Forum Posts Feed
Debunking the "1,000 hours of practice" myth
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Nov 14, 2011 at 11:39 PM
JB, thanks for clarifying - I wasn’t sure at the time whether you were referring to Chris, or to me, or to both of us.
I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you are referring to by subconscious. What do you mean by subconscious?
Your paragraph where you do offer some explanation leaves me with questions.
If by subconscious you do not “mean that which is below one’s conscious awareness, but rather that which is generated by one’s subconscious and then bubbles into consciousness,” then how it can be the subconscious which you are defining? It seems like you are saying it is the product of the subconscious which is the subconscious - and I cannot see you meaning that. But it is what your words seem to say.
In terms of the inner monologue, who is to say it is logical? Or illogical? Or that it initiates and directs thought processes? My inner monologue often has maladaptive content (thoughts), and being aware of the inner monologue which is occurring, allows me to think more adaptively. The inner monologue, whether carried on at the level of consciousness or below (ie the subconscious), is itself a thought process. And, it may also be useful in initiating or directing thought processes.
In your last paragraph I’d agree that the inner monologue may at times be detrimental. However, that is different from saying conscious awareness of the inner monologue is detrimental. Conscious awareness provides the opportunity to create changes in the monologue.
I would say it is mind like water which enables one to be more aware of inner monologue - and - whether or not the inner monologue is helpful or not.
It is good to be in a mind like water state as much as possible. Where I would quibble is that mind like water is not necessarily the antithesis of the inner monologue. In fact they are very different things, and do not equate at opposities of each other. Lack of awareness of the inner monologue or an inability to remain detached from it so as to make useful choices in the moment, are issues. But if one has mind like water, these issues are less likely to be the problem they might otherwise be.
And one will more likely be open to whatever benefits the inner monologue may offer.
Daly
JBfrom wrote:
>Clearly I need to avoid pronouns. I was addressing Chris, not Daly with that previous
>comment. Overall I think Daly’s understanding of it is pretty good.
>
>Although
>Daly’s last post misinterprets what I’m referring to by “subconscious”.
>
>I don’t
>mean that which is below one’s conscious awareness, but rather that which is
>generated by one’s subconscious and then bubbles into consciousness, as opposed to
>thought processes that are initiated and directed by the logical inner monologue.
>
>
>In general, I find the inner monologue to be detrimental, and seek to stay in a mind
>like water state as much as possible.
Posted by JBfrom
Nov 15, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Yes, that is precisely what I meant, however confusing my shorthand may be.
The inner monologue is logical insofar as it is limited to one word after another and therefore at best represents a linear, logical sequence of linguistic meaning. The subconscious mind is not so limited.
In my view, it is a simple question of info throughput. One pipe is big and the other is small.
If you allow the little pipe to be your rate limiter, the big pipe will be way under capacity, yet it abhors a vacuum. Bad things ensue.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Nov 15, 2011 at 02:32 AM
JB, your definition of logical is interesting.
But to me, it is like saying that because one makes one step after another by definition one walks in a straight line.
I don’t know about you, but I have had inner monologues which, though they may have been one word after another, were far from logical.
My point in the previous post was that inner monologues may occur either consciously or otherwise.
I think the big pipe, little pipe analogy reflects, at least on the surface, a simplistic approach to the way the mind works.
If there’s a limiting factor I would suggest it is linked to our ability to be mindful - the less mindful we are the more we are limited.
Daly
JBfrom wrote:
>Yes, that is precisely what I meant, however confusing my shorthand may be.
>
>The
>inner monologue is logical insofar as it is limited to one word after another and
>therefore at best represents a linear, logical sequence of linguistic meaning. The
>subconscious mind is not so limited.
>
>In my view, it is a simple question of info
>throughput. One pipe is big and the other is small.
>
>If you allow the little pipe to be
>your rate limiter, the big pipe will be way under capacity, yet it abhors a vacuum. Bad
>things ensue.
Posted by JBfrom
Nov 15, 2011 at 05:37 AM
You can read Refactor Your Wetware for more on big pipe/little pipe theory and l-mode vs r-mode.
It’s certainly possible to have allusive and illogical word sequences; these awaken far more of the subconscious, e.g. poetry or “mimsy were the borogroves.”
I am saying that the inner monologue tends to be associated with l-mode, logic, linguistic facility, linearity, etc. Not that it always is.
However allusive it may get, it is not possible for the inner monologue to ever encapsulate the entire subconsciously generated flow of raw thought, which is experienced in half-peripheral chaotic non-linguistic r-mode form.
Therefore, I maintain that the subconscious must be the driver, not the internal monologue, because it has faster reflexes, better vision, and is 100x smarter and more emotionally balanced.
Also, a non-conscious internal monologue is an oxymoron in my model, since the inner monologue is an audible voice in one’s head.
For unspecified reasons, I’m afraid I can’t discuss this at any but the most abstract level here, so confusion is inevitable.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Nov 15, 2011 at 03:08 PM
JB, I appreciate this discussion. Thank you.
I will look at Refactor Your Wetware.
I think the difficulties with this kind of a discussion arise around defining terms, having mutually agreed upon definitions, and being able to reconcile the differing paradigms from which we are working.
While understanding the value and need for very theoretical approaches, ultimately it is necessary to be able to present people with a practical real world approach, in plain language, which will enable them to function more effectively in *whatever* context or life situation in which they find themselves.
That is why I keep coming back to mindfulness. I have always had an attraction to meditation and the benefits it offers. However, in my wildest dreams, I never anticipated the empirical data which has accumulated over the last 15 years or so, largely due to the work of Jon Kabat-Zinn.
Daly
JBfrom wrote:
>You can read Refactor Your Wetware for more on big pipe/little pipe theory and l-mode
>vs r-mode.
>
>It’s certainly possible to have allusive and illogical word sequences;
>these awaken far more of the subconscious, e.g. poetry or “mimsy were the
>borogroves.”
>
>I am saying that the inner monologue tends to be associated with
>l-mode, logic, linguistic facility, linearity, etc. Not that it always is.
>
>
>However allusive it may get, it is not possible for the inner monologue to ever
>encapsulate the entire subconsciously generated flow of raw thought, which is
>experienced in half-peripheral chaotic non-linguistic r-mode form.
>
>Therefore,
>I maintain that the subconscious must be the driver, not the internal monologue,
>because it has faster reflexes, better vision, and is 100x smarter and more
>emotionally balanced.
>
>Also, a non-conscious internal monologue is an oxymoron in
>my model, since the inner monologue is an audible voice in one’s head.
>
>For
>unspecified reasons, I’m afraid I can’t discuss this at any but the most abstract
>level here, so confusion is inevitable.