Psyche: Your Life Is Not A Story

Artwork by Gemini AI.

 

I recently read an absorbing article in Psyche entitled "Your life is not a story: why narrative thinking holds you back" by Karen Simecek, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick, UK. In it she explores the pervasive nature of narratives in our lives and argues that while narratives help us make sense of the world, they can also be limiting and potentially harmful. I want to summarize this fascinating article and then engage in some speculation it inspired in me.

Simecek begins by acknowledging the ubiquity of narratives (stories) and their role in helping us understand the world and make life more meaningful. She references philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre and Peter Goldie, who argue that narratives are fundamental to our experiences and understanding of emotions. It is difficult to argue against the obvious historical fact that human beings are storytellers and storytelling and narrative construction is central to human culture. She quotes Jean-Paul Sartre as saying “a man is always a teller of tales.” Which is true enough. We are storytellers.

However, Simecek then presents the central argument that narratives can be restrictive and problematic. Oversimplification is one of several potential issues with the use of stories. Viewing life as a story can oversimplify the complexity of human experience, she says. Narratives can also lock us into specific ways of thinking, acting, and feeling, thereby limiting our perspective. Furthermore, stories can create an illusion of order in a chaotic world, potentially hindering our ability to adapt to change or even see the need to change. Finally, narratives can sometimes promote false or harmful worldviews.

Simecek then posits an alternative to narrative thinking: focusing on perspectives rather than stories. She argues that perspectives are more flexible and better represent the non-linear nature of our experiences. The author uses poetry, particularly Wallace Stevens' "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird," to illustrate how perspectives can unify diverse elements without imposing a linear structure.

Focusing on perspectives rather than stories is a way to liberate our thinking and expand our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. She defines perspectives as more complex than mere points of view; they are ways of engaging with the world from particular positions or orientations that draw our attention to specific aspects of experience.

Unlike narratives, which tend to organize events in a linear, sequential manner, perspectives don't offer a fixed structure. Rather, they reveal the pre-existing structures our lives are “thrown” in to as Heidegger might say. They are shaped by our place in the world, our beliefs, values, and what we consider important. Perspectives determine which features of our experiences stand out and which fade into the background. This flexibility allows for a more discerning and multifaceted understanding of our lives and experiences.

Perhaps most importantly in my mind, Simecek argues that perspectives generate narratives, not the other way around. By focusing on perspectives, we can understand why our narratives differ from those of others, even when experiencing the same events. This approach encourages us to examine the underlying beliefs and values that shape our worldviews, rather than getting caught up in the stories we tell ourselves.

By shifting our focus to perspectives, Simecek suggests we can open ourselves up to new possibilities and orientations. This approach allows us to find significance in new places and embrace the unpredictability of shared perspectives. It encourages a more present-focused engagement with the world, where we can understand our relationships to complex and chaotic experiences without needing to fit them into a predetermined story structure.

That's all well and good. I even agree with it. But here's the problem. While I think it is true that "perspectives are more flexible and better represent the non-linear nature of our experiences" we are, as I said, hardwired to be storytellers. Indeed, there is a tension between our innate tendency to construct narratives and the potential benefits of adopting a more flexible, perspective-based approach to understanding our experiences. Our ability or inability to do this may well be the greatest problem of our time.

It is certainly the greatest problem no one is talking about. While narratives do not create perspective they do contain them and can freeze them in place to protect the integrity of the habitual stories we all tell ourselves. Freezing our perspective in a time of global and environmental upheaval seems rather shallow to me.

Nevertheless, this propensity for narrative thinking is obviously ingrained in our cognitive processes, part of our evolution and development as a species. Storytelling has served numerous important functions throughout human history such as making sense of the world. Stories help us organize complex information and find patterns in chaos. Sharing narratives is a primary driver of human bonding, it strengthens social ties and cultural identity. Stories have been a primary vehicle for passing down information across generations. Without them it would be difficult to communicate information. After all, we put “story” into “history” for a reason.

Given this innate tendency, completely abandoning narrative thinking would be neither possible nor desirable. However, Simecek's argument for focusing on perspectives doesn't necessarily call for a total rejection of narratives. Rather, it suggests a more balanced approach that acknowledges both our storytelling nature and the limitations it can impose.

