramifications of such a structure. 

When we behave in a way that is immoral there are two reasons this makes us uncomfortable. Firstly, it makes us uncomfortable because there exists an incongruence between our imagined and actual selves. Secondly, it makes us uncomfortable because our minds have a desire to preserve our imagined self. In other words, immoral behavior shifts our beliefs about who we are (changes our imagined self) and this change makes us uncomfortable. There are select instances in which this incongruence does not bother the individual, however, this usually stems from an intrapersonal lie. The aforementioned mechanisms of change and intrapersonal lies are detailed in previous blogs. 

Anxiety. Whether you recognize it or not, everyone experiences some level of anxiety. It is commonly known in psychology that moderate levels of cortisol (stress hormone) are beneficial and helps one to focus on daily tasks. This relationship between stress levels and performance of tasks is represented in the Yerkes-Dodson curve. At low and high levels of stress, we perform poorly on tasks. This high point is what is broadly referred to as anxiety. 

Anxiety manifests itself in many different forms and has been categorized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM V) into 6 major categories. While the DSM V can be useful to psychiatrists when trying to diagnose and treat anxiety disorders, it doesn’t tell us much about why people may have anxiety disorders. This blog will go over a few theories of why people experience anxiety.  

Proponents of the cognitive-behavioral psychology school of thought suggest that anxiety stems from the cognitive triangle. The cognitive triangle is a model that shows the relationship between our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As it relates to anxiety, people have faulty beliefs about the world which causes them to have irrational feelings and behave irrationally. When the circumstances are proper, this combination of irrational thoughts and feelings will induce feelings of anxiety.  

On the other hand, members of the psychoanalytic school of thought suggest that anxiety is inextricably tied to the unconscious. Sigmund Freud’s first theory divided anxiety into two distinct categories, realistic anxiety, and neurotic anxiety. Realistic anxiety describes anxiety in response to actual danger, whereas neurotic anxiety is anxiety in response to internal psychic conflict. Freud emphasized trying to understand and combat the second type of anxiety.  

As with most of psychoanalysis, the internal psychic causes of the anxiety had to be identified in order to address them. Frequently, these psychological conflicts stemmed from childhood trauma.  

I propose that anxiety stems from the internal contradictions that occur from an incongruency between your imagined self and actual self.  

In order to understand my conception of anxiety, we must define the terms “imagined self” and “actual self”. Imagined self is a term to describe the internalized construction you’ve created for yourself. For example, an element of your imagined self could be that you are popular or that you are intelligent, or that you are physically attractive. Actual self is a term to describe the conception of yourself that is constructed through the actions you take. For example, your imagined self may include viewing yourself as intelligent, but your actual self would not be intelligent if you got Ds and Fs in school.  

This view of anxiety has its limitations and struggles to account for certain types of anxieties like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In these cases, Freud’s theory of anxiety serves more explanatory utility. Regardless, my “imagined/actual self” view of anxiety has explanatory utility.  

For example, suppose that you value being intelligent, this is an element of your imagined self. Now, let’s say that you have a big exam coming up. From what I have observed and experienced, people who value being intelligent/viewed as intelligent get anxious about doing poorly on exams. This anxiety stems from the incongruency between your imagined self and actual self.  

I have also identified three ways by which to alleviate this sense of anxiety. The first form is when people push this incongruency out of their consciousness. With the last example, this usually takes the form of procrastination; to study for a test is to tacitly accept the idea that you will not perform as well as you wish, and by procrastinating you don’t need to think about this incongruency.  

The second and third forms are similar in nature. The second form is to modify your actual self in order to resolve the incongruency. For our last example, this would involve studying until you convinced yourself that you would not perform poorly on the exam, this would entail the realignment of your imagined and actual self. The third form is by far the least used form. The third form entails modifying your imagined self and realigning your value system and how you view yourself. People rarely take this path, because as we discussed in the Roles blog, people hold desperately onto their roles and imagined self. For our last example, this method would require one de-emphasize the importance of being viewed as intelligent. The unfortunate thing about this third technique being the least used is the fact that it is the most effective. 

Memory. Simply put, our memory is our brain’s ability to encode, store, and retrieve information about the world around us. The mechanisms that underlie our memory and encoding processes are extremely complicated but follow a general path. First, we detect information with one of our senses, if we give attention to that information it will be processed in our short-term memory, and sometimes that information will be encoded in our long-term memory. 

Something that we’ve all done is forget information that we once knew. In its purest form, the act of forgetting is when we are unable to recall information from our long-term memory and bring it into our conscious short-term memory. There are two main theories of forgetting and the reasons behind why we forget information.  

