By Jonathan Hoffman, Ph.D.

Can conceptualizing the brain in high-tech terms help relate self-understanding to social issues?

Like computers, our brains have “hardware,” in the form of intricately connected organic structures.  Neural “software” includes inborn programs and learned programs (e.g. which fork to use at a fine restaurant).  However, the essence of who we are may exist in something akin to a neural cyberspace.  Let’s call this our cyber-self.  Like the Internet, this inner world cannot be touched or observed directly but nevertheless exists.  Religious perspectives aside, how this cyber-self originates and the exact nature of its connection to the physical brain are unclear.  However, since each person’s brain and cyber-self do communicate, let’s imagine they do so via something analogous to a “Wi-Fi” connection.

The information in our brains is like the information on the Internet.  At any given time on the Internet, individuals only see the information they have actively browsed or what has “popped in,” unsolicited, onto their screens.  This is certainly also the case when it comes to interacting with our cyber-self.  When it comes to their own cyber-spaces, people are cognizant of what they purposively think about or what cognitions or images enter their awareness triggered by internal and external stimuli and sometimes for unknown reasons.

“Bugs,” in our brain functioning, cyber-self, or both wreak havoc.  Neural “hardware” and “software” bugs are associated with many medical and psychiatric problems.  Bugs in cyber-self are problematic too.  Can our own cyber-selves become corrupt, a mush so disrupted and degraded by life that erroneous data becomes indistinguishable from the good stuff?  Can your cyber-self, like a suddenly popular but unprepared website, be overwhelmed by so many cognitions and emotions that it “crashes?”  Is this what a nervous breakdown is?

Perhaps the cyber-self is fine but the “Wi-Fi” connection is the problem.  A person with a strong connection to cyber-self, one that prides itself on good character and values knows who they are and what they will and will not do (this, of course, is topsy-turvy in a criminal, sociopathic, or self-deluded cyber-self).  A vacillating hook-up with cyber-self may correlate with opportunistic behaviors and a shifting value system.  A signal that is subject to surges and “hang-ups” could characterize those who are mercurial and reactive.  Passivity and being easily influenced might be associated with weak connectivity.  Statements such as “I don’t know who I am anymore,” or, “I’m losing touch with myself” typify those whose connection to cyber-self is attenuated.

In this time of economic and social uncertainty, it seems appropriate for all of us to check our systems.  Hardware and software “checkups” are essential for physical and mental health; examining cyber-self proper and one’s connection to it are needed for spiritual and ethical health.  How many of the problems and irrationalities in our political, financial and health systems are reflective of vacillating, volatile, weak, or lost connection to “best practices of self” in addition to vacillating, volatile, weak, or lost connection to best practices in one’s area of expertise?

What is the remedy? In the past, before the explosion of technology, some spoke of “getting their heads together,”  “taking some time to find themselves.” Maybe they were really on to something.  This seems to be a “no brainer” for us all and particularly important for political, business, and health system leaders.  If we spend some time debugging “viruses” in ourselves, maybe we stand a better chance of de-bugging our society.  If the guidance systems of our leader’s are dysfunctional, what are the chances of their becoming interactively networked with the cyberspaces of their constituents, employees, clients, or those whose health is in their hands? In the final analysis, it may turn out that as cyber-self goes, so goes everything else.

Has doubt been maligned? Doubt is typically associated with problems like indecisiveness and procrastination.  Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is known as “The Doubting Illness.”  Politicians who show doubt are said to be “Waffling or Flip- Flopping.”  Would you hire a CEO or draft an athlete that is riddled with “doubts”?  A “Doubting Thomas” is someone lacking faith.  Shakespeare’s Prince Hamlet doubts the value of life-“To be, or not to be.”  These are not exactly words that connote positive leadership qualities.

If there are so many clinical, professional, and literary examples of how doubt is considered undesirable, then what could possibly be praiseworthy about doubt?  Hindsight being 20-20, you don’t need to think too far back for examples.  Just think of how the current economic crisis might have been mitigated if some of our business and political leaders had at least a modicum of prospective doubt about the wisdom of their decisions (“no down payment teaser loans,” “de-regulating the securities industry,” “bank’s 30-1 leverage,” “credit default swaps”).  For them, doubt would have tempered hubris, the pride that went before the fall.

There are two sides to the “doubting” coin.  Doubt in the negative sense is associated with people who are nervous, obsessive, and fearful.  The doubtful person is often the type who is thought to be “white knuckling” it through life.  This is the kind of doubting that is terrified of uncertainty or risk.  It’s what we might call “amateur doubting”.

On the flip side, the astute, “professional doubter” is well aware of the finite nature of all “knowledge” and the limitations of all theories and “models.”  This kind of affirmative doubter, if you will, is calm, unruffled by the inevitable ups and downs of life, and is appropriately skeptical of myopic, absurd claims of certainty and safety (“this is the war to end all wars,” “real estate can only go up,” “it’s the end of history,” “there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” – we could go on ad infinitum with examples).  This kind of doubter actually is an optimist, one who perceives the silver lining in the dark economic cloud  (e.g. the recession actually creates a lot of opportunities), the great book that can be written about social injustices (think Solzenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelego”), and the resilience forthcoming from recovery from major illness (consider Lance Armstrong).

The affirmative doubter keeps things in perspective.  This type of doubting correlates with a more even temperament and less dichotomous (either-or) thinking.  Because they are less reactive, affirmative doubters are more likely to cope well in adversity.  They are less prone to catastrophize “the sky is falling”, and, also, less likely to be seduced by claims that “the sky’s the limit” (a.k.a. “irrational exuberance”).  They are aware of the pitfalls of making prophetic declarations and in believing in their own infallibility.  The affirmative doubter might be less likely to plunge into war without awareness that many of the consequences will be unforeseen, more aware that economic stimuli could backfire, and cognizant that leveraging one’s way to wealth is also a way to leverage one’s self into bankruptcy.  They might be more likely to wait for the risks that are worth taking rather than taking worthless risks.

Instead of scoffing at doubt, perhaps we would all benefit from some.  Not the amateur kind, of course.