I tried asking my therapist about this but I don’t think they understood me very well, or I just didn’t explain it well. I wanted to ask if anyone here experiences a similar thing and maybe has a definition or term for it.
I feel like, from the outside, people are generally a more homogenous mixture of things. I.e, they have thoughts, opinions, actions that aren’t independent of the rest of themselves but are more the “average” of their personality. They might feel conflicted about things, but that’s more when they have two or more paths that diverge from their “average.”
But for me I feel like my thoughts are more like oil and water. They don’t really mix.
For instance, I can be really materialist [as in, Bourgeois materialism] sometimes. Like I fantasize about having things and being free and being a libertine.
Conversely I simultaneously fantasize about being a monk/nun/hermit, who’s existence is devoted to teaching people and having very little possessions.
Sometimes I love having money. I sometimes I go on impulsive spending sprees. Other times I hate having money and feeling like I have wealth, and want to donate a lot (unfortunately I can’t do that with my current lack of funds)
Or simultaneously lll have a very big and very small ego. Like having both a superiority complex and imposter syndrome at the same time. One minute I can be complimenting myself on my work and imagining how important I can be. Other times I’ll wish I was never born and think I’m less than useless.
It’s not that I don’t see these thoughts as obviously contradictory, because obviously they are. It’s like I’m constantly being pulled in two different directions. Like I have one personality that’s high ego, highly libertine and hyper independent who doesn’t want anyone, while at the same time I have another who has less than zero self esteem, wants to be a spartan or a monk or a nun, and is insanely fearful of doing anything without an authority figure’s approval. It’s not DID because i don’t disassociate and I don’t think they’re literally two seperate people, but I feel like this isn’t how thoughts are supposed to work…
Sounds like “splitting”, also known as binary thinking. I think snek_boi is right that this kind of thing is normal (to a point), especially when we’re taking into account dealing with contradictions and unstable social dynamics (such as capitalism).
Where it is (probably) abnormal in the psychological view is when a person is essentially ignoring/excluding the middle ground and forgoing a holistic view in favor of vacillating between extremes. This is not to say that everyone who ever vacillates is abnormal (or even that being abnormal is inherently a “bad” thing - sometimes different does not warrant being judged). Just that if it’s a chronic, pervasive thing that neglects a more holistic view, and especially if it’s causing the person distress, it may suggest a broader issue.
For an example of middle ground and holistic view, consider it like the following. Instead of:
“I suck” OR “I’m amazing” (mutually-exclusive possibilities)
What if it was a chart of pros and cons?
“I’m skilled at hockey”. “I struggle with grasping baking.” (Noting that these are not immutable and the position could change with time, effort, and direction.)
Or even more nuanced:
“I understand well how to combine ingredients, but I struggle with kneading dough.”
The more you break it down, the harder it is to cling to a binary view. Notably, however, capitalism turns our skills and attributes into commodity. This pushes us toward binary representation of ourselves. Who would a capitalist company more want to hire, someone with a resume that highlights a long career of accomplishments (painting them as an expert in the given field)? Or someone who explains exactly where they excel in the field and struggle in it, in spite of the fact that doing so may immediately make it sound like they are unequipped for the specific role the company is trying to fill?
In this context, it should be no small wonder people can have imposter syndrome: they are dressing up the complex realities of their skillset into a generalized lie of an identity in order to sell it and when harsh realities threaten the lie, it undermines their confidence. It becomes a matter of “am I an X or am I not? if I’m not, then what am I?” Instead of “I have some experience in Xa, Xb, but I struggle in Xc, Xd, and so on.”
I get what you’re saying I think. For me it’s hard to compare because I’m always unsure what’s natural and what’s instigated by my thoughts.
It’s like observing a quantum system. If I actively try to recognize my thoughts with XYZ behavior, often it’s hard to tell if they’re caused by a problem or by the act of thinking about them. [I.e, I can’t force intrusive thoughts with my OCD since they wouldn’t be intrusive anymore]. Unfortunately letting things happen and examining them afterwards usually hurts ):
Many, many schools of psychology would say you’re totally normal.