The first, and most relevant reason for why we forget information is because of how our conscious works. When we live our lives, we don’t have the goal of remembering the details of our day. Instead, we have the goal of understanding the world around us. For example, if I gave you a list of 20 nouns and asked you to remember as many as you could, you would be able to recall most of them. Alternatively, if I just gave you the list without any specific instructions, you would struggle to name most of them.  

The second, and more interesting reason for why we forget information is because of our unconscious brain’s desire to protect itself. Forgetting can serve utility to prevent us from remembering traumatic or unpleasant events. After a traumatic event, the memories of that event will become less accessible and the details of the event will be “smoothed over”.  

A common example of the brain protecting itself through forgetting is with a soldier facing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The incidences of repressed memories increased drastically after the events of World War 2. Soldiers would come home with mental and physical scars and be unable to describe the events that lead to those damages.  

Another example of these repressed memories is common with abused children. Children will completely forget traumatic events of abuse because of the associated psychological stress. In some cases, these memories can be retrieved after seeing a scene in a movie or reading a chapter of a book that reminds them of the traumatic event.  

Some theorists such as Sigmund Freud take this theory of forgetting one step further. His argument is that this act of forgetting is fundamentally a defense mechanism of the brain and that this forgetting mechanism is not contained to only traumatic events. Instead, Freud suggests that people will forget things if it is psychologically discomforting in any manner.  

An example Freud gives in his Psychopathologies of Everyday Life is when he was unable to recall the name of a client. Freud deduced that his inability to recall the patient’s name was because it was Lederer; Lederer was also the name of a critic of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams. It was psychologically distressing for Freud to think of the name Lederer because of its association with one of his critics.  

If we are to believe Freud’s hypothesis of forgetting, then a traumatic event is not a prerequisite to suffering this type of forgetfulness. I encourage you to be conscientious of the next time you happen to forget the name of something or the name of someone. When you end up remembering its name, do some introspection and free association. It may reveal that your unconscious brain was forcing you to forget that information to try and prevent psychological distress.  

The unconscious. While discussing the unconscious, people usually think about the “consciousness iceberg”, which is divided into three levels: conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Those with more knowledge of psychological knowledge might think about the sexual drive theories of Freud. However, both of these models of the unconscious are antiquated and incongruent with modern research about the unconscious.

The unconscious is much simpler than the models posited by Freud and plays a more significant role than the “iceberg model” suggests. Broadly speaking, the conscious consists of all of the thoughts, feelings, and memories that we can acknowledge. Whereas the unconscious is the deeper mental processes that we can’t readily access.  

The first psychologist to analyze the ramifications of the unconscious mind in our lives was Sigmund Freud. In fact, psychoanalytic/psychodynamic psychology are the only two domains that actively consider the role that the unconscious has in our lives. Herein lies one of the major issues with modern psychology:  

Despite the constant role the unconscious plays in our everyday lives, many domains of psychology fail to account for its effects.  

The unconscious is, in its purest form, an engine for information processing. The brain is the busiest organ. It uses up 20% of the body’s total energy, is running 24/7, and is responsible for coordinating everything from movement to thinking to digestion to emotions. To have our conscious control everything that the brain coordinates would be both impossible and deadly. There is an obvious reason that our brain automatically tells our hearts to pump, our lungs to breathe, and for our eyes to blink.  

We know that the unconscious is responsible for most of the brain’s workings. What we can’t always know is what is part of our conscious brain and what isn’t. For example, we concretely know that the unconscious is responsible for the heart pumping blood, the body producing sweat, the alveoli expanding and contracting, etc. What we don’t know concretely are areas like emotion.  

For example, you may wake up feeling sad one day. You may not know why you’re feeling sad, but you have the conscious experience of feeling sad nonetheless. There is a constant interplay between the conscious experience of emotion and the unconscious causing of that emotion. The exploration of how emotions are created from the unconscious mind is still a major field of research, but some of it may have to do with the physiology of our brain. 

Our central nervous system is created from a network of neurons. Neurons are special types of cells that can send information from one neuron to another (there are many types of neurons and the function of those neurons can vary based on the neurotransmitters they contain, but this definition will suffice for our purposes). The brain is also built through a series of associative bundles. This means that the neurons in a particular part of the brain will all have similar functions. This associative nature of neurons has major ramifications for our unconscious brains.

Referring to our previous example, you might have woken up sad because a related series of neurons had fired the day before, and the neurons responsible for producing the emotion of sadness were activated accidentally. Many other emotional states and cognitive functions such as intuition, anger, repressed memories, and hidden beliefs are caused by similar associative networks of neurons.  

