OUR OWN LITTLE WORLDS

Small flowers shoot up from a struggling lawn: dandelions. The homeowner frowns because the weed killer he sprayed isn’t working. His five-year-old daughter sighs, still waiting for the white tufts that she loves to blow in the wind. A passerby smiles, thankful for the cheerful, yellow petals on a dreary Monday commute. All three people respond to the same visual stimuli, yet they don’t see the same thing, not really. Psychologist and professor Jordan B. Peterson explained, “We assume that we see objects or things when we look at the world, but that’s not really how it is. … We don’t see valueless entities and then attribute meaning to them. We perceive the meaning directly” (Peterson 261). When faced with dandelion flowers, the homeowner, child, and commuter perceive decay, fun, and beauty respectively. In his conscious imagination, the homeowner sees the most hideous wasteland that his lawn could become. He sees his neighbors complaining about the weeds spreading into their yards and hears the homeowners association knocking at his door with a list of demands. The child imagines herself plucking white tufts and twirling, surrounded by those magical wisps. The commuter recalls the yellow lipstick his wife wore on their first date and reminisces about the early years of their relationship. The three people pay attention to and respond to their imagined scenes, not the dandelions. We do not live in the world as it is; we live in the meanings that we perceive, our own little worlds created by our beliefs, natures, and experiences.

System 1 and System 2 Reliance on Meanings

Humans are finite. We cannot consider every detail of the real world or every connection between the objects, people, and concepts that we encounter. Jonathan B.T. Evans explained that our attention is limited by our working memory (454). We cannot analyze details or imagine connections without holding the relevant information in our conscious awareness. According to Peterson, “[w]hen we look at the world, we perceive only what is enough for our plans and actions to work and for us to get by. What we inhabit, then, is this ‘enough.’ That is a radical, functional, unconscious simplification of the world—and it’s almost impossible for us not to mistake it for the world itself” (262). Perceiving meaning directly allows us to parse through the overwhelming detail of the world and decide, moment by moment, what to pay attention to. This is the job of System 1. Keith Stanovich and Richard West studied the dual-processing nature of human cognition. System 1 comprises automatic and heuristic processing (Stanovich and West 658). This includes our initial interpretations of sensory stimuli, involuntary emotional and physiological reactions, conditioned attitudes and behaviors, and intuitions. System 1 is always active but mostly unconscious, requiring little working memory (Stanovich and West 658). It acts as a filter: when it automatically responds to the meaning of a thing, it brings that thing into our conscious awareness.

After System 1 makes us aware of something, System 2 decides whether or not to pay attention to it. The controlled processing of System 2 includes analyzing sensory stimuli, imagining potential courses of action, and reevaluating past experiences. System 2 is deliberate and fully conscious, demanding much of our working memories (Stanovich and West 658). It is accurate to say that we have to “pay attention”: attention is the currency that we spend to utilize System 2. Because of that, Khatria et al. said that System 1 controls 50% to 90% of human behavior (709). However, System 2 is involved in all nonprogrammed decisions—decisions that do not have close experiential precedents. It can also override System 1, abstracting the situation from its experiential context (Stanovich and West 662). In effect, any decision can be turned into a nonprogrammed decision at the cost of attention. Kahneman and Frederick found that the automatic and controlled systems can be active simultaneously, cooperating or competing to control our behavior (51). When we cannot or do not wish to expend attention, System 1 takes over; when we want greater certainty or control, we pay attention to involve System 2.

Creating Perceived Meanings

Both systems interact with our perceived meanings to generate our personal, simplified worlds. System 1 not only responds to our perceived meanings, controlling our initial perceptions, emotions, and reactions, but also derives new meanings from our ongoing experiences. Khatria et al. explained, “As we encounter a situation, engage in a behavior, and experience an outcome, our System 1 gradually builds heuristics that bind the three together to help guide future decision-making, so when we encounter a similar situation in the future, we instantly begin to enact past behaviors” (710). These heuristics are the perceived meanings. Each encounter with a person or thing affects our perceived meanings. In our simplified worlds, for example, strawberries might mean pleasure, but repeated encounters with mediocre, strawberry-flavored snacks could quickly and unconsciously shift that meaning. Because System 1 is rooted in our unique life experiences, it is highly individualized, influenced by our personalities, conditioned norms, and biological and cognitive features.

