The Pitfalls of Objectivity
Do we actually know what we think we do?
One of the biggest struggles in my journey with depression has been the disconnect between reason and my emotions. I can throw any number of logical truths at a depressing thought I have and not feel better. It works the same for anxious and otherwise stressful thoughts too.
Let’s say I want to go to a public gym to work out. My brain tells me to be anxious because everyone there will watch me lift and judge my form, weight, and numerous other things.
“No, nobody cares what you are doing,” Logic says. “They’re too busy worrying about themselves, or focused on their own lift. And anyway, does it matter if they do judge you? Even in that unlikely event, you will never know. Why does it matter if they judge you if it will never come back around to you?”
“But you admit they might be judging us,” Emotion retorts. “Don’t we want to be regarded in high esteem? Isn’t it bad not to fit in and be well liked?”
“Okay, monkey brain. Maybe that mattered when social cohesion was life-or-death, thousands of years ago. The stakes of a simple workout routine are negligible in comparison.” Logic replies.
Damn. Pop off, Logic.
That conversation might be exaggerated and silly and made up, but it has a lot of truth to it. Our thinking brains and feeling brains are often in conflict. An action as seemingly simple as going to the gym highlights the rub well.
Do I think Logic won that argument?
Yes.
Do I believe Logic?
Well, no. Not really.
Here lies the issue with logic and reasoning within our human experience: Our emotional centers still hold a lot of power. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter to our emotions what the truth is.
This phenomenon can be really beautiful, promoting diversity of experience and enriching our lives. In the case of depression and other times of stress, it can really get in the way.
Let’s explore the logic-emotion conflict, and its implications for our mental health, together.
Setting the Stage
First, we need to make sure we’re on the same page by starting with a couple of premises to work off of.
Premise 1: Humans can not agree on objective truth.
By objective truth, I mean that which is true regardless of being observed by any human. I’ll use objectivity and reality as synonyms moving forward.
I understand this first premise may make you cringe. It makes me cringe, too. Most of us firmly believe in concrete, objective truth. We draw our values from our God, our religion, our logic and reason.
When people disagree with us on certain things, even within our religious sects or schools of philosophy, we usually try to respect them; we also believe, deep down, that they are misguided.
This is true of many conflicts. Christian vs. Jewish vs. Islamic vs. Atheist, Catholic vs. Protestant, Democrat vs. Republican, Fox News watchers vs. CNN watchers.
Of course, I’m leaving out many groups and sources people draw truth from. Maybe you don’t resonate with any of the groups I’ve listed. I am sure, however, you strongly disagree with at least one of the groups I mentioned.
This is precisely what I’m getting at. If we are all seeking truth, how can we disagree so strongly? There are a multitude of factors I can’t even begin to dissect. It could be where we were born, when we were born, the wealth or poverty we were born into, the trauma we experienced as a child, the miracle we witnessed, the things we just innately believe, or something else entirely.
These deeply subjective, personal aspects of being human all guide us toward what we believe is objective.
See the issue?
I hope that, even with your beliefs of truth about the world, you can respect why someone else might believe something else. Objectivity is elusive. Whether it exists or not doesn’t matter within this context.
Premise 2: This disagreement is true on both the large and small scale.
By large scale, I mean ideas and values: religion, politics, justice, etc. I’ve gone into enough detail already, I think.
By small scale, I mean individual moments: what truly happened in each social interaction or event. I remember watching an educational show in school where they studied the effects of planting false information in witness testimonies before juries (I don’t remember what show it was. Bill Nye, or Channel One, or something similar).
For a mugging in a park, researchers planted a fake witness near the beginning of witness testimonies who intentionally got certain details wrong. In this case, the fake witness said the offender was wearing a green jacket, when in fact it was red. Several other witnesses corroborated the jacket being green after that testimony. This shows that our memories are fallible. Our brains want to store information efficiently, which can cause mistakes to happen.
Our experience does not always reflect reality.
Logical Conclusion
Given that:
Humans can not agree on objective truth.
This disagreement is true on both the large and small scale.
