Also bg Daniel Goleman

Vanrnrrps oF THE
Mrorrarrvt ExprnrENcE
Wrrar psycrrorocy
Krvows Trrer Evnnyor*n
S'our,o
(co-author)

VIML
LIES
SIMPLE
TRUTHS
The Psychology
of
Self-Deception

DanielGoleman,Ph.D.

A TOUCHSTONE BOOK
Publishedby Simon & Schuster
NEW YORK

LONDON

TORONTO

SYDNEY

TOKYO

SINGAPORE

zt\
-

It seems plain and self'-evident, yet it needs to be said: the

isolated knowledge obtained by a group of specialists in a narrow field has in itself no value whatsoever, but only in its synthesis with all the rest of knowledge and only inasmuch as it
really contributes in this synthesis toward answering the demand. "Who are we?"

C o p y r i g h t O 1 9 8 5b y Da n ie lGo le m a n , Ph .D.
All rights reserved
including the right of reprocluction
in whole or in part in any form
First Touchstone Edition, 1986
Published by Simon & Schuster,Inc.
Simon & SchusterBuilclins
R o c k e f e l l e r(le n te r
l 2 l 0 A v e n u eo f th e Am e r ica s
New York, New York 10020

-EnwrN Scunoorxcrn
s

'11)LI(IIIST'ONr.
and colophon are reglisteredtrademarksof Simon & Schuster,Inc.
Designed by F.dith Fowler
Manufacrured in the United Statesof funerica

r 0987654 3 2 r
1098765+ 3

Pbk.

Library of CongressCataloging in Publication Dara

()oleman, Daniel.
Vital lies, simple ffuths.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
l. Cognition. 2. tuth-Psychological
aspects. l. Tiuth-Social aspects. 4. Defense
rnechanisms(Psychology) I.Title.
IlF31l.G584 1986
l5 l
8 5 - lit6 0
I S B N 0 - 6 7 1 - 4 5 0 .5 8 - l
I S B N 0 - 6 8 4 - U3I0 7 - 4 Pb k.
Iior pcrrnissionto reprint excerpts,the author is grateful to the following:
IrrternrrtionalUniversitiesPress,Inc. for The Denial of Stress,
edited by
S I r l ,r n r o I l r c zr r itz.Oo p vr ig h t l9 fl3 h y In r e r n a tio n alU ni versi ti es,Inc.
Itttt't'tt:ttiott:rlI IniversiticsI)ress,Ir.rc.f<rrCognitit,eTherrtpyand the Emotional
l ) r t t t t , l r t ' ,1 1 1\:r r o n ' l.llt' r ' k,\l.l) .Oo p yr ig h tl9 7 6 l' >vAaron'l .l l eck,M.l ).
( . . r r r r l r r t,l1 it' Ir tttvt' tr il1
l) tt' sslo r ' :r r lr t' llr ir r lr ' <l l rorrr"()ogrri ti oni l rt'rrroti orr,"l r1,

ACKNOWLEDCMENTS

FOR TARA
"oM, TARE,rurrAnE, TURE.swAHA!"

In the spring of 1978 I'had the pleasure of visiting with

Gregory Bateson. Although Bateson was whe ezing badly because
of the lung cancer that would end his life several months thence,
his spirits were high, his mind as alive as ever.
Bateson was reviewing his intellectual odyssey. A breakthrough had occurred for him just after World War II, at the Macy
Foundation conferences where Norbert Wiener's group developed
cybernetics. "Then," said Bateson, "I got on the right track: I could
see more clearly the properties of whole systems, of the interlinked
patterns that connect things."
He abandoned then-fashionable views of behavior: "Those
theories of man which start from his most animalistic, maladaptecl,
and lunatic psychology turn out to be improbable first premises
from which to approach the psalmist's question, 'Lord, what is
rnan?'And this narrowness led us to a failure to discern the pattern
w hi ch c onnect s. "
"What," I asked, "is the 'pattern which connects'?"
" Th e pat t er n which connect s, " said he, "is a'm et apat t er n, ' u
pattern of patterns. More often than not, we fail to see it. With tlrt'
cxception of mtrsic, we have been trained to think of pattenrs irs
fixed affairs. The truth is that the right way to begin to think alrorrt
the patter n which connect s is as a dance of int er act ing pur t s, st 't 'oncl ari ly pegged down by var ious sor t s of physical lir r r it s ir r r r l l, r '
l ral l i ts, ancl l>y t he nam ing of st at esand com lr ont 'nt t 'r r t it it 's. "
'l'lr c
A dance of int er act ing par t . s.Tlr e lr at t cr r r t lur t cor r r r t 't 't . s.
glr
\
'(
'slr
r
pr
c
t o: r
i tl t' us st r r ck wit h r nc. O vt 'r t ht 'ncr t [ t 'w y( 'lt r s t lr cv
sci rrcl ro{'r r t y own.
I l r ir <llor r g lr t 't 'r r inlr igr r cr l l) \ 'il nlr r r t r 'ol'lr r ct s: r r r r lir r siulr ls llr ; r l
;rl l sr' (' n r ( '( llr , ll, r ir r t io llr c s; lnr r '1l: t lllrr r , lr r r l lr r ) nr \ \ 'r r lr 'lr , lt r , 'r r 1r 't r l
; r l ll, u\ . 11( l lr . r , l pt r l t r t r '
;rrrr1l ,' sl\ lr 'lr : r ir r ir r t { ir r r 'lir r ir ': t l; , r 1, 'lr , , l, r 1i1

