Skip to main content

Narrative and Intuitive Thinking as a Cycle

Did you know that you can subscribe to the Two Minds Blog?
Just click on the button with 3 horizontal bars at the upper right, enter your email address, and click the "get email notifications" button. Then you will get an email whenever a new blog entry is posted. You can also copy this address https://twomindstheory.blogspot.com, and post it into your favorite news reader program -- anything that accepts an RSS feed.


I’m excited to announce the publication of a major advance in Two Minds Theory! After the 2018 publication of TMT, I struggled to explain how the narrative system might have any effect at all on behavior. Based on many people’s experiences it seemed true that it did, but all my efforts to describe how led back to the old idea of the Narrative Mind as “executive control” and the goal of making people’s behavior more Narratively and less Intuitively controlled. This is similar to Kahneman’s idea that we would all be better off if only our “lazy” Narrative System would be more active.

Unfortunately, I also knew there was no room in TMT for any direct influence of the Narrative System on behavior — it’s a central point of the theory that narratives exert no direct control. You can also see this in your own experience: Imagine trying to catch a ball. If you take the time to think “now I am raising my arm; now I am opening my fingers; now I am wrapping them around ...” the result will be the ball hitting you in the face while you cogitate. The process of conscious thought is simply too slow to effectively oversee any of our everyday behaviors.

CU PhD student Laurel Messer solved my problem by suggesting that the relationship between the Intuitive and Narrative systems can be most clearly seen as a cycle. Her new cycle diagram, above, replaces the more linear diagram in our original TMT publication. Laurel’s version adds a time lag in between the Intuitive response and the Narrative one, which is a better representation than my original diagram showing the two processes in parallel.

In Laurel’s version of the TMT diagram, a stimulus leads to an immediate reaction at the Intuitive level of the mind, and this “gut reaction” then leads right away to behavior. The behavior in many cases then has consequences (recognizing of course that other consequences are delayed — eating a slice of cake now feels good, but maybe later I will regret it). By the time the Narrative mind gets to weigh in, all of these things are available data with which to construct a narrative — the stimulus itself, the subjective perception and emotional response, the behavior, and the consequence (at least the immediate one). The Narrative mind then has the role of commentator, observing the action and telling a story about what just happened.

In what way, then, does the Narrative mind affect behavior? TMT posits that narratives themselves can lead to different Intuitive-level responses. Laurel’s contribution was to clarify that the Narrative response comes too late to affect behavior THIS time around, but a new narrative can make a difference the NEXT time one finds oneself in a similar situation. 

The Narrative mind is still just one of many influences on the Intuitive mind, and much of Intuitive thinking remains a black box, so even with this new understanding we can’t expect people to suddenly become rational Narrative beings. But the new version of TMT might help to generate better understandings and methods or helping people change.

You can read Laurel’s full paper here. It also features an application of TMT to the self-management behaviors of adolescents with type 1 diabetes, a population that we haven’t discussed before. I’m excited by the many possible applications of this new way of representing Two Minds Theory. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Years of Anxiety Taught Me About Balancing Two Minds

  Guest post by Dr. Britt Ritchie, DNP, PMHNP-BC   First, a huge thank-you to Dr. Paul Cook for inviting me to contribute here. Paul was my Division Chair when I worked at the University of Colorado (CU) as an assistant professor. During that time, he saw me at one of my most vulnerable points—grappling with anxiety so intense it almost made me abruptly quit my job. I knew it was social anxiety—the kind of fear marked by an overwhelming sense of being judged, embarrassed, or humiliated in front of others—but knowing the label didn’t make it any easier to manage in the moment. Because of that shared history, it feels especially fitting to write about my experience lecturing during my time at CU through the lens of Paul’s Two Minds Theory. I can still picture the lecture hall—the rows of students, the humming projector, the fluorescent lights that were both too hot and too bright. On paper, I was prepared. I had spent hours rehearsing, editing slides, and reviewing notes. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Self-Determination Theory Through the Lens of Two Minds

  Self-determination theory  (SDT) is a framework for understanding human motivation. It gained a great deal of popularity as a possible explanation for the effects of motivational interviewing  (MI), although MI's primary creator William Miller has said that his understanding of MI is atheoretical . It is certainly the case that MI came about long before SDT was used to explain it. And it's also true that SDT was an established model with its own body of research before it was ever linked to MI. But Stephen Rollnick, Miller's co-author in his most important works on MI, has specifically said that he considers SDT to provide the theoretical explanation for MI's success. Deci and Ryan (2000) propose six "mini-theories" or propositions that together make up SDT: 1. intrinsic motivation  is a strong predictor of behavior, and is related to feelings of competence and autonomy. The intrinsic/extrinsic motivation distinction is an old one in psychology, reflecting ...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Pursuit of Digital Badges

  What's the appeal of digital badges? I used to think that only a crazy person would be motivated to exercise just to move some electrons around on their smartphone screen. My phone would notify me that a new challenge was available each month, and I would routinely ignore it. I felt no pain or consternation about this -- in fact, I never gave it a second thought, or never notice the challenge at all. But for the past few months it seems that I'm among those who increase their activity level just because their iPhone tells them to (my latest badges shown above). Why does this seemingly stupid behavior-change strategy work, and why did it start working for me when it didn't help me before? First, it's important to know that rewards do motivate behavior. In a previous post on behaviorism I provided some background on how this works by training the Intuitive Mind. Two Minds Theory posits that the final stage before a behavior is produced by the Intuitive Mind (after proc...
Post a Comment
Read more