We can conclude that:
Objectivity, regardless of its existence, is impractical in the context of human experience.
Okay, stage set. Objectivity is impractical in the context we’re dealing with. So, what is practical?
If you disagree with the conclusion I’ve come to, that’s too bad! Maybe write your own article on objectivity.
Kidding.
I’d love to hear your argument against it. Challenge me! We can all learn something from each other.
Also, subscribe so we can keep arguing and learning together.
A New Way to Look at the Logic-Emotion Battle
As I said before, this is a big area of struggle for me. I innately believe there is truth and that I can find it. The premise of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy seems to support the idea, and it works for a lot of people.
Remember our discussion on Cognitive Distortions?
Cognitive Distortions are a key component of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. They are thoughts that don’t match up with reality. To fight the thoughts, examine the evidence for or against them. You’ll often find more evidence against than for.
Hmph. This seems to go against everything we’ve been discussing so far today. What the hell!?
I know it does. I’m sorry. But also, maybe that makes it the perfect example to support my argument. Reread my earlier point:
…Cognitive Behavioral Therapy… works for a lot of people.
A lot of people. Not everyone.
I recently started working with a new therapist, and something I don’t think I’ve noticed until now is I might not be one of those people?
The Cognitive Distortion framework is certainly helpful for me a lot of times, but not always. Sometimes, regardless of the evidence I throw at distortions I’m dealing with, I just can’t quite defuse them.
I thought I wasn’t working hard enough at it or finding enough evidence; now, I’m realizing that similar to other coping strategies, the Cognitive Distortion framework is just another tool in the toolkit. Sometimes it’s the best one for the job. Sometimes another tool works better.
And so, my paradigm shifts. Maybe the best way to cope isn’t always to get rid of negative thoughts with the power of logic. Maybe sometimes the best way to cope is to accept negative thoughts but give them less power.
I’ll plant the general idea for this today, then next week we’ll dive in to some concrete ways for to do so.
Give them Less Power
Early in my exploration of mindfulness meditation, I went through Headspace’s Basics Course (I am not affiliated with Headspace). It was helpful, similar to others I’ve tried, but one image in particular has stuck with me to this day, years later.
Imagine you are standing next to a very busy intersection and the stoplights aren’t working. It’s loud. People are honking, yelling, and making all kinds of noise. There are a ton of cars backed up in traffic because of the confusion, all making their noise as well.
Chaos.
You are tempted to walk out into the middle of the intersection with a whistle to try to control the traffic. Maybe you can reduce the chaos and get cars moving quickly again. But, as in many cases, people don’t want to listen. Being self-serving, a lot of them will try to get through even when it isn’t their turn. You won’t help very much, if at all.
Instead, you decide to sit in the shade of a big tree nearby and watch the cars go. You notice the behaviors of each one but you aren’t stressed about it. You let them do their thing. Rather than try to control something you probably can’t help, you accept it for what it is and enjoy the good parts.
Maybe you know where I’m going with this. In this scenario, you can think of the cars as your thoughts. They come and go as they please. You don’t have any control over them, so why try to garner some? Isn’t it much more pleasant to sit back and observe them coming and going?
It feels oxymoronic. To give thoughts less power, you ought to relinquish your control over them?
Yeah. Right.
Your mission this week is to try this exercise. Notice thoughts coming and going. Don’t try to force negative ones out of your mind. Don’t try to hold tightly on to positive ones. Simply take note of them as they pass through your consciousness. Something my therapist said last week was “we want to look at our thoughts, not through them”.
It’s an abstract mission, I get it. It’s hard and takes practice. All I ask is that you try.
Let us know your reactions, or things you notice, in the comments!
Next week, we will go a little more concrete. If you’re interested in learning more before then, this new school of thought we’re learning about is called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
Thank you for being here. I’ll see you next week.
I love you.
-Ethan
We’d love to hear your thoughts on these ideas. Let us know in the comments.
This page is not intended to be medical advice. Consult with a psychiatrist or other provider before pursuing any treatment options discussed here.
If you are in crisis, call or text the National Suicide Hotline: 988