| a cxN< twL EDcM ENT S

irr the midst of patients whose very disorders seem('(l to protcct

them from some deeper threat. A seminar with Ervirrg Goffman,
the sociologist of ordinary encounters, led me to s()e how thcr
ground rules of face-to-face interaction keep us comfortitble by ruling some zones of awareness out-of-bounds. Research on the psyc hobiolog y o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s s h o w e d me how cogni ti on-and so
our experience itself-is the product of a delicate balance between
vigilance and inattention.
These disparate bits of evidence struck me as clues to a pattern, one that repeated in complementary ways at each major levt'l
psychological, social. As I reflected antl
of behavior-biological,
gathered more evidence, the pattern became more focused.
The pattern is a dance with attention and anxiety as partners.
In this minuet, there is an exchange of skewed attention for a feeling of security.
This book describes that pattern, as best I see it.
Along the way many people have been important in offering
pieces of this puzzle, parts of the pattern. Conversations with the
following, all experts in one or another domain touched on in this
book, have been particularly helpful: Dennis Kelly, Solomon St-ryder, Monte Buchsbaum, Floyd Bloom, Richard Lazarus, R. D.
Laing, Donald Norman, Emmanuel Donchin, George Mandler,
Howard Shevrin, Ernest Hilgard, Carl Whitaker, Karl Pribram,
Rober t Ro s e n th a l , Irv i n g J a n i s , F re e d B al es, A nthony Marcel , and
Robert Zajonc. Aaron Beck, Matthew Erdelyi and Ulric Neisser
gave invaluable advice on the manuscript.
While each has helped me with a piece of the pattern, the
synthesis is my own, as are any distortions or blind spots in thinking.
I am particularly indebted to Richard Davidson, ShoshonaZuboff, Kathleen Speeth, and Gwyn Cravens for thoughtful readings,
frank remarks, and close friendship. Inspiration has also come from
several teachers and colleagues, notably David McClelland and
George Goethals.
A. C. Qwerty showed outstanding patience, diligence, and perspicacity in the preparation of this manuscript.
And Alice Mayhew helped me follow the thread of thought
with an unswerving sense of what this book could be.

C ON 'f EN T S

FonrwoRD To rHE ToucgsroNE EprtroN

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE

PAIN AND ATTENTION

Thoughts on Being Mauled bY " Lion
The Pain-Attention Link
Why Dimmed Attention SoothesPain
Mental Pain Makes Cognitive Static
Anxiety Is StressOut of Place
Threat Is Where You See It
Change
The Serenity to Accept the Things I Cannot
PART TWO

THE MACHINERY OF MIND

Freud'sModel of the Mind

The Intelligent Filter
How M,rch Can We KeeP in Mind?
The PacketsKnowledge Comes In
UnderstandingUnderstanding
AwarenessIs Not a NecessarYStoP
PART THREE

SECRETSFROM THE SELF

Iohn D eit t t 's M em t lr Y

( lont r ols t llt ' Fr r t t r r t '
W htl (l <lnt r t llst hc I ) ast
' l .l r< .scl{' svst t , r r r :( lo( ) <l- Nlr "lJat l- \ lr '. r r r r t lNot - l\ lI '
N oti t' i rr g Wlr r r t Not t o Not i<'r '
S ct'tt'ts

Wc

(
K c t' 11 l i ' t' rrt )ttts t' l rc s

1I
l5
27
29
6..}
!)\)

37
40
44
47

5r
DD
ot

6l
67
74
78
84

9l
{):}
lXt
IOl
l(xi
ill

l0 | <;oxruurs
I"orgetting and Forgetting We Have Forgotten
'fhe Therapist's Dilemma

tt7
t24

PART FOLIR

COGNITION CREATES CHARACTER

Neurotic Styles
The Detective
The Anatomy of PsychicArmor
Microeventsat the OK Corral
How to Raisea Paranoid

I2t)
13l

r35
t42

FOREWORD
TO TTIE TOUCHSTONEEDITION

t45
150

PART FIVE

THE COLLECTIVE SELF

The "We"
The Family Self
Family Ritual As Group Memory
The Game of Happy Family
There's Nothing Rotten Here in Denmark
Formula for Fiasco
Groupthink in the Corporate Farfrilv

159
l6l
165

17r
174
180

r84
r90

PART SIX

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL REALITY

Constructingthe Reality par Excellence
The Tyrannies and Freedomsof Frames
The Well-Mannered Gaze
What You Don't See Won't Hurt you
QuestionsThat Can't Be Asked
The Flow of Information in a Free Society
CONCLUSION
An Ancient Malady and Its Cure
The Virtues of Self-Deception
Vital Lies and Simple Truths
NOTES
INDEX

r95
r97
203
209
218
224
231
235
237
24r
244
253
27r

V V" live at a particularly perilous moment, one in which

self-deceptionis a subject of increasingurgency. The planet itself
facesa threat unknown in other times: its utter destruction.
Whether that death be the quick one, from nuclear war and
the catastrophic changes that would follow, or the slow ecological
one, from the inexorable destruction of forests, arable land and
usable water, the human capacity for self-deception will have
played its part.
Considei the case of the nuclear threat. The splitting of the
atom, said Einstein, has changed everything, save how we think.
And thus, he observed, "we drift toward unparalleledcatastrophe"'
The speed of that drift is determined as much by our collective
failure to see clearly what is happening as by the technologiesof
death. That fact is taken into account in a strategic doctrine, called
"perception theory," that was enunciated in policy papers circutated at th" Pentagon in the late 1970s. The basic tenets of the
theory are:
l) In an age of overkill, with plentiful and redundant weaponry able to deliver ample megatonnage,no new weapon system
offers a significant military advantage.
2) However, if naive groups-the American public, other
world leaders, for example-believe that the weapons matter
militarily, then those weapons will be consequential psgchologicallg and politically.
3) Thus those among the inner circlesof rnilitary stritlt'gists
s[<lrrftl1c.t as thorrglt n(.w w(ritponsystt'ttts-srlt'ltlls tlrr' l]MX
so llr:tttlrt'vwill rrr:rttcr
rrurttcrrrrilil:rrilv,
or Sl)l - lrt.lrrirllv
rrrissilt',
Ir'.
rologicrrl
1rsr','l