We should develop a meta-cognitive awareness of our narrative tendencies. By recognizing when we're constructing stories and understanding the perspectives that shape them, we can hold our narratives more lightly, being open to revising them as new information emerges. We can appreciate multiple perspectives on the same events or experiences as well as resist the urge to force every experience into a coherent story, allowing for ambiguity and complexity.

In practice, this could mean cultivating mindfulness about our thought processes, actively seeking out diverse viewpoints, and periodically challenging our own narratives. It's about finding a balance between our natural storytelling instincts and a more open, flexible approach to understanding our lives and the world around us. In fact, privileging perspectives as the build-blocks of our stories will likely open up a whole new way to think about ourselves and our world.

Nevertheless, everything about "civilization" is based upon stories. We are all storytellers and lovers of stories. This fact cuts to the heart of human culture and society. Myths, legends, and origin stories form the bedrock of cultural identities worldwide. These narratives shape our values, beliefs, and social norms. Most religious traditions are built around central narratives that explain the nature of existence and provide moral frameworks.

Our understanding of the past is essentially a collection of interwoven narratives, shaping our sense of identity and informing our decisions about the future. Legal systems and political ideologies are often based on narratives about justice, rights, and the proper organization of society. Even our economic systems are built on narratives - stories about value, exchange, and human behavior that we collectively agree to believe in.

While based on empirical observation, scientific progress often relies on constructing narratives to explain phenomena and generate hypotheses. Art and literature are each obviously deeply invested in stories. These are perhaps the most obvious manifestations of our love for stories, reflecting and shaping our understanding of the human experience. As individuals, we construct narratives about ourselves that give our lives meaning and continuity. So stories remain a deeply personal component of human Being.

Given this pervasive role of storytelling (with business or scientific presentations also being stories in this fundamental sense), Simecek's proposal to focus on perspectives rather than narratives challenges a fundamental aspect of human nature and society. However, as we have seen, the goal isn't to abandon storytelling, but to become more conscious storytellers - aware of the narratives we're creating and consuming, and able to shift perspectives when needed. This awareness could lead to richer, more refined stories that better reflect the complexity of human experience.

Nevertheless, what the author says about perspectives being more useful than stories in framing our experience is valid. It seems that certain mindfulness practices (meditation, Tai Chi, etc.) would agree with that "deconstructing" of our narrative bias. The concept of using perspectives to frame experience rather than relying solely on narratives does indeed align well with the concept of mindfulness practice, emphasizing present-moment awareness, focusing on immediate sensations, thoughts, and feelings without trying to fit them into a larger story. They promote non-judgmental observation, noticing experiences without immediately categorizing them as good or bad, which often happens in narrative thinking.

Impermanence is obviously a big thing with me (see here and here). Acceptance of impermanence leads to the recognition that experiences, thoughts, and feelings are constantly changing, which can be at odds with fixed narratives. This, in turn, leads to an establishment of direct experience in our lives, engaging with reality as it is, rather than through the filter of preconceived stories or expectations.

Practices like mediation and Tai Chi can help cultivate what the Zen Buddhist tradition calls "beginner's mind" - an ability to approach each moment freshly, without preconceptions. This state of mind aligns well with Simecek's notion of adopting different perspectives rather than adhering to fixed narratives.

The mental and emotional flexibility these types of self-practices fosters could allow us to benefit from the meaning-making power of stories when appropriate, while also being able to step back and engage with our experiences from various perspectives when that approach is more beneficial. These practices provide a way to experientially understand and cultivate the ability to frame our experiences outside of our habitual narratives, potentially leading to a richer, more grounded engagement with life.

There is clear “spiritual” evidence that breaking down stories into perspectives offers a beneficial way to engage with life. To complement it, there is a growing body of solid evidence from neuroscience and psychology that supports the benefits of breaking down stories into perspectives as a way to engage with life.

Neuroscience research shows that cognitive flexibility - the ability to adapt our thinking to new situations - is associated with better problem-solving skills and mental health. Adopting multiple perspectives, rather than adhering to fixed narratives, can enhance this flexibility. We have recently discovered the Default Mode Network, a presence within our brains associated with self-referential thinking and narrative creation, is less active during mindfulness practices. This suggests that these practices can indeed help us step out of our habitual narrative modes.

