[marginalia_nu]

I keep seeing hints of this strange model of the soul, I don't quite understand it, but it's like people are describing themselves as being multiple people.

There's the them that wants things, and the them that does things, as separate entities. The "wanter" is only briefly able to wrest control over what the "doer" does, mostly the "doer" has its own will which is not what the "wanter" wants, but something else.

Surely we're just one person. If someone wants something, it's they that want it, if someone does something, it's they that do it; but having this model of being multiple people allows them to completely disown their actions as the actions of someone else, as stuff that just happens to them, which in turn reinforces the narrative of not being in control.

[smugglerFlynn]

In psychology, different mental models exist that help to arrange your knowledge about yourself in a meaningful way. You may be interested in reading about Internal Family Systems[1], inner child therapy[2] and subpersonality[3] concept in general. These mental models are widely used in modern therapy.

At least some of these models are grounded in the way your brain is structured (e.g. limbic system vs prefrontal cortex), and research into the way child’s brain develops over the years. Others provide handy frameworks to structure therapy sessions. What you choose to do with that knowledge (e.g. disowning your actions, or becoming more responsible for them) seems to be of little relevance to the models themselves.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Family_Systems_Model 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_child 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpersonality

[johnchristopher]

> I don't quite understand it, but it's like people are describing themselves as being multiple people.

> Surely we're just one person.

Maybe your interpretation of people having conflicting behaviors as "describing themeselves as being multiple people" is wrong.

You jump from unchallenged absolute positions to another to basically conclude or imply that people are not being honest.

For most the self is a very moving concept and the inner dialogue and tensions add layers of definitions. We are not single thought and logical and permanently coherent creatures.

[calmdown13]

Hmm I'm not sure that that model is completely without merit. Of course we are responsible for all of our actions, however, we often act against our better judgement.

In Jeff Hawkins' Thousand Brains Theory he describes that the neocortex is responsible for most of our cognition, but that it has to kind of bargain with the more instinctual "old brain" to get us to perform actions.

It's quite possible he's wrong, it's still just a theory, but it kind of lines up with that model you describe.

[marginalia_nu]

> Of course we are responsible for all of our actions, however, we often act against our better judgement.

Isn't this just a matter of confusion about what is in our best interest?

When we act against our best interest, it's often because we fail to accurately gauge the outcome of our actions. We may postpone going to the dentist because it seems like a bad idea, or have a bunch of cake because it seems like a good idea; but with the clarity of looking at these things in the past, it's evident that we got it wrong. We should have gone to the dentist and ignored the siren call of cake.

For whatever reason, it seems like a lot of people are just not doing this. They keep looking to the promises from the future, but completely ignore what they know from the past; so they keep repeating the same short sighted mistakes over and over and over again.

[johtso]

Acrasia. We severely discount things, positive or negative, that may happen a way off into the future. We struggle to make a "later problem" into a "now problem". The difficulty is that many of life's challenges require action over a period of time.

I also think, speaking from personal experience, our minds have an amazing ability to avoid thinking about things that are difficult or unpleasant. This can mean that we neglect to do things we should be doing (or do the things that cause us harm) not because those things are infact actually okay behaviours, but because we're not even thinking properly about the consequences. We're just doing.

[blowski]

My brain is dominated by one set of hormones and nervous impulses right now. Later today - perhaps when I’m more hungry, tired, horny, whatever - those hormones and nervous impulses will change.

Another way of phrasing this. My computer is running a game smoothly, everything is good. Then I run off battery and open a Bitcoin miner in the background. Nothing about the game or computer hardware changed, but the performance of the game tanked.

[marginalia_nu]

> My brain is dominated by one set of hormones and nervous impulses right now. Later today - perhaps when I’m more hungry, tired, horny, whatever - those hormones and nervous impulses will change.

This may be true, but it's about as useful as saying our behaviors and moods are controlled by the alignment of the stars. Neurochemistry just isn't something we experience directly, and as a model of phenomenology it isn't particularly informative, this is essentially a corollary of the hard problem of consciousness.

[blowski]

How I interpret your original comment is that you're saying "Jack is Jack is Jack, whether it's Monday morning and Jack is full of energy or Friday afternoon when Jack is tired and hungry. Thus, if Jack wants to lose weight on Monday morning, why would he need help to avoid binge-eating hamburgers on Friday afternoon?".

My answer to that is that Jack's brain is not in the same configuration on Monday morning as on Friday afternoon. Thus, Jack's Monday-morning brain makes a decision to lose weight, and guesses that Friday-afternoon Jack will likely ignore Monday-morning Jack's decision. So Monday-morning Jack also puts in place safeguards to prevent Friday-afternoon Jack deciding to ignore Monday-morning Jack.

Some people do have more willpower, and don't need that help. I'm not one of them, and it sounds like the OP is not either. History is full of self-help advice on this very topic - from Socrates, the Stoics, and Confucius to Jordan Peterson, David Allen, and our very own Paul Graham. So it does seem to be a very real problem.

[matsemann]

I often respond to "you should do X" with "that's future Mats' problem, not me". Mostly in jest, as I with most big decisions are thinking longterm. But for those short term stuff, like emptying the dishwasher.. Meh, future me's problem.

[johnchristopher]

OT:

> I keep seeing hints of this strange model of the soul

> I keep seeing hints of this strange

Strange to you.

I wish this way of framing questions would stop.

[marginalia_nu]

I call strange what is strange to me, as my experience is the only experience I have of the world.

[johnchristopher]

> I call strange what is strange to me, as my experience is the only experience I have of the world.

There's a difference between "I keep seeing hints of this strange model of the soul" and "I keep seeing hints of this model I find strange". The first one heavily implies the model is strange and it's a fact, the conversation start with that premise and it puts people who do not find this model strange on the defensive. The second one clearly establishes this is a personal opinion.