( ir.rrlr.rlirr lrrlcr
/1strtr'\'t'ttKttll, ;t prt'r'lrohrr',isl
:rl Sl;urfirrrl's
rr;tltorr;tl5r'r'tntlt :rrr,l ,'\rrrrs ( lrrrtrol lltrts it, "In irrlr.r'rurtiorurl
ol'tlre superpowermilitary balarrce
lx)\\'('rrclrrtiorrs,lx.r'('(.1)liorrs
:u'r' tlrc t'oinagc of international affairs even though all the key
llirrtit:s involved seem to recognize that the coins are counterfeit.
l'he situation resembles nothing so much as a drawing-room
comedy. All of the key characters know a certain secret-that
strategic asymmetries are militarily irrelevant in an age of overkill-but because they think that others do not know the secret
they act as if they do not know the secret either."
One upshot of this "secret" is that, in recent years, the major
powers have been spending one million dollars a minute on their
nuclear stockpiles, which are already estimated to contain the
explosive equivalent of 3.5 tons of TNT for every person on earth.
How does self-deceptionenter in?
People who are not privy to the "secret" seem to want to go
along with it, to be deceived. A recent national poll found that
about 90 per cent of Americans agreed with the proposition that "a
nuclear war is unwinnable." And yet, in the samepoll, just over 70
percent also agreed with the idea that "we should continue to build
new and better nuclear weapons.
At the heart of this doublethink is a classic self-deception.
Indeed, it was noted thousandsof years ago in the ancient Indian
epic, the Mahabharatta,in whicfa sageposesthe riddle, "What is
the greatest wonder of the world?"
The answer: "That no one, though he sees others dying all
around, believes he himself will die."
In the face of our individual powerlessness,we find it somehow reassuring to cling to the illusion that there is somethfrrgsome new weapor, a defensiveshield in space,a new missile-that
can protect us againstnuclear death.
And so the strategists'secret is abetted by the self-deception
that leads people to want to play along, to believe, to deny the
truth of futility and hopelessnessin planning for nuclear war. If we
are to avoid the endgame of human history, we would do well to
consider just why we fall prey so readily to such a fatal delusion.
The answers, no doubt, speak also to the secondperil we face
at this moment: the rapidly growing ecological deficit-soil erosion, shrinking forests, grasslandsturning to desert, depletion of
the atmosphere's protective ozone layer, and the poisoning and
drying up of water tables.
Our habits of consumption, on a worldwide scale,are destroy-

l tt
l l l l ttr l o t t
:t t;tl c l l l l l ) :l l "l l t'l ''tl
1 1 r , , t l r r ' 1 l t : ttr r 'l '. l r "'tl tl tr 'r '\ 'r l
, 'l l c t 'l , w ( 'l t l '( '( l r "'l tt) \l l l L '.l l r r '1 r l :r ttr 'l l o to tl l ( ) \\'tl l l tl ttl ( l t'l r r l tl tt'tt'u 'r ' l i r 't'
'tr ttl
.['i l tt' ti r r ks l l ( - tl 't't'l t l tt'u '
, r r r r l l l V l l y . r r ' l r ,','.1 1 ,'r sr tt'ss
t l r t 't 'f l c c t s r ltt tl r t' Pl ;r ttct
,.
.- - - - - 1 .. ,,,- ,' I
e xi tr .l l l tt' tr r t' l r t'i r r g
't h e v i r gi ,r ,l ,,i ,r l i r 'tr sts o f th e Atn a z'tt, l i l r
cattlc to gt'rtz'r"
rate, to rnake t?u:t for
rlt,stroyecl at arr incrcclible

*"i",
l.lr<lsecattle are raised, in th"

to feed the world's htrrrgt'r lirr'

destruction of an acre 'l'

'"'"tn o* many hamburgers does the
could lrt'
we do not know: the answer
r irgin a-"rorrti#;""td"l
has not been done'
rlctermin"d, b;;ifr"t fit of homework
Andthatisthepoint:*"t'""ourlivesoblivioustotheof just hoto
own descendents'
('onsequencesfor the planet-' iot o"t
decisions
connections between the
we live. w" do ,roi r."o* the
that-and
than
rather
buy this item
we make daily-for instance to
the planet'
on
the toll those decisionshave
Itisfeasibletoweigh,-o,"o,l",,accurately,thespecific
ecologicaldamageinvolvedinagivenactofmanufacturing.And
,t",idurd unit that would summa;rize
having done so, to generate "
car, say,
has gone into the making of a
how much ecological damage
or a box of aluminum foil'
Knowingthat,wewouldbeabletotakemoreresponsibility
it' But
of-no* we choose to live on
for the i*p"ai on the pl*r,"i
and even the most ecologithere is no such informatlorr-u*iluble,
know the net effect on the
t" ao
cally
that
'""tiy
"of
"or,"","JJ "*""g i"a, io, *ort of us, being oblivious to
planet of ho*"ti;;*;
gt""d self-deception' that the
us to rlip'i'ioit
relationship ;ltr;
"
no great
o,,, m-aterial lives are of
small and large decisions i,,

"""t;f,:"lxlr,r"n,

out of these
then, is what canwe do to break

that have us in their web?

self-deceptions,and the others
Theanswerthisbookproposes-istounderstand,first,howitis
is
self-deception, by its very nature'
that we are caught at all. For
do
we
We do not see what it is that
the most elusive of mental ru".,'
not see.
Self.deceptionoperatesbothattheleveloftheindividual
of the group' To belong to a
mind, and in ih" "oll""tiu" u*areness
is to agree not to
the.tacit p'i"" of membership
group of
and cer"rry '*t,
.trr"u'iness and misgiving'
notice one's own feelings of
the group's way of
tainly not to question "r,ytiirrfih"i
"hullenges
doinf,;:}ff;"
is that dissent,
for the group in this arrangement

