I Am Afraid for My Self, for My Self, for My Self

There's a new article in The Atlantic by Paul Bloom (psych prof at the neighborhood Ivy League book-learnery, though I didn't know that before looking up his name just now) about what he interprets as a community of different selves that constitutes each of us. There's a lot of space junk in orbit around his main idea, and I find the article interesting mostly as an example of how attached people are to believing in a continuous self (or soul, or whatever; note one quotation where he seems to inadvertently equate the two terms). Bloom begins by disavowing the idea of a single self, then posits the existence of these multiple selves, then starts to refer to a "long-term self" that has the benefit of experience and is better suited to making good decisions.

Again, what I blame here is the attachment to defining any continuous self. I think what's undeniably clear is that we have a self-aware, first-person conscious "self" in any one given moment, which is generated by brain matter. Call it a Point Self. It's not continuous in any real way: my Point Self ten minutes from now will definitely be a lot like my Point Self now, but that's because they're generated by the same brain matter. They are not two points on some kind of independent Line Self that has an ambiguous relationship to brain matter. And I don't think you explain anything new by suggesting such a Line Self. Ideas about longer-term consistent selves should be scalpeled out with Occam's hatchet. Why get tangled up like Bloom does in complex, competing Line Selves? Consider just a Point Self and think about why the brain matter is presenting different concerns as more salient at different times.

Let me switch to a hokey-sounding candle metaphor. Think of a candle as your physical brain and your self as the flame. If you want to explain the flame at any point in time, you need to describe the candle. You don't say, "Well, this flame has been here for a while, and it changes shape and dances around, but it seems pretty consistent over time. So we're watching the flame closely and trying to figure out how it sustains itself into the future." Also note that theologians have not spent the past four thousand years trying to figure out where the flame goes after the candle is out of wax.

Anyway, that's what I think, or rather (by the time you read this) thought. It is half-baked but it is similar to what I thought a year ago, and it is probably similar to what I will think in the future. Meanwhile, at the moment, I have to go back to using my self for freelance proofreading again.

* * * * *

Also in the article, a mention of dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder):

Recent years have seen a backlash, and some people diagnosed with the disorder have sued their therapists. One woman got a settlement of more than $2 million after alleging that her psychotherapist had used suggestive memory “recovery” techniques to convince her that she had more than 120 personalities, including children, angels, and a duck.

Not to make light of this poor woman's experience, but sometimes you really just have to use the lemons/lemonade strategy. For example, if I were to open my refrigerator right now, I would see among other items half a loaf of ordinary sandwich bread: nothing special. But consider the world where I can say, You know, I think I'll use Duck Personality right now. That bread is gonna be awesome.