A more serious example will highlight the role of System 2 in our simplified worlds. A friend might mean trust, fun, and good conversation. However, if he betrays our trust or demeans us around a different social circle, our simplified world shatters. Jordan Peterson put it this way: “The limitations of all our perceptions of things and selves manifest themselves when something we can usually depend on in our simplified world breaks down. Then the more complex world that was always there, invisible and conveniently ignored, makes its presence known” (266). When the world of meanings breaks down, System 2 must find a new way to organize the chaos of reality. First, we consider everything that we now know about our friend, trying to find a new meaning to bind together the chaos. When we think of a potential meaning—perhaps two-faced or cowardly—we imagine our friend that way to see if it fits how we have seen him act in the past. We then use System 2 to recreate and reevaluate our memories. What we once held as proofs of our friend’s trustworthiness become anecdotes of when we were deceived. Finally, we imagine possible courses of action such as conversations confronting the friend. System 1 responds to all of these imagined scenes: we feel angry when we imagine our friend betraying us, sad when we consider the loss of trust and fellowship, and disgusted when we reassess our own discernment. According to Daniel T. Gilbert and Timothy D. Wilson, “we generate mental simulations or previews of future events, which cause us to have affective reactions or premotions, which we then use as a basis for our forecasts or predictions about the event’s likely emotional consequences. We know which future events will feel good and which will feel bad because we feel good or bad when we simulate them” (par. 5). The hypothetical experiences generated by System 2 are still experiences; they affect our present behavior and perceived meanings just like real-world encounters.

Updating Perceived Meanings

System 2 updates our perceived meanings based on our beliefs. Harold D. Grotevant found that this is a two-step process and termed the steps “exploration of alternatives” and “commitment to choices” (204).  In the above example, our beliefs about a friend suddenly changed. To incorporate our new beliefs into our simplified world, we had to explore alternative meanings for the friend. Once we found an alternative that fit our new beliefs as well as our prior knowledge, we committed to it by updating all of our memories and plans associated with that friend.

The process takes many forms. We can update simple meanings easily. When we do not immediately understand what someone is saying, we explore possible meanings and commit to the one that makes the most sense in a matter of seconds. Puns rely on this exploration for their comedic effect. Exploration of alternatives and commitment to choices can also be ongoing, simultaneous activities. When our beliefs about something regularly conflict or change, we cannot find a coherent meaning. The exploration step leaves us with several possible but incomplete meanings. We might commit to a different meaning from one situation to the next. Important, complex concepts require us to explore and commit to an interconnected set of meanings. A husband and wife have to develop expansive sets of meanings to sufficiently care for one another. Commitment to new meanings that conflict with ingrained patterns of thought and behavior can take years of concerted effort. At first, System 1 continues to respond to the old patterns—what we call habits—so we have to pay attention, forcing ourselves to think and act according to our desired beliefs. As we build up experiences that align with our desired beliefs, System 1 starts to respond to the new meanings.

Updating our perceived meanings is a highly imaginative process. We imagine the thing in light of the new meaning and compare the imagined version to what we know about the real thing. To commit to the meaning, we imagine the benefit of doing so or the danger of failing to. If we believe that we should do something, we imagine the task in such a way that System 1 will respond positively. In this way, we use imagination to control ourselves. System 2 shapes our little worlds not only by editing the meanings that System 1 perceives but also by generating hypothetical experiences. These experiences can either augment or obscure the real world. A photographer on a hike is constantly imagining potential pictures. This sort of imagining augments the real world by drawing extra attention to the details of the environment that are relevant to the pictures. Someone who does not want to be on the hike might let his mind wander to the argument he had the day before. This sort of imagining draws attention away from the real world, made-up sights and sounds replacing the current sensory experience.

Symbolic Meanings

Humans are meaning machines. On top of our perceived meanings, we manually assign symbolic meanings based on our emotional attachments. We impart symbolic meaning to everything from rituals and music to possessions and places. Laura N. Kamptner found that our treasured possessions and the meanings we assign to them are dependent on individual factors; they are “mirrors of the ‘self’ at different ages” (226). A stuffed animal from our childhood might symbolize love and acceptance. A souvenir from a vacation might symbolize fun and adventure. A particular song might symbolize inner strength through a difficult season of life. We impart symbolic meanings to develop, express, and cultivate our self-concepts (Kamptner 210). When we call something our favorite—whether it is a color, a food, or a particular chair—that thing comes to symbolize personal pleasure.