Neuroplasticity, the brain's ability to form new neural connections throughout life, supports the idea that we can train ourselves to adopt more perspective-based thinking, even if narrative thinking is deeply ingrained. Psychological studies have found that mindfulness practices, which often involve observing thoughts and experiences without narrative elaboration, can significantly reduce stress and anxiety.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is becoming a widely-used therapeutic approach often involves identifying and challenging unhelpful narrative patterns, replacing them with more flexible and adaptive perspectives. Meanwhile, Construal Level Theory is a psychological theory suggesting that how we mentally represent events (abstract vs. concrete) affects our judgments and behaviors. Shifting between perspectives aligns with the ability to adjust our level of construing.

Embodied Cognition is a field of study emphasizing the role of the body in shaping cognitive processes. Practices like Tai Chi, which focus on bodily awareness, can provide alternative, non-narrative ways of experiencing and understanding. Research on metacognition (thinking about thinking) shows that being aware of our thought processes can lead to more adaptive cognitive strategies and better decision-making.

The idea of psychological flexibility comes to us from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and involves being able to contact the present moment more fully and change or persist in behavior when doing so serves valued ends. This aligns closely with a perspective-based approach. Then, of course, there are flow states. Psychological research on 'flow' - a state of complete absorption in an activity - shows that during these states, self-referential thinking (often narrative-based) decreases, leading to enhanced performance and well-being.

These findings from neuroscience and psychology provide substantial support for the value of breaking down stories into perspectives. They suggest that this approach can lead to greater mental flexibility, reduced stress, enhanced well-being, and a more adaptive engagement with life's complexities.

However, it's worth reemphasizing (again) that narrative thinking also has its place and benefits, particularly in terms of meaning-making and social cohesion, as mentioned above. The ideal approach might be to cultivate the ability to move fluidly between narrative and perspective-based modes of engagement, using each when it's most beneficial.

We have historical examples of where perspectives are viewed as a better framing for life than stories but, nevertheless, from a cultural perspective (a pun there lol) it is all about story. Individually we might be able to transcend story into perspective but culturally there is no historical example of this. The case, in fact, is the opposite. Hence, we have a fascinating paradox that lies at the heart of everything. It highlights the tension between individual cognition and cultural dynamics.

On the individual level: We have examples and evidence suggesting that adopting a perspective-based approach can lead to personal growth, mental flexibility, and a more nuanced engagement with life. Practices like meditation, certain philosophical traditions (e.g., Taoism), and some psychotherapeutic approaches advocate for this shift from narrative to perspective.

On the cultural level: Human societies have consistently organized themselves around shared narratives. These stories form the bedrock of our cultures, religions, nations, and institutions. Even attempts to move away from traditional narratives often result in the creation of new, competing narratives rather than a truly perspective-based cultural framework.

This creates a quandary. While individuals might benefit from transcending rigid narratives, cultures rely on shared stories for cohesion and identity. Adopting a purely perspective-based approach might enhance personal well-being but could potentially alienate an individual from their cultural context. The flexibility offered by a perspective-based approach might be at odds with the stability that cultural narratives provide. And while perspective-based thinking might be ideal in theory, the human tendency towards narrative thinking makes it challenging to implement on a large scale. This last point is perhaps the most critical of all.

This quandary doesn't have an easy resolution. Cultivating perspective-based thinking on an individual level while acknowledging the role of narratives in our cultural lives might be the best path forward. Using perspective-based approaches to critically examine and potentially refine our cultural narratives, rather than attempting to eliminate them entirely is another possibility. Recognizing the value of both narrative and perspective-based modes of thinking and developing the ability to switch between them as needed night be a broader perspective than the original article suggests.

While we might not be able to transcend stories entirely on a cultural level, becoming more aware of the perspectives that shape these stories could lead to richer, more inclusive narratives that better reflect the complexity of contemporary human experience. This awareness could potentially help bridge the gap between individual cognitive flexibility and cultural cohesion.

With all that in mind, I want to try a thought experiment. I am pondering whether or not this sort of change, greatly expanding in the number of individuals who break stories into perspectives and accept that as a life-practice, will lead to an actual cultural shift. Theoretically, this could reflect in how humans are "growing into" their cognitive capacity.

Our brains today were basically fully-formed about 300,000 years ago. That is not a long time in terms of life on Earth but it is a very long time in human evolution for a pre-adaptive brain to be "setting there" idling, waiting to be used. Our pre-frontal cortex evolved without any demand placed upon it and basically froze in placed, underused, for tens of thousands of years. Formed without apparent environmental tension driving the formation. You could say we are still learning how to use our brains and, theoretically, such a shift as this, from story to perspective, might indicate a change in human cognition as we grow into our brain capacity.