('\'('r lrr';rltlr' rrrssr.rrr,

r\ stirrr.rr.'rirk. tlrr. cir.s(,
trrr. srrrrrrr:
.rplrsirrr. 'r'rr. lrigrrt r*'rir*,
'r
r.rrrrcfrtw' engineers
str.,rrgrl,
.j.r'lr'<1,
'siryirrgtrrat trre searson.the propulrion
rocket were 'rr_
<'rsigrrt:<lto rrear up i' cord
weather. 'itreirob;ections
'ot
were never
passedalong tothose at
higher l"u"lr, ;;;;
of
whom
arreadyknew
of the danger, but had
to discourrt it, import. There
had
"hlr"n
been several derays
and peopi;;;."
questioning
whether
"rr"rd,

ffi#uld

evermaketh"

IN ' t' tt() t) U C T ION

'h.ritt"^*o.t *"ll enoughfo pay its

the inquiry after the disaster,

l"
when the semc rrrrn o-..
testifi
ed
w-hat
h"d
;;;p".n.d,
.r,", *ji"tffi ;;t :lTl?;
"bo.,i_
what they
had done

was i'n^the rrigrr"'ra'int"."rts

of the entire
mission. Had they been
heard, ,r,"-ir"g"ii
*o,rtd
not have oc_
curred. only after a pubric
outcry were th"
reinstated.
Therein lies the ressonfor
"rrgirreers
tirose who-want
to
break
through
the cocoons of sirence ttr"i
t
vitar truths from the colrective
awareness'It is the courage ""p
to seek the truth and to speak
it that
can save us from the narcotic
of serfdece;t*
And
each
of
us
has
accessto some bit of truth
that need, t. U-",poken.
It is a paradox of our time
that those'with power are
too
comfortable to notice the pain
of those *rro ,.rg"r, and those
who
suffer have no power.
To break out of this trap .eq.fires,
as EIie wiesel has put it,
the
courage to speak truth to power.

y topic is hard to explain to you, although it is

something with which we are all intimately familiar. The difficulty
is that we have no precise words for it. That very fact is, in part,
why it intrigues me so: there are, it seems, vital parts of our lives
rvhich are, in a sense, missing-blanks in experience hidden by
lroles in vocabulary. That we do not experience them is a fact

which we know only vaguely,if at all.

Those blanks in experienceare my topic.
Our failure to experience these aspectsof our lives appears
rlue to causesdeep within our consciousness.
It results in an incapacity to bring attention to bear on certain crucial aspectsof our
reality, leaving a gap in that beam of awarenesswhich defines our
world from moment to moment.
My subjectis, then, how we notice and how we do nof notice.
In other words, a piece missing from awareness.A hole in
attention. A lacuna.
The blind spot is an apt physiological metaphor for our failure
to see things as they are in actuality.In physiology,the blind spot
is the gap in our field of vision that results from the architecture of
the eye.
At the back of each eyeball is a point where the optic nerve,
which runs to the brain, attachesto the retina. This point lacks the
cells that line the rest of the retina to registerthe light that comes
through the lens of the eye. As a result, at this one point in vision
there is a gap in the information transmitted to the brain. The blind
spot registersnothing.
Ordinarily what is missed by the one eye is compensatedfor
by overlapping vision in the other. Thus ordinarily we do not notice our blind spots. But when one eye is closed, the blind spot
emerges.To see your blind spot, close your left eye and hold this
l5

lr,r,rl :r l ; ur r r ' r lr . r r r illr r r

r llr \ lr r r r r r , l r l l r ; r r r , l r r 'f r i l r .
for.rr.,urr,rr llrr.
(l(,\., \ r , r t r f , , r r , lr ,
r no\ ( . llr c l, o o L I o r v l l r r l
l
l
n(l t,,r, l. .u1.un.
5 ,rrrr.r r lr c r , , lr , . lr l, r . t , lr
lr , lr lur ( l liltt , r , r r i r r c , l r c . s- r ', , r r
a w a y l l r r , <, r r r . l , . r r i l l
s(.(.lrr lo r lis ir ; l; lt , t t r . .

It is instructive to see one's.

brind spot: it offers a concrete
instanceof a far more subtle,psychologJ""ip"rallel.
Let me Aive you some examprer,
a"ru*r, from various rearmsof
life. Thev all suggestthe pattern
I mean to get at.
Take the caseof u *oLan in
therafy *tio.""ulrs having
heard,
as a chird of five, her mother
crying at'ight. The memory
a surprise to the woman; it
does;;i il;; a' with her "o-", ",
conscious
memoriesof that period of her
life, ;usi;f,;; her father had
moved
out. while the gir's mother
made i;";;;ii;
to
the
father
preading
with him to
back, in the st;i;';;;;""
she portrayed her
feelings very "gT"
differentry, it
j"rri"a
missing
her husband
" -o1h".
u"d-"'"oncerned

f;:i";1:L:';il:l;"

air Arter;i;;;;

were

The daughterunderstoodtlrgt
her
be mentio.,"J. since th" ;;[eineeded mother,ssadnesswas not to
to concealthese feerings,
her daughter too was to deny
them-rrr" a""gr,ter repeatedry
heard
d version of the divorce that
fit arr" iri"g-ihe *other wanted
to
convey; the story became
an estabrishel fact in the
daughter,s
memorv. The more frightening
memorie,
h;;;#J"Jrng
at
"f

,,,tii--"ilo"u.,
tl?l:tfi:9"ffi*t:il1", "ottoberetrieved
The theme of the devastating
impact such buried secrets
can
have is so famiriar i" hi;.;trr3
,ir"rg""s
the universality of
{rt
the experience. The story
oib"aip.r, ,""?jrrl,
the device,
as do Ford Madox Ford's The"ro.,rrd
Goid Sotdli, and
severalof Ibsen,s
plays. Indeed, Ibsen
,ort-o]"r""r"a a .,vitar lie,,,
the
"uir"J1rri,
family myth that stands
in pi"". of a Iers
truth.
such vital lies are not a' thut
"o-fortuule
.rrr"oiil;;.'For
exampre,a psy_
having
*o_ur, _ho, at a dinner party,
:Hil:;eports
";J;.a
"
I am very close *y family.
were always very demonstrative and to
rovins. when rfh"y
dislgre""; ;i;h;i
_J.rrJ,
she threw whateu"r-'iur nearest
at me. once it
"t-h"rrd

l r t g r l r ,'tr ,',1 1 ,, 1 ,, ., L n r l ,';r n ,l Ir r ,',',1 ,',1 l l r r sl tl l l r ,"' n r n r \

I t 'g . A l i 'u 'r ,',u ', l ,r l .r r r r r l r l l r r r l r i cr l t,r r 'l r ,r kc n t,'r tl r ctr I
l r t 'g l t r r <l l r l r r r g ,,r l ,o r l r ,'tl i r l r r 'l l i kt'.'l 'l r ( '\'r ( 'r r l l r ':u ( '\'( 'r '\
( 'o n ( '( )r 'n ( 'r l :r l r ,r r r l r r r r '.