Let’s start with your experience of having different, sometimes opposite, thoughts. This is normal. Humans have incredibly flexible meaning-making machines (our brains, our cognition).
Our meaning-making machines are able to explore thoughts very flexibly. We can quickly build mental palaces of meaning out of thought Legos. We can build a Lego tower that points to the south. And a Lego tower that points in the opposite direction, north. We can sometimes only notice the southward tower or only the northward tower. Sometimes we can notice both.
motivation as vector sums
One way to think about this incredible flexibility is to think of vectors. If you know mathematical vectors and feel comfortable with them, keep on reading this section. Otherwise feel free to skip it.
Our thoughts project (in the vector sense) onto our motivation vector.
Sometimes we bring some thoughts to the table that increase our motivation to do a specific behavior. Sometimes we bring thoughts to the table that decrease our motivation to do a specific behavior. Sometimes we bring both thoughts to the table and we project those thoughts onto our motivation vector and find their sums.
All the vectors are constantly moving. We’re constantly shifting our motivations. We feel hunger, so we’re motivated to eat. We feel full, so we’re not motivated to eat. We fantasize with our new hobby, so we’re motivated to go at it. We are tired after work, so we’re not motivated to go at it. You get the idea.
a coherent whole
So when we have these thoughts, it’s natural to search for coherence. Humans have a yearning for coherence. You feel this yearning, clearly.
However, not all coherence is the same. There is literal coherence, which is when we try to make sense of it all. I’ve got some sad news for you: we can’t make sense of it all.
So what can we do? Functional coherence. We can judge not based on “does this make literal sense” but “does this help me in this context”.
You probably have a gut sense of this. Does it help you to live a good life to worry about your incompatible thoughts? Maybe sometimes! Although likely not always.
This also applies to our identities, or what you call your personality. We could insist on being a specific, conceptualized version of ourselves: “I am coherent”. Or you can focus on a broader version of yourself: “I contain contradictions and that’s fine”.
why am I so different?
So that’s the very human process you’re going through. But what about other people?
I’ve got good news for you: you’re not alone. We all deal with contradictions. We all struggle with meaning-making, coherence, and our identities.
So why don’t you notice it? Because you know your inner world and you don’t know the inner world of others. In psychology this is sometimes called psychological asymmetry. It’s a thing.
Other times, you don’t notice others’ inner struggles because they hide them. Sometimes, people are obsessed with literal coherence or with a conceptualized self. “Capitalism is the best and only way forward. And to survive in it I need to be a strong Alpha Male ™️”. You bet this poor little young man will not let you see his inner struggles for meaning, coherence, and belonging.
But rest assured, we all have a yearning for belonging, a yearning for coherence, and a yearning for meaning-making.
Edit: Fixed a mistake. I mistakenly said “logical coherence” when what I meant was “literal coherence”.
There is logical coherence, which is when we try to make sense of it all. I’ve got some sad news for you: we can’t make sense of it all.
can you elaborate on exactly what you mean by this?
Sure.
To begin with, I made a mistake. I meant “literal coherence”, not “logical coherence”, but my overall point still stands.
Literal coherence is a skill humans have. We develop when we develop the skill of language. Once we have it, we see the world through concepts, concepts that help us make sense of reality. This kind of coherence is lived, experiential, and situated in ourselves.
Here’s an example of how concepts help us make sense of reality and how they help us solve problems: “The car’s wiggling a bit. Oh. Maybe I’ve got a flat tire. I should stop, get out, and check. Oh, that’s definitely a flat tire. I should go to the trunk where I’ve got the spare tire and the tools to replace the tire.”
However, life is not that always that simple.
For example, some situations cannot really be solved.
Take as an example the death of a loved one. That hurts. So much. This pain is seen by our meaning-making machines and sometimes it tries to solve that pain. We may try to distract ourselves with videogames, or feel better with food or drugs— the options are endless. And yet nothing can truly solve that pain.
The alternative to literal coherence is to use both our meaning-making machines and our felt experience to notice what is useful. This is functional coherence. We may notice that it’s not useful to insist on feeling good all the time. We may notice that it’s okay to feel pain. We stop trying to make sense of pain so that we can solve it, and we start to accept life so that we can live it.
Another way in which we cannot make sense of it all is that reality is not an ordered system, at least not all of it. Some phenomena are chaotic, like brownian motion. Other phenomena is complex, like the teams at my workplace. We may be able to notice some features of these chaotic or complex systems, but we cannot understand them fully. Why can’t we understand them fully? Because if we could, they would not be chaotic or complex, they’d be ordered systems.
Take as an example the death of a loved one. That hurts. So much. This pain is seen by our meaning-making machines and sometimes it tries to solve that pain. We may try to distract ourselves with videogames, or feel better with food or drugs— the options are endless. And yet nothing can truly solve that pain.
sure, i think it’s obvious that some people turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms when faced with negative emotions. but, i think this is actually done in the absence of conscious, practiced thought (i.e. “meaning-making machines”) rather than because of it. i think it takes a pretty strong, well-taught, and well-practiced meaning-making machine to be consciously aware of our emotions and to correctly recognize that oftentimes the best way to resolve a negative emotion is to process it. i also think it takes conscious, practiced thought to recognize whether or not a contradiction requires interaction with the external world (replacing a tire) or interaction with the internal world (processing an emotion). in this way i think it’s totally reasonable to say that people have the ability to “make sense of it all,” including themselves.
Another way in which we cannot make sense of it all is that reality is not an ordered system, at least not all of it. Some phenomena are chaotic, like brownian motion. Other phenomena is complex, like the teams at my workplace. We may be able to notice some features of these chaotic or complex systems, but we cannot understand them fully. Why can’t we understand them fully? Because if we could, they would not be chaotic or complex, they’d be ordered systems.
yes, there are inherently elements of literal (natural) and effectual (i.e. due to complexity) randomness to reality. but, i think claiming that because there is inherent randomness to reality that reality is necessarily not determined (i.e. ordered) is an undialectical, binary error. the dialectical approach doesn’t ask “is reality random or determined?” it asks “is reality more random or more determined?” in other words, is the randomness (and subjectivity, let’s not forget about relativity) inherent to the universe the exception to the rule, or is it indicative of the rule itself? i think the answer is that it is pretty clearly the exception: how would scientific advancement in either the natural sciences or in socialism be possible/likely if reality was more chaotic than it was ordered?
as far as not being able to understand things fully (whether due to inherent internal or external limitations), frankly i don’t really understand the problem. why does not being able to understand something fully make it impossible for you or anyone to “make sense of it all”? we use simplifications of complex phenomena to understand them and to be able to function in the world. in other words, we intuitively and structurally prioritize general over specific knowledge, we prioritize laws over their exceptions. sure, this is not a complete understanding of the world, but it certainly is functional, is it not? furthermore, the increasing specialization of knowledge allowed by the development of society enables us to understand things on a more and more complex/specific level. in other words, in multiple ways i do think we can “make sense of it all,” at least to the greatest extent possible.
Seems normal to me, I personally relate to most of this although there was no time where I wished I was never born and I never thought I was useless. Everyone is useful and should be born except fascists. Humans are contractionary creatures. It is good on you for being so introspective.
When my contemplation gets too deep,
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Ah! whose brain did I put in? Igor: Abby someone. Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who? Igor: Abby…Normal.
Jung would say you need to accept then integrate your shadow.
depends on ur age, if youre a teenager this is quite normal before our self concept stabilizes. it can also be BPD (i have it) and u go into black and white thinking.