Now that we have a basic understanding of the unconscious and its relation to our physiology, we can delve into more interesting facets of the unconscious and how it affects your lives in upcoming blogs.  

Conformity. The desire to “fit in” and conform to the expectations of other people is something we all do. Conformity can take a variety of forms, sometimes unconscious and sometimes deliberate. The presence of conformity in our lives can make us act irrationally and have major impacts on our behaviors.  

One of the more interesting manifestations of conformity is something called the “chameleon effect”. Also known as unintentional mirroring, this effect describes when we unconsciously copy the actions of someone. In an experiment performed by psychologists Chartrand and Bargh, individuals were asked to have a conversation with one of the experimenters. One of the experimenters would wag their foot, touch their face, and play with their hair, while the other experimenter would sit in a neutral position. This experiment demonstrated that instances of foot wagging increased by 50% and face touching increased by 20% when the experimenter did those.

The results of the Chartrand-Bargh experiment may seem unremarkable and unimportant at first (I mean, who cares if I wag my foot 50% more). However, this experiment reveals a staggering amount about our psychology. It reveals that we care deeply about what others think about us. So much so, that we will unconsciously mimic the actions of others to “fit in” and conform to what they are doing.  

This phenomenon of conformity is more explicit in examples of mass hysteria. Mass hysteria is a sociopsychological phenomenon where large groups of people exhibit similar or identical symptoms. Frequently, these symptoms are not traceable to actual symptoms of medical conditions.

 One contemporary instance of mass hysteria occurred from 2011 to 2012. Twelve high school girls developed symptoms that resembled Tourette’s syndrome. After this case gained nation-wide attention, several more students came forward with similar symptoms. Eventually, all of these students were diagnosed with a conversion disorder, and the incident was determined to be mass hysteria. There currently exists no known toxin or infection that causes an immediate onset of the tics associated with Tourette’s syndrome.  

Another example of mass hysteria occurred in 2002 in North Carolina. A group of ten girls developed seizures, rashes, and other symptoms. These symptoms affected girls across grades and incidents tended to occur an hour after lunch. There is no known cause for these symptoms and this incident was labeled as mass hysteria. The notable aspect of this example is the fact that these people developed physiological symptoms. In the previous example, the symptoms could be produced intentionally. In this instance, however, the people experienced electrical irregularities in the brain and releases cytokines and histamines in their skin.  

The latter example demonstrates the extreme power that the brain has over our bodies. Even if we only think that we have a symptom, we can develop it. This is the same reasoning for why we experience the placebo effect.  

Fundamentally, these instances of mass hysteria and mimicry are all derived from an unconscious or conscious desire for acceptance from those around us.

We desire to be like those around us, and sometimes our brains make our bodies function in ways that seem outlandish. It is no surprise that those who experienced those cases of mass hysteria were all in the same social group.  

The sheer power of our unconscious brain prompts us to investigate further into the ways in which the unconscious affects our day-to-day lives, and we will be covering the ways that you are affected by your unconscious in the next few blogs.  

Lies. We lie all the time, but probably not in the way you think. When you hear the word “lie”, your mind immediately associates it with interpersonal lies. Interpersonal lies are the lies that we tell strangers, friends, loved ones, and family. The lies we will discuss today are intrapersonal lies. These intrapersonal lies are the lies that we tell ourselves.  

I propose that these intrapersonal lies represent a variety of coping mechanisms and that these intrapersonal lies are fundamental in the way that we live our lives. 

First, we must ask ourselves why we tell ourselves lies. Similar to the development of our change mindset (refer to the blog on Change), our propensity to lie to ourselves is developed at a young age. From infancy, we start to observe the world around us and make conclusions about that world. The unfortunate thing is that we lack critical thinking skills at this age. This leads us to internalize a lot of false information about the world.

For example, let’s suppose that you were rarely praised as a child. This will probably lead you to believe that there is something wrong with you. This will likely lead you to become a perfectionist. When people inevitably point out your imperfections, you will experience a lot of anxiety. More likely than not, you will lie to yourself and tell yourself that this anxiety does not stem from your childhood.  

Everyone has a unique childhood, and I could go on all day giving examples about how your value system and sources of emotional distress are attached to your childhood, but the important part is that we constantly lie to ourselves about how those past experiences affect us today.  