Like the hypothetical experiences that we use to motivate ourselves, symbolic meanings are designed by System 2 to elicit positive reactions from System 1. They can influence our moods and remind us of our goals and values. Kimberly D. Elsbach studied physical identity markers in the workplace; the presence of treasured possessions improves employee performance and satisfaction (101). Symbolic meanings can be powerful no matter what they are assigned to. Kalevi Korpela and Terry Hartig said, “Physical environments can be used to regulate pleasure/pain and self-experience, and place identity is partly formed by the experiences and cognitions produced in those regulation processes” (222). There might be a bench in the hall at our workplace. By imparting the meaning “peace” to the bench, we can use it to retreat from stressors. When System 1 perceives the bench, it responds with a feeling of relaxation. System 2 then reinforces the symbolic meaning by consciously ignoring whatever is causing us stress. According to Banning et al., we might have special places for different purposes: perhaps one for fellowship, another for thinking through problems, and another for detaching from the worries of life (907). Places, possessions, rituals, etc. often have interconnected symbolic meanings. Just as the bench might represent peace, the nature photographs in the hall might represent freedom, and the ritual of walking out there might represent the ability to overcome pressing demands. This interconnectedness increases our emotional attachments to these things and strengthens their symbolic meanings.

Because they are based on emotional attachments, symbolic meanings are expressive. Our other perceived meanings are based on our experiences, which are often outside of our control, and our beliefs, which often come down to a rational acceptance of facts. They may even conflict with our self-concepts. Symbolic meanings, on the other hand, customize our little worlds to our needs and preferences. They are direct expressions of our views about ourselves and our world.

Psychological Filters

Not all little worlds are created equal. Our perceived meanings determine what reaches our conscious awareness through the filter of System 1 and how we react to it. Ted and Mei have worked for the same advertising firm for a decade. After all these years, Ted’s daily commute has become so familiar that none of the sights along the way seem worthy of his attention. The only things that his System 1 deems relevant are bad drivers and police officers, things that make him nervous. Mei, however, pays attention to one of the houses that she passes. The homeowner maintains a garden that, to Mei, symbolizes beauty and life. Mei also pays attention to the local businesses, seeing which ones might benefit from her company’s services. These perceived meanings elevate her mood. In this case, Mei’s little world is better than Ted’s.

The Bible admonishes us to think on “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable,” and whatever is “excellent or praiseworthy” (Philippians 4:8, NIV). We do not have to ignore what is bad about the world, but we cannot let it obscure what is good. In the preface to The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis discussed the importance of keeping that which is good, or heavenly, in view:

Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself. (Lewis 7)

If our workplace means nothing but drudgery, then we have reduced an occupation to a sort of Hell. If our workplace means drudgery but also income and ambition, then it will remind us of what we are working toward. Our perceived meanings can highlight or obscure what is true. They can spur us toward our goals or drain our motivation.

Most of the time, our attention is wasted on worries, frustrations, and past failures. William Sanders and Douglas McHugh discovered that “people consider themselves able to discern accurately, reliably, and safely when to trust their instincts and intuition, and when they should pause, reflect, and reason carefully, but often that confidently held belief is undue and irrational” (11). We must consciously choose to pay attention to what is good; we cannot wait to be prompted. Lewis said, “If we insist on keeping Hell (or even Earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell” (6). Worrying and complaining insist on Hell by highlighting everything bad or potentially bad. Heaven disappears; good becomes nothing more than an intermission between signs of evil. Nitpicking and apathy insist on Earth by rejecting any sign of the transcendent. Heaven disappears behind the fog of mundanity.

Through thankfulness, humility, and hope, we can learn to recognize goodness in its various forms. In Paul’s epistles—Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:17 are two examples—the apostle commands the churches to be thankful. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18: “Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (NIV). Hope allows us to be joyful. Humility requires us to acknowledge our place in the world, often through prayer. Thankfulness reveals to us God’s wisdom and love. Practicing these virtues draws our attention to beauty, utility, novelty, and truth, gradually updating our perceived meanings.

Humans are finite. We cannot embrace all of God, but we are not expected to. We each embrace and reflect aspects of God in special ways. C. S. Lewis explained, “Even on the biological level life is not like a river but like a tree. It does not move towards unity but away from it and the creatures grow further apart as they increase in perfection. Good, as it ripens, becomes continually more different not only from evil but from other good” (6). We are like puzzle pieces. Collectively, we, as unique individuals, create a more complete picture of our Creator. We are expected to inhabit our own little worlds, and we are expected to make those worlds good.

Summary

We do not interact with reality as it is. Both processes of human cognition rely on perceived meanings to parse through the overwhelming detail of reality. System 1 creates and reacts to these meanings automatically, controlling how we perceive the world around us. System 2 consciously and deliberately updates perceived meanings based on our beliefs. Together, the two systems generate the highly simplified and individualized worlds that we inhabit. We further tailor our worlds to our unique preferences and needs by imparting symbolic meanings. Nonetheless, not all of our little worlds are created equal. Our perceived meanings can reveal or obscure goodness and inspire or destroy hope. God designed us to embrace His goodness. As finite creatures, we cannot embrace all of it, but, through our little worlds, we can reflect God uniquely to one another.