"Analysis paralysis", "second-guessing" - these refer to a cognitive dissonance which occurs when decision-modelling is unhygienic.
1. Subject is in actual subject-state A.
2. Subject is aware of 1.
3. Subject is aware of possible subject-state B.
4. Subject is aware of possible subject-awareness-in-state-B.
5. Subject compares 2. and 4.
Up to step 5, there is only one possible-but-not-actualised subject-state to be simulated. This is generally healthy behaviour, and easy to manage. It provides a mechanism by which energy can be decisively allocated to staying in state A or transitioning from A to B.
However, while amusing, the following recursion may be inefficient ( due either to poor mental implementation, or to a general pattern of poor returns on energy spent modelling ).
6. Subject is aware of possible subject-awareness-of-state-A-while-in-state-B
7. Subject compares 4. and 6.
8. etc.
//
Tactical emotional regulation, pertaining to the above.
Emotions are mainly used, consciously or subconsciously, to orchestrate action within a human.
In decision-making algorithms such as above, recursion might cause energetic failure of conscious computation, leading to a regression to baser modes of thought.
9.a. Subject assigns the notion of terror to 4.
9.b. Subject assigns the notion of joy to 4.
In both cases 9.a. and 9.b., what happens is "projection of emotion". However, since 9s are conscious operations, some degree of choice is available as to whether one picks terror or joy in projection. This is the domain of emotional regulation, with regards to the projection of specific emotions upon the mental state of one's simulated self.
There are other sorts of emotional regulation, perhaps we will address them in a separate note.
No comments :
Post a Comment