' [' he d enir r l t 'vi<lcr r t in t his r er niniscence is a hallr nur k <lf 't he
r il:tl lie. If the fbrce of facts is too brutal to ignore, then their
rrrt' ani ngc an be alt er ed. The vit al lie cont inues unr evealed, shelt.r't'd by the family's silence, alibis, stark denial. The collusion is
rrririntained by directing attention away from the fearsome fact, or
l,r, r'epackaging its meaning in an acceptable format. A psychiatrist
rr,ho treats families with problems like incest and alcoholism ob\(' rves how vit al lies oper at e: 2
Clues are minimized, joked about, explained away, or
called something else. Semantics plays a big part in minimizing what is actually occurring; euphemisms are employed to hide what is really going on. A "good" drinker,
marital "disputes," or "stern disciplinarian" can mean alcoholism, spousal violence, or child abuse. Explanations
of "minor accidents" are gratefully accepted to explain the
bruises and broken bones of child or spouse abuse. The
"flu" excuses drunken behavior.
Or, as the now fully grown child of an alcoholic put it, "In olrr
firmily there were two very clear rules: the first was that there is
nothing wrong here, and the second was, don't tell anyone."
A different kind of example. Jesse Jackson, recalling growing
up in South Carolina, tells the following tale about an encounter
with a man named Jack, the white owner of the local grocery:3
This particular day I was in a hurry, because my grandfather was outside and he gave me a nickel to get some
Mary Janes and cookies or something. There were eight or
ten black people in there, and I said, "Jack, can I have a
cookie?" He had been cutting bologna or something. I
whistled for his attention. Suddenly, he was on me with a
gun pointed at my head. He said "Never whistle at me
again!" The thing that stood out in my mind was that the
other blacks who were in the store acted as if they didn't
see it. They stayed busy. They had a deep and abiding
fear. I was not so much afraid of the gun as I was of what
my father would do. He had just gotten back from World
War Two, and I knew he had not only a temper but a mind
that had been opened up after being exposed to Europe
during the war. He had become more resentful of the system. I knew that if my father heard about it. he'd either

t8 | rNrnooucrroN
kill Jackor get killed. So I suppressed
it. It came
years later. But that was the ,-rit.,.. of life in the
zone.

INTRoDUcTIoN

<ltrt many
<lccupiecl

T h e fl i p s i d e o f th a t s to ry , i n u s(rl se, i s tol d by B ar' ey si rrron,

a South African playwright, reflecting on an unspoken tnrth itllout
apartheid. If in America blacks suppress rage towarcl wlrites, in
south Africa whites repress tenderness towarJ blacks: ,

All white south Africans are br.trght up in early childh..d

bv b l a c k w o m e n .

I re me mb er the < l ne i n o.r, ho.rre. R < l se.

. . . You spend your first years <ln the black *o*u.',
back.
You spend your first years with yo.r.cheek pressed agai.st
her neck. You hear her songs, her rr"rnu"irar. you'go to
the park with her and sit among .ther black *o-"r,-lik.
h-er. You go ilto her room and m.ybe her lover is there.
You develop this knowledge of etrch other. But at a certain
point, south Africa tells you that knowledge is obscene,
and a crime-worse than a crime, a sin. yiu are told to
forget what you already know.
Military history is rich with another variety of what I am trying
to get at-take, for example, itses of outright refusal to believe the
truth: 5
' In the F irst world war, a week before the Germans launched
their first attack with poison gas, a German deserter brought
a warning that such an attack would occur. He even bro,_,ght
along one of the masks that the German troops had been
issued to protect them. The French commander who received
t h e rn e s s a g ed i s mi s s e d i t a s absurd, and rebuked hi s messenger for not having gone through proper channels.
' In world war II, Herman Goring was told that an Allied
fighter had been shot down over a German city, the first that
had ever been seen that far behind the Axis lines. This meant
the Allies had developed a long-range fighter that could escort bombers over Germany. Goring, a pilot himself, "knew"
such a developrnent was impossible. His reply: "r officially
assert that American fighter planes did not reach Aachen. . . .
I herewith give you an official order that they weren't there."
'In the same war, on the day the Germans began their offensive against Russia, a Soviet frontline unit sent the message
to headquarters, "we are being fired on. what shall *e dol"
T ' w l -ri c hh e a d q tra rte rsre s ponded: " yotr must be i ' sane."
l"o t ' ; t t t ot lr c l' t ' lt s t ' ir t
; r oir t t , li' o r r r : r v l r s l c r l r '( , 1 i r , ; l r l r r r l t . r t l r <. l i r Itilr' o l r r r ; r r r k ir r r l. "Nr r t , lc lu' \ \ , ( , ; r l ) ( ) n s , s 1 \ , s i y r i l . l ,
in,l,ltt, Vrttll