The idea that we constantly lie to ourselves is common in mainstream disciplines of psychology too: 

The concept of intrapersonal lying is found in psychoanalytical theory. Rationalization is the process by which we attempt to justify unacceptable thoughts/behaviors. For example, a smoker may say, “it’s okay that I smoke. I need to smoke in order to function”. Denial is a defense mechanism when we lie about the existence of a harmful belief or behavior. For example, a smoker may claim that they “don’t have a smoking problem” when confronted. 

Cognitive behavioral psychology focuses on our irrational thoughts and how they harm us. One of the irrational thoughts takes the form of emotional reasoning, “I feel like an idiot, so I must be an idiot”. This emotional reasoning is another way we lie to ourselves.   

These lies are harmful, and we see them in our everyday lives. People will pursue careers and maintain jobs that they hate because they tell themselves that they enjoy it deep down. These people will try and rationalize this by blaming their hatred for the job on the people they work with or how much they are being paid. It makes us uncomfortable to change major aspects of our lives (such as career) because they are usually connected to our irrational and axiomatic beliefs. 

We all lie to ourselves in one way or another, and it isn’t easy to confront this truth. We lie to ourselves because we don’t have the strength to recognize the truth. By recognizing the truth, we are forced to confront the consequent ramifications. Despite the difficulty of confronting this truth, it is very important that we do it. These intrapersonal lies harm us and force us to make decisions that are against our best interests. You must take an active role in analyzing your irrational beliefs and you must make the choice to be honest with yourself. Introspection and psychotherapy and both excellent ways we can remedy these harmful tendencies. Ultimately, by lying to ourselves, we are preventing ourselves from making meaningful and necessary changes to our lives.  

Roles. Roles are what makes us, us. They create our identity and tell us what we ought to be. There are many ways in which these roles can be created, but I propose that most people create and develop their roles as a coping mechanism.  

As established in the previous blog, most people are afraid of change. We associate change with fear, anxiety, and danger. As we develop, we realize that we must find ways to try and stop the change. Unfortunately for us, change is an inextricable part of life. We eventually conclude that attempting to control the world around us is the next best thing. After all, if we can make the world predictable, then change won’t be unexpected.  

There have been a variety of different coping mechanisms theorized by different psychologists. Universally, they are adaptations to our environment that give us psychological comfort. I propose a new form of coping mechanism called the “Faulty Role Creation”. 

First, we must ask ourselves, “what is a role?” Fundamentally, a role is an archetype of ourselves that we build through experience. It is a compilation of what our society and family expect us to be, and most importantly the things that we expect ourselves to be and the things that we expect to bring us happiness and fulfillment.  

Next, we must realize that many of the coping mechanisms are not rational processes. When we are creating and developing our sense of identity (our roles), we do it through social osmosis and other forms of observation. This developmental process requires little to no introspection. As a result, the sense of identity we build is not conducive to bringing us fulfillment or happiness. This irrationality is why the Role Creation is “Faulty”. Most of our identities are built on layers of presupposition and thoughtless accumulation of social/cultural information. 

This Faulty Role Creation starts at age 3 and can continue into adulthood. 3 years old is the age when we start to develop our sense of identity. The reality is that we accept our identity and roles as given, we rarely do introspection on our identity itself. We will explore the potential for harm with two abstract examples: 

1. For the last several centuries, women were held as second-class citizens. This perpetual oppression was, in part, preserved through the Faulty Role Creation mechanism. In their youth, children were raised to believe that women ought to be quiet and deferential to men. As a result, faulty beliefs of superiority and inferiority were engrained in the roles of children. The Faulty Roles of this era allowed for the perpetuation of the status quo for hundreds of years. 

2. Another example of the harm of the coping mechanism is seen in the archetypical nerd. In this context, a nerd is anyone who cares about getting very good grades. While this isn’t an inherently bad thing (I would fit under this definition myself), it is important to consider the reasons why we care about grades. Frequently, the person has developed a value system that revolves around being perceived as intelligent. This inevitably leads people to make major decisions (career, future education, etc.) based upon the erroneous belief that being intelligent or perceived as intelligent will bring them fulfillment in life. 

It is important to understand the mechanism of Faulty Role Creation. More importantly, introspection is a necessary step to see how this mechanism has affected our identity, value systems, and decisions. Finally, we must change the aspects of our roles that will harm us in favor of rationally created roles. 

Change. For better or for worse, change is an unavoidable aspect of our lives. From the moment we are born, we are launched into a never-ending journey of change. Fundamentally, psychology is an attempt to explain why we respond to change in the ways that we do.  

