In recalling his ride on an old salt of a horse (who of course knew better), Haidt says, “I had gotten it all wrong because I had spent the previous ten years driving cars, not horses.  Cars go over edges unless you tell them not to.”  [Oh; and horses don’t.]  This anecdote prefaces his mind metaphor, here being Haidt, the rider, as the conscious part and the horse the “automatic processing” part.  A divided self (mind): the rider afraid of walking over the edge, the horse (of course) knowing better and turning to follow the trail…

 

Human thinking depends on metaphor.  We understand new or complex things in relation to things we already know.  E.g., it’s difficult to think about life in general, but when you apply the metaphor “life is a journey…” it guides one to some conclusions and leads one to make other connections.

 

Haidt’s metaphor for the mind: A rider on an elephant.  The rider represents the conscious, “rational” part (i.e., the “I think, therefore I am”); the elephant is all the rest (i.e., the unconscious “automatic” processing parts [like for breathing, digestion, associating, emotions generator, memory managers, learning organizers, etc]).

 

“To understand the most important ideas in psychology, you need to understand: The mind is “divided” into parts that sometimes conflict.”  As we will see…

 

Montaigne…suggested that each part of the body has its own emotion and its own agenda (his particular favorite was the penis).  Hearts race, tongues are tied, the bowels [seem to] have a “mind of their own.”  In fact, “our intestines are lined with neurons, and these run the incredible chemical factory that processes and extracts the nutrients we need.”  This “gut brain” is pretty much independent of the head brain, possessing a high degree of autonomy…

 

“The three lower chakras (energy centers) correspond to the colon/anus, sexual organs, and gut.  The gut chakra is even said to be the source of ‘gut feelings’ and ‘intuitions.’”

 

Split-brain studies show the mind is “a confederation of modules” capable of working independently, sometimes even at cross purposes.  Confabulation (more later) can occur when the rider makes “rational connections” even though the sources of these supposed connections are false (i.e., completely disassociated).

 

It’s also been determined from such studies that the right brain is better at some things and the left others; hence, one of the common “understandings” of right-brained thinkers as artistic, creative, and “free-wheeling” while the left-brained ones are more scientific, analytical, and literal.

 

A note here [re these first two “divisions”]:  The “divided self” doesn’t mean conflicted but does mean the potential to be conflicted.

 

“Old” parts of the limbic system (i.e., deep brain) were hindbrain (connected to the spinal column), midbrain, and forebrain (connected to the sensory organs).  “New” brain developed out the front, yielding the hypothalamus – specialized to coordinate basic drives and motivations (including regulating bodily temperature, certain metabolic processes, and other autonomous activities); the hippocampus – specialized for memory; and the amygdala – specialized for emotional learning and responding.

 

An even newer part, the neocortex, developed into thinking, planning, and decision-making; perhaps this frontal cortex is “the seat of reason,” Haidt’s “reasonable” rider on the “emotional” elephant.  Recent research suggests the frontal cortex also plays an important role in suppressing or inhibiting behavioral impulses.

 

Human rationality depends critically on sophisticated emotionality.  It is only because our emotional brain [functioning] works so well that our reasoning can work at all(!).  (Loss of or damage to the orbitofrontal cortex reduces or impairs emotional experience, resulting not in unfettered reason [i.e., free of emotional bias or influence] but in confusion – of desire, value, and direction.)

 

Thus, reason and emotion must both work together to create intelligent behavior…but emotion (according to Haidt) – a major part of the elephant – does most of the work(!).

 

In other words (i.e., Haidt’s), when the neocortex came along, it made the rider possible but it made the elephant much smarter (as in more potentially capable of doing [whatever]), too.

 

The Promethean script of human evolution is a metaphor – imperfect and flawed, but still useful – that can describe the development (evolution) of this frontal cortex [and its] capacity to reason which “liberated” our ancestors to transcend being “mere animals” governed by the primitive emotions and drives of the limbic system.  It refers to the Greek mythological character who stole fire (i.e., “rationality”) from the gods…

 

There are “parallel processing systems” at work in the mind at all times. One is “controlled” processing – our conscious, potentially rational, and notably singular (i.e., we can only [claims to “multitasking” aside] process one thread of reasoning at a time). The others (note the plural) are “automatic” processes – operating “below the radar,” managing all sorts of bodily activities as well as both intellectual and emotional functions.

 

Controlled processing [the domain of the Rider] is limited (but not necessarily limiting)…and, it requires language(!).  Is it “king” over the subject automatic processes [the Elephant] that are occurring simultaneously?  Well, actually, no.  Well, actually (according to Haidt), not even close.

 

Together, they share “a common space” (i.e., the body); but they are highly interdependent.  The rider’s role – as possessor of [potential] rationality – is more an advisor or servant; the elephant, in contrast, is everything else [i.e., the source of gut feeling, intuition, and visceral reaction, as well as the root of and “mule” for emotions].  The rider and the elephant each have their own intelligence – and, when they work together well, enable the unique brilliance of human beings.

But – obviously – they don’t always work in harmony…

 

Marshmallows (one now or two later) and the lesson of delayed gratification.  Automatic processes can overwhelm “the controlling one” – for they operate 24/7 while the conscious effort will both tire (like an overused muscle) and/or become distracted by all the other “demands” on its [finite] attention.  In other words, willpower – which is a “tool” (akin to the reins of the rider) to try to influence the elephant to behave in a certain way (or move in a certain “direction”) – can be undermined by the relentless influence of the automatic processing.  I.e., what is temptation becomes obsession becomes irrefutable; and one will, without the use of other tactics (or, again, “tools”), give in.

 

One known “tool” is to learn (what and how to implement) strategies of stimulus control.  For example, an emotionally intelligent person has “a skilled rider” who knows (has learned) how to distract and coax the elephant without having to engage in direct contest of wills.  In other words, the rider “knows” where he would like to go but the elephant also “knows” what it wants; and while may have “legitimate” cause, the result is a “divided self,” one in conflict and at cross-purposes.

E.g., it may sound obvious (but it’s not) that one way to diet is to find ways not to think about food.  But it is possible…like developing daily routines, exercising, staying (exceptionally) busy during the dietary period, reading (or any mentally engaging activity [problem-solving, research, planning, artistic endeavor…], or developing a new interest[s]).

 

Failure of self-control may have little to do with weakness of character and more to do with the uninformed or inexperienced or unself-confident rider.  But the human potential is to make a difference.

 

In other words, one challenge for the rider is to find ways to affect what the elephant will want in the future.

 

Another “disharmony” is presented in Poes’s Imp of the Perverse.  In this the perfect crime succeeds and relief in “I am safe” works…until the “mental intrusion” (i.e., a simple but unsought thought), like “I am safe – yes – if I be not fool enough to make open confession,” starts to work its insidious cancer.  With that thought, “he becomes undone.”

Another mental intrusion: “Don’t think of a watermelon.” 

 

What results?  Minor obsessions – created by instructing one not to obsess.  For when one engages a specific goal (a conscious [rider aware] process), the automatic processing kicks in to “help” monitor progress, order corrections, or determine success.  When the goal is an action in the world (like arriving somewhere on time), the system works well.  But when the goal is mental, it backfires!  The conscious and automatic are at cross-purposes – and it becomes a self-defeating vicious loop.

 

The brother/sister making love example – how is one to explain (as in justify) one’s negative judgment?  Sometimes moral judgment is like aesthetic judgment – it seems (and probably is) beyond rational/principled/logical explanation.  And the attempt to explain or argue one’s position dissembles into confabulation (i.e., to unconsciously “rationalize” and create arguments to defend the feeling/ emotion/ reaction when conscious reasoning fails to adequately or convincingly explain or defend). 

 

It is not “the cart before the horse” scenario as in feelings should somehow be the result of rational behavior, principled beliefs, or enlightened values.  While some feelings are the result of the rider’s efforts (e.g., success/pride in completing a task, especially a difficult one), some (maybe even most?) are conjured up by the elephant!  E.g., what does make the chemistry in relationship?

 

And thus we come to the futility of rationality in winning an argument – when (say) two people feel strongly but are at odds about something, feelings come first…and the reasons “given” or “argued” were only made up to support the feeling.  Punching holes (when the other person’s rider attempts to give “reasons”) does nothing to effect some change in their elephant’s feelings.

 

Haidt: “If you listen closely to moral arguments, you can sometimes hear something surprising: that it is really the elephant holding the reins, guiding the rider.  It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly.  Gut feelings, intuitions, and snap judgments happen constantly and automatically – but only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people.  In moral arguments, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes a lawyer, an advocate, fighting in the court of public opinion to persuade others of the elephant’s point of view.”

 

“We tend to be,” says Haidt, “like the proverbial drunken man looking for his car keys under the street light…”[1] His point being that, even while we so often are, we don’t have to be.

 

We are all conflicted; it is in the nature of the human construct, a physical being which houses a mind consisting of – and trying to manage – many parts and functions, and in which fate and forces seemingly beyond comprehension must be reconciled with the innate capacity to understand.  “Really, we are the whole thing.  We are the rider, and we are the elephant (and all that it entails).  Both have their strengths and special skills.”

 

“[What follows] is about how complex and partly clueless creatures such as ourselves can get along with each other, find happiness, grow psychologically and morally, and find purpose and meaning in our lives.”

 

“But first…we have to figure out why the elephant is such a pessimist…”

 

 

[1]As the story goes, the cop asks the drunk what he’s doing on his hands and knees crawling around on a street corner around midnight. The drunk says he dropped his keys somewhere near his parked car back there. The cop then asks why are you looking here?  And the drunk says, “Because the light’s better here…”

 

*Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis, 2006