It is important to understand that all of our abstract thinking comes from the prefrontal-cortex. But human abstract thought did not develop until probably close to 50,000 years ago. For a quarter of a million years the brain had a section that was not only not needed, it was not even used. To me this is one of the most astonishing facts in all of our existence. I plan to blog much more about this fact next year.

There is no reason to assume that our present cognitive abilities and biases are a finished product. On the contrary, history conclusively shows we are constantly changing cognitively. Slowly for many years, but now more rapidly, we are growing into the prefrontal cortex and this impacts how other regions of the brain function. We are literally growing into, and rearranging, or brains. This is both profound and exciting, touching on the potential for significant cognitive and cultural evolution in our species.

For the better part of 300,000 years we have lived with untapped cognitive potential that we're only beginning to explore. The shift from narrative-centric to perspective-based thinking could represent one way we're "growing into" our cognitive capacity. The interplay between individual cognitive changes and cultural shifts is a form of co-evolution. As more individuals adopt perspective-based thinking, it could gradually influence cultural norms and practices, potentially leading to broader societal changes.

Cognitive changes appear to be accelerating. This could be due to various factors, including increased global connectivity, rapid technological advancements, and the cross-pollination of ideas and practices from different cultures. The idea of our complex brains being "pre-adaptive" suggests that our cognitive capabilities might have evolved beyond immediate survival needs, providing a reservoir of potential that we're only now beginning to tap into.

Recent advances in neuroscience and epigenetics support the idea that our cognitive abilities are not fixed. Our brains continue to change throughout our lives, and certain cognitive practices can influence gene expression. A shift towards perspective-based thinking on a large scale could enhance our collective intelligence, allowing us to tackle complex global challenges more effectively. As more people adopt perspective-based thinking, it could lead to greater cognitive diversity within societies, potentially driving innovation and adaptability.

The very act of recognizing and discussing these potential cognitive shifts demonstrates a growing meta-cognitive awareness, which itself could be seen as an evolution in our thinking. Interestingly, the idea of cognitive evolution could itself become a new cultural narrative, potentially accelerating the very changes it describes. Emerging technologies like AI and virtual reality might serve as catalysts for this cognitive shift, providing new tools for perspective-taking and challenging traditional narratives.

The hypothesis that human cognition is still evolving and we are by now means fully situated in our own brains yet aligns with theories in cognitive science and cultural evolution. The shift from story-centric to perspective-based thinking could be seen as part of a larger trend towards more flexible, nuanced, and context-aware cognition.

However, it's important to note that such changes, while potentially rapid on an evolutionary timescale, would still likely take many generations to become mainstream. We might be witnessing the early stages of such a shift now. That is the pace of things, regardless of the acceleration of technology and global change. It is completely hypothetical, of course, but it seems these sorts of relatively fundamental shifts in human cognition at least exemplifies the sorts of changes that are possible since we are still growing into our brains. And it makes the above cited article all the more prescient.

Why does everyone just assume human beings today are a cognitively finished project? It is such a flagrantly arrogant assumption.  

Nevertheless, it highlights the remarkable plasticity of the human brain and our capacity for ongoing cognitive development, both as individuals and as a species. It suggests that our cognitive evolution is far from complete, and that we likely possess significant untapped potential in our neural architecture. It emphasizes the profound impact that cultural practices and shared ideas can have on shaping our cognitive processes over time. It points to our species' ability to adapt our life-practices in response to changing environmental and cultural conditions.

All of this is far beyond the periphery of the original article and yet focusing on perspectives rather than narratives could be seen as not just a proposal for individual cognitive practice, but as a harbinger of a potential larger shift in human cognition.  While hypothetical, this discussion provides a valuable framework for considering the ongoing evolution of human cognition. It reminds us that our current ways of thinking are not the endpoint of our cognitive development, but rather a snapshot in an ongoing process of growth and adaptation.

By recognizing the potential for such shifts, we open ourselves to new possibilities in how we understand and interact with the world around us. This awareness itself could be seen as a step in our cognitive evolution, demonstrating our capacity for meta-cognitive reflection and intentional development of our mental processes. And for, perhaps, evolving beyond the utter dependence upon storytelling that humanity has exhibited to date.

(Written with assistance from Claude.)