I l9

Street Journal, "are ilccumulating at a cost of $l million a minute

world-wide, with the stockpile exceeding 50,000 weapons." At the
same tir-ne, according to the World Health Organization, fifty million children die each year from diarrhea, the world's biggest killer
-and one preventable by the simplest sanitation and nutrition.
Psychiatrists give the name "nuclear numbing" to the widely
observed inability of people to let themselves feel the fear, anger,
and rebelliousness that fully grasping the human predicamentnotably, the arms race-might bring them. People seem to anesthetize themselves, as though the danger were too vast to arouse concern.
Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatrist, notes how, in nuclear numbing, people "avoid acquiring information that would make vague
fea.s specific enough to require decisive action"; how "they contrive to ignore the implication of the information they do allow to
get thrclugh." In other words, they treat this-everyone's problem
-as i f i t wer e som eone else's.
These diverse instances all exemplify the power of a skewed
attention to hide a painful truth. What connects them is that, in
each case, in some w&Y, a looming anxiety is appeased by a twist of
attention.
Attention is the gathering of information crucial to existence.
Anxiety is the response when that information registers as a threat.
The intriguing part of this relationship is straightforward: we can
use our attention to deny threat, and so cushion ourselves from
anxiety.
In some ways that is a useful self-deception. In others it is not.
In the Soviet Union every publication has its own censor. But
journalists
and editors who work there rarely confront the centhe
pen:
they perform his task for him automatically, applying his
sor's
standards as they do their work.6 Lev Poliakov, a Russian emigr6
who worked as a freelance photographer in Russia, tells of his
going to a city near the Caspian on assignment for a children's
magazine. The city had two large facilities, one a science center,
the other a labor camp. He was met there by a local party official,
who said to him, "Look, you're busy and I'm busy. Let's make it
easy for both of us. Whenever you see barbed wire, just turn your
back and then shoot."
Another emigr6 photographer, Lev Nisnevich, took a photo of
members of the Writers' Union voting on a resolution. Inclrrcled in
the shot was a KGB man watching closely as the ttnirln ntt'tttlrttrs
()tt:'voted. When the picture ran in the widely reatl I'itentturrnttl(t
or r t , lt 'it ving r t r r ly t lr t ' vot ir r g lllr 'llletu, thc KG R n) ir n wils cr <lp1t t : <l
llir
llot
s.
'l'lr
c vist ut l it t t lt t 't 'ssiot t\ \ ': ls ol ; t
ul)
t
lr
cir
l
ro
lt
lir
r
g
l rt.rs

20 | rnrnooucrroN
spontaneous unanimity, with no hint ol'other forces at work iunong
the membership.
S uc h h e a v y h a n d e d c e n s o rs h i p i s o bvi ous. It i s not so r.rrsyto
s ee a s im ila r e d i ti n g i n o u r o w n a w areness. The i nci tl t,rrl ol ' the
cropped picture is a particularly apt metaphor for what g()('s orr in
our own minds. What enters our attention is within tlrt' li'rrrnrrof
awareness; what we crop out vanishes.
T he f r a me a ro u n d a p i c tu re i s a v i sual di recti ve Iot' rrsi rrgotrr
gaze toward what it surrounds and away from everythirrg r.lst.. It
defines what is in the picture and what is out. The franrt.r"sart is to
build margins that blend with a picture so we notice what is li'rrrrrcd
rather than the frame itself.
S o wit h a tte n ti o n . It d e fi n e s u s h ot w e noti ce. btrt w i tl r srrch
subtlety that we rarely notice how we notice. Attention is tlrt' {i'irnre
around experience.
E x c ept i n s p e c i a l c a s e s -s a y , a g i l ded, baroque monstrosi tywe don't notice the frame. But just as the wrong frame intrtr<lcs und
ruins the picture, a distorted attention warps experienct:, inhiltits
action.
A s k ew e d a w a re n e s s c a n b e d i s a strous. One theme of' Greek
tragedy is the sorry chain of event$ begun by
slight flaw of per" philosopher, deception at the outset. Hannah Arendt, the social
scribed how the mix of self-deception and free will allows us to do
evil, believing it good.
The deadening of one's pain through the warping of awareness
may be an affliction to which the modern sensibility is particularly
vulnerable. John Updike, in a review of Kafka's works, statds it
well:7 "The century since Franz Kafka was born has been marked
by the idea of 'mode1ni56'-a self-consciousnessnew among centuries, a consciousness of being new. Sixty years after his death,
Kafka epitomizes one aspect of the modern mind-set: a sensation
of anxiety and shame whose center cannot be located and therefore
cannot be placated; a sense of an infinite difficulty within things,
impeding every step; a sensitivity acute beyond usefulness, as if
the nervous system, flayed of its old hide of social usage and religious belief, must record every touch as pain."
Blind spots are especially tempting to a mind-set hypersensitive to pain. They offer easy solace from the flow of facts that prick
that pain, whether the source is deeply personal, such as the memory of a childhood hurt or this morning's rebuff from a spouse, or
pr r lllic - t or tu re s a n d mu rd e rs b y u n j u st regi mes; nrrcl ear peri l s.
S ot t t t ' f i l tt' rs o r) i tw a re n c ' s sa re e s sc.nti all l y vi rtrrt' o{' the fl ootl
ol' t llt t r r r t r ' :ti l i tl rl t' l tt c l tt' l t r)r()n r(' rrtto orrr s(' ns(' s.' l ' l rc crl rtcx. tl rc
n( ' \ \ ' ( ' s l pr t t l o l l l rr' l n rrru rn l rn ri rr, (' \t)(' r rtl srrrrrt' l rol i l s crrr,r' gr' gri t' k

INTRoDUCTToN | 2l

rrrg and choosing among this flood. "Indeed," suggests the neuroscientist Monte Buchsbaum, "filtering or coping with the tremenrlous information overload that the human eye, ear, and other sense
org&ns can dump upon the central nervous system may be one of
lhe major functions of the cerebral cortex."
Perception is selection. Filtering out information is, in the
rnain, for the good. But the very capacity of the brain to do so makes
it vulnerable to skewing what is admitted to awareness, what reiected. Buchsbaum goes on to point out that the differences in what
people filter out "would then appear to produce a different consciousness of the external environment, each person biasing his
rrdmission or rejection of sensory signals."
The ways in which our attention is biased have profound ef{'ects.As William James put it, "My experience is what I agree to
tttend to. Only those items I notice'shape my mind." But, he adds,
"Without selective interest, experience is utter chaos." For
James,
attention was an act of will, the choice of what to admit to mind a
conscious one. For Freud, it was shaped in crucial ways by forces
in the unconscious mind, a realm out of the reach of conscious
choice.
Both James and Freud had part of the truth. Attention is ruled
lry forces both conscious and unconscious. Some are innocuous,
such as the limits on capacity set by the mehanics of the mind.
Some are crucial, such as the bias introduced by saliency, where
what matters at the moment takes the foreground of awareness.
Some, as I will show, can be self-defeating. Foremost among these
is the self-deception induced by the trade-off between anxiety and
Irwareness.

