Abstraction. Put simply, it is when we summarize or abstract something into simpler terms so we can understand it more easily. There are obvious examples such as a scientific paper’s abstract, or when you try to summarize the plot of a movie to a friend. However, we abstract more than you realize. In fact, we abstract incessantly.

The type of abstraction I am referring to is the abstraction of others.

Whether you realize it or not, we constantly engage in the abstraction of others. In fact, most (if not all) of our social engagements are veiled by many layers of abstraction.

For example, suppose I have a friend named Jill. I perceive Jill as kind, generous, and intelligent — these are the attributes that construct my mental schema of who Jill is. However, in reality, Jill is far more complex than my mental schema of who she is. Maybe I’m able to approximate who Jill is, but that approximation will never be accurate. In essence, I have abstracted Jill into an imaginary person. This imaginary, abstracted form of Jill is who I interact with. This abstracted form is what encodes my interactions, thoughts, and feelings about Jill.

This process of abstraction (and its inherent inaccuracy) reveal much about our social interactions. The foremost example of the importance of abstraction is when it comes to romantic relationships.

For example, suppose Jill falls in love with a boy named Sam. Initially, Jill and Sam were just friends, but Jill grew fond of Sam because she thought he was smart, funny, and cheery. However, as time goes on, it appears that this mental construct of Sam (a smart, funny, and cheery person) is inaccurate and in reality, Sam has many flaws. The contradiction of Sam’s abstraction and Sam’s actions may lead the couple to separate.

This example is hypothetical but it demonstrates the fact that many relationships end because our mental schema of another is inaccurate. Our abstraction of others precludes us from understanding others as unique, complex, and messy. Instead, we compartmentalize others into inaccurate and overly simplistic categories.

I’m not entirely sure why humans have such a proclivity towards this behavior of abstraction. One reason might be our desire for knowledge. Or more accurately, our aversion to the unknown. If we convince ourselves that we know who someone is (by abstracting them), then we think we can predict and foresee their actions and behaviors. Alternatively, our brains may not be wired to understand the complexities of human nature and human behavior; it is only with introspection and thoughtfulness that we can acknowledge our shortcomings in this area.

Also, I think it’s a good exercise to rigorously challenge the way we perceive others and to view others as complex individuals who are more complex than we can imagine.

Since the conception of psychology, one of the major goals has been to create a lens of analysis to understand the human psyche. Early psychological methods focused heavily on the utilization of introspection as a means to understand human consciousness. From this foundation, Gestaltian, Psychoanalytic, and Behavioral theories were developed. For reasons I won’t mention in this blog, I believe that there are one or more issues with each of these perspectives. Thus, this blog will begin to develop my own theory of psychology.

The human psyche can be understood as a relation between the Imagined and the Actual.

First, we can start with the definition of the Imagined and the Actual. Reductively, the Imagined describes one’s beliefs about the world, while the “Actual” describes one’s perceptions of the world.

The “Imagined” is a term that describes a person’s internal structures. The Imagined can then be broken down into three subdivisions of “Imagined Self”, “Imagined Other” and “Imagined External”. As the names imply, the Imagined Self describes the internalized construction you’ve created for yourself. For example, an element of your Imagined Self might be that you perceive yourself to be intelligent, or athletic, or funny. The “Imagined Other” describes an internalized construction that you have created of another person. For example, the Imagined Other of your father may be that he is moral, or that he is generous, or that he is intelligent. Finally, the “Imagined External” is a broad category to describe the things we believe about the world. For example, an element of one’s Imagined External might be that “the United States should be the police of the world”.

The “Actual” is a term that describes how a person perceives the world. Admittedly, the term “Actual” is a bit misleading; one might think that the Actual describes something that is empirical or factual, but when it comes to an individual’s psychology, perceptions of the world are what matters–not what is empirically verifiable.

The Actual can also be broken into three subdivisions of “Actual Self”, “Actual Other”, and “Actual External”. Predictably, the “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.  Similarly, “Actual Other” is a term that describes the conception of others that is constructed through their actions. Finally, the “Actual External” is a term that describes the world as we perceive it to be.

While these definitions and their nuances can be complicated, if you refer to the underlined definition you will be able to understand my theory. Understanding the relationship between our Imagined and Actual will be the basis of my theory. In the upcoming blogs, I will articulate what occurs when our Imagined and Actual coincide or contradict each other. Furthermore, I will relate these concepts of the Actual and Imagined to a variety of psychological disorders, phenomenons, and occurrences. If you have any particular topic you would like to see written about, please comment below!