First, we must recognize that our behaviors rely on associations of cause and effect. The simplest example is Pavlov’s dogs. Simply put, a bell is rung right before a dog is given a treat. After many rounds of this, the dog will salivate at the sound of the bell. This conditioning can only occur because a cause is associated with an effect. Admirers of psychological theory will know that this association between cause and effect is the governing principle behind all forms of learning (classical, operant, observational). In simpler terms, the only way we learn new things is by associating a cause with an effect.  

                          Since change is such an omnipresent force in our lives, we are forced to confront it.                                    I propose that all humans follow a similar path of psychological development in response to change.  

From a young age, we seek comfort and protection from the world. This may take the form of the child’s mother, their binkie, a favorite blanket, or a variety of other items of comfort. Unfortunately for the child, change will occur. Something will happen to separate the child from their item of comfort. At this moment the child will start to associate change with fear. They will dread the moments of change and cherish the moments of stasis. It should be no surprise that separation anxiety is a phase that almost all children go through. 

Eventually, most children grow out of this fear and learn to tolerate the anxiety brought on from these separations. As the child grows, they learn that change is an inextricable part of their life. At this point, the child has two options: embrace change or resist it.  

Broadly speaking, children who resist change are worse off than those who don’t. Children who resist change will constantly be fighting against the society they are placed into. In modern society, they will resist when they are sent to school. They will dislike learning and will likely have problems paying attention in class. The child will have issues developing relationships and if relationships are formed, they will struggle to abandon them. On the other hand, children who embrace change will have easier times adapting to new environments and will be more sociable with others. In modern society, they will learn information more easily and have higher levels of general well-being.  

I will add a caveat that these are broad generalizations and that people who embrace change frequently make poor decisions. As established in the previous blog post, we don’t really know the things that will make us happy. It would be the corollary that we lack the introspection to make the changes that are best for us.  

People frequently perceive change as a bad thing. From my perspective, this is more than understandable; we are raised from infancy to be fearful of changes. That being said, I encourage you to take an active role in your life. Don’t sit around and let things happen to you. Change is inevitable and the best thing we can do for ourselves is to be conscientious of our actions and make an active effort to embrace change.

Happiness. To some, it is volunteering at your community garden and giving back to your community. To others, it is jamming out to your favorite band into the wee hours of the morning. Throughout history, every society has had a word for happiness and all those societies have tried to find the best ways to achieve happiness. But even in 2020, we seem no closer to knowing how to achieve happiness or what happiness entails.

I propose that the enigmatic nature of happiness stems from the fact that humans don’t truly want happiness.

Initially, this viewpoint seems to be axiomatically false. Most people would say to themselves that, “well, of course I want to be happy”. However, this reflexive rejection is only evidence of the conformist nature of happiness. From a young age we are conditioned to believe that happiness is critically important, and that we should strive for it endlessly. Our culture and our society constantly reinforce the idea that happiness is desirable over anything else. You can prove this concept to yourself too; the next time you’re getting to know someone, ask them “what is the number 1 goal in your life?”, you shouldn’t be surprised if they say that their goal is to be happy.

The idea that most people don’t want to be happy, while initially confusing, is easily demonstrated through a few examples. In the early history of nuclear chemistry, most scientists acknowledged and were willing to die from nuclear radiation. These scientists’ passions for their work outweighed any consideration for their personal happiness. There is also the notorious story of the underpaid artist who continues their work because they are passionate about it. While this feeling may sound foreign, chances are that you have also felt it. If you have ever gotten yourself into a creative project, you have felt that feeling of “oh my god, I’m really onto something here! I can’t wait to finish this project!”. This feeling of euphoria applies to all domains of interest. Something universal to these experiences is that happiness does not come into the equation. When you are in this state of excitement, you aren’t thinking of whether it will bring you happiness or not, and you are not afraid of suffering to complete the project.

The idea of humans not truly caring about being happy is also born out in data. Many polls have shown that people say they care about happiness more than money, but these people also say that they are unwilling to work for happiness. Sadly, for those who strive for money aren’t any likelier to become happy.

There is even psychological evidence to suggest that what people are often associate with happiness is just an absence of misery. Within psychometric psychology, the evidence seems to show that we don’t know the things that will make us happy. As the evidence continues to develop, we may find that the pursuit of happiness and being happy will not bring people the most fulfillment.

Often, people will perceive this message as cynical and pessimistic. Given the social conditioning that surrounds the concept of happiness, I can’t blame them. My view, however, is contrary to these peoples’. I believe that creativity and passion are the essences of life. Happiness is not the end-all-be-all of our lives, and to endlessly strive for it is only going to be met with disappointment. For those who find themselves struggling to find fulfillment, find something you love, and are passionate about and pursue it.