THE TRADE. O FF
The trade-off of a distorted awareness for a sense of security is,
I believe, an organizing principle operating over many levels and
realms of human life. My intent is to sketch this attention-anxiety
link, which I see as part of a complex web embedded in the workings of the brain, the texture of mind, and the fabric of social life.
My focus is on how information flows, and how that flow is
skewed by the interplay between pain and attention. The notion of
the link between pain and attention is not new. Freud elaboruted
it with brilliance. But recent theory and research, particularly irr
tl rr: fi cl cl <lf inf or m at ion- pr ocessing, of f er s a m or e ar t iculat er l vit 'u'
ol ' tl rt' rrrinr l's inner dynt r r nics, one t hat can be ext encler l t o t lr t .
stnr< ' trrrt, ol'gr 'olr l)
lif i. t r r <l t lr c sot 'ial cor r st nr c't iorol'n.
r
ir lit y.

22 | rxrnonucrroN
Neit he r F re u d n o r a n y o th e r s tu dent of the mi n< l t' orrl rl have
made that leap in this way before the last decade. In lt,r.r,rrtvears
c ognit iv e p s y c h o l o g i s ts h a v e d e v e l o p e d a model of how tl rt. rni nd
wor k s whic h i s fa r mo re d e ta i l e d a n d sol i dl y based tl rtrr rrnv w e
hav e had b e fo re . T h a t m o d e l a l l o w s trs to gai n a new s(,ns('ol ' how
our experience is shaped, and of the hidden forces that scrrlpt personal and social reality.
That terrain-the stretch from the mind's mechanit's to sociul
lif e- is t he d o m a i n w e w i l l e x p l o re here. Our j ourncv, l rt,gi rrs,
t hough, at a n e v e n m o re b a s i c l e v e l : i n the brai n' s systt' nr l i rr scrrsing pain. At the neural level lies the cardinal model {irr tlrr. tr':rtlcof f bet wee n p a i n a n d a w a re n e s s . T h e brai n, as w e shal l st.r' , has
the ability to bear pain by masking its sting, but at the cost of'a
dim inis hed a w a re n e s s .
That same organizing principle is repeated at each successive
lev el of beh a v i o r: i n th e m i n d ' s m e c h ani cs, i n the makeup of' character, in group life, and in society. In each of these domains the
variety of "pain" blocked from awareness is successively refined,
from stress and anxiety, to painful secrets, to threatening or emltrrrrassing facts of social life.
M y t he s i s , i n s u m, re v o l v e s a rd rn d these premi ses:
. The mind can protect itself against anxietg bU dimming awareness.
. This mechanism creates a bltnd spot: a zone
"f
blocked attention and self-deception.
. S u c h b l i n d s p o ts o c c u r a t e ach maj or l eoel of behauior from the psychological to the social.

This book is in six parts. The first sketches the trade-off between pain and attention, showing that interaction at work in the
brain and in the mind's handling of anxiety and stress. The neural
mechanism for the trade-off involves the opioids, the "brain's morphine," which numb sensations of pain and dim attention. An analogue of this neural trade-of{' is a psychological one: soothing
anxiety by withdrawing attention.
The second part elaborates a working model of the mind, tcr
show the mechanisms that allow the attention-anxiety trade-ofl.
Two key concepts here are the crucial role in mental life o{'the
unconscious, and the notion that the mind packages infirrmation irr
" s c hem as , " a s o rt o f me n ta l c o d e for representi ng c' xl reri t' rrt.t' .
' l ' l rt.v tl i rt' < ' l
S c ' lt c : t nas
< l p e n rtei n th e trn c < l n s c i o trs,
o rrt < l l ' aw art' n(' ri s.
lt t t t ' t t t iot t to w l tr< l w l u tt i s s l l i c n t i rrrrl igrrorr.tl rr,r' r' sl ol r.xpcl i r.rrt' r.
iur ( ' s s ( ' rrti rrll rrs k . l l rrt w ' l rc n s t' l rr' n ri rs:r1' r' (l ri r,' rrl ,r l l rr. l i .;rr ol
1r ; r t t t lr rirl r l o t ttl tl ro tr. l l r,' r ,' ;l n (' l r' ;rl r';r l ,l rrr,l s1rr,lrrr .rl l r.rrl rurr

rNTRoDUcrIoN| 23
In the third part, this model of mind brings us to a new under.,r;rrrding of psychological defenses-the quintessential self-decepIror-rS.This section recasts psychodynamics in light of the links
l rr.tw een att ent ion and schem as, showing how, in t he m ind's de,,rqn,inattention to painful truths shields us from anxiety.
When such soothing inattention becomes hallit, it comes to
,,lrirpecharacter. Part four traces the ways such habits o{'avoiding
,rrrxietythrough inattention are passed on from parerntto child. As
l ,t,rsonal i tyf or m s, a given set of pr ot ect ive schem asdom inat es, and
u'ith thenr the blind spots and self-deceits they letrclto.
the {irrnily as a proThe fifth part describes gloup life-using
group
guide
dynamics. The
Iotl,pe-showing how shared schemas
out blind
carving
\iune anxiety-attention trade-off operates here,
rpots i n a gr oup's collect ive awar eness.
The sixth part uses the same template to explore the social
t.onstruction of reality. Shared schemas are at work in the social
rt'alm, creating a consensual reality. This social reality is pocked
n'itl-rzones of tacitly denied inforn-ration.The ease with which such
social blind spots arise is due to the structure of the individual
rrri nd.Thei r social cost is shar ed illt r sior t s.
This is a groundbreaking expedition, a quick slrrvey of terrain
irr several domains of experience. It stakes ottt a territory to which
I liope to return another time {br rlrore detailed mapping. I must
,rsk the lay reader's forbearance with my reviews of theory and
rt,search.They make, at titrres, fbr difficult going. My hope is that
tlre reward for the reader will be tr new understanding of his own
crl teri ence.
I also must ask expert readers-fellow psychologists, cognitive
sr.i enti sts, psychoanalyst s, neur oscient ist s, sociologist s, and any
others upon whose territory I infringe-to forgive my hurried ret.onnaissance of these rich subjects. I have much ground to cover,
,rrrclcan only skim the surface of each area in passing. For example,
I clo not explicitly address the work of Ruben Gur and Harold
Srtc:kheim,psychologists whose focus has been how seltdeception
is irt play in mental disorders such as depression. My general appr'oirch is cornpatible with theirs, though from a different pers1l t' cti ve.
-fhe extraltolation I attempt from an information-processing
rrrotl clof' th c r nincl int o t he dom ains of per sonalit y, gr oup dynam ics,
i rl n'alit y has nr lt , t o m y knowledge, been at t em pt ed belbr e'
rrrr<soci
l
I rl o so l rr.r 'r , ir rt lr t 'st 'r vic'e <lf ir specif ic hypot hesis, nit t nely t hit t <lr r r
r.rl rcri r.rrcc is slr r r p<. rirl n<l lir r r it t 'r l lly t ht 'puit t - t t t t t 't t t iot t t r lt t lt '- o11.
' t' l ri s rrni fi cr l r r r or lr , lol'lr t . lr r r viorlt t r t ll lt 'r 't 'ls t t ut kt 's t t t v' lr t sk ( 'it sl( '1.
r t 1r 'iln(svr
l r llr csisr villt : r t t , ', 1t r ; t llr qr : r r r r llr , 'pi
l l rrl I pr,1 1) ( ) s( . \ r r t 'lr
,1.,t,,',.

24 | rNrnooucTroN
This is not a book of easy answers (I suspect ther. itrernens),
nor a profile against which to measure oneself. It sirrrply offers a
new map of experience, with particular emphasis on s()nr()of the
Torg shadowy patches. The topic is how things work, rrot what to
do about them. The new understanding of the mincl tlritt science
has come to, I trust, can offer insights into our personal irrr<lr,ollective mental lives.
My intent is to give the reader a clearer look through ir veil or
two at the margins of awareness. These veils are most apt t9 tlke
over in those realms that matter most to us: in our inrrt:r-rnost
thoughts, in our crucial relationships, in closely knit grorrps, in
constructing a consensual reality. I mean to suggest how those veils
come to exist. But I do not pretend to know how best to pierce
them nor indeed to know exactly when they should be swept,,*ny.
There is a peculiar paradox when it comes to confrontine thoie
ways in which we do not see. To put it in the form of one ,rf'R. o.
Laing's "knots":
The range of what we think and do
is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because wecfail to notice
that we fail to notice
there is little we can do
to change
until we notice
how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds
Gregory Bateson coined a germane usage. He used the word
"dormitive" to denote an obfuscation, a failure to see
things as they
are. "Dormitive" is derived from the Latin dormire, to sleep. '.i
stole the word from Molidre," Bateson once explained to me. ..At
the end of his Bourgeois Gentilhomme, there ii a dog-Latin coda
in which a group of medieval doctors are giving an oial quiz to a
candidate for his doctoral exam. They ask him, 'why is ii, candidate, that opium puts people to sleep?' And the candidate triumphantly replies, 'Because, learned doctors, it contains a dormitive
principle.'" That is to say, it puts people to sleep because it puts
people to sleep.s
The coinage "dormitive" is applicable here. To steal the word
from Bateson, dormitive frames are the forces that make for a w.king s leep a t th e m a rg i n s o f a w a re n e ss.
I r l t l re c z tta l tl g tte< l f' fi rc to rsth a t .shape'aw l rr(rnes-s,
rl l / spcr:i l rl
f ir t ' r r sis o tt tl rc tl o rrtri l i v < ' fi ' i trrrr' -tf rr' l rcrrrl s rrrr<tn,i
l sts i r,ri ,,,rrtr,< l
it llo; t llc l rl i o tl l rt' l l rc rrl g r' fr)r' s (,(' rrr i l r'l.f rvr,(,i prgti rrrl rsr' l l r. r.rl g,.s

TNTRoDUCTToN | 25

tlrtt frame our experience, we are a

bit freer to expand our margins.
\\ t' may want to have nlore say over
thern, to consider whether we
rr' ;r' t the l im it s on t hor r ght and act ion
so im posed.
My aim is to ponder our collectiv" pr.di""rnent:
if we so easily
l rrl l oursel v es int o sul>t lesr eep, how
*" u*"k". p The n. r t r t . p
rrr that, it seems to me, is tcl notice how
""^r ,
it is that we are asleep.

I'ART ONE

Pain
and Attention

TH OU C H T S
ON BEIN G M AU LED
BY A LION

r\
D*rd
Livingstone,the Scottishnrissionaryof' "Dr,
Livingstone, I presume" farne, was once attackedby a lion. The
rrrcidenthaunted him for years;he haclcorneclose to dying. Re, itlling it some twenty years later, Livingstone was struck by an
,,rlclity. In what should have been a moment of utter terror, he felt
,r ctrri ol rsdetachm ent : r
I heard a shout. Starting, ancl kroking half round, I saw the
l i on j ust in t he act of spr inging upon m e. . . . He caught m y
shoulder as he sprang, and we both came to the ground
below together. Growling horribly close to my ear, he
shook me as a terrier does a rat. The shock produced a
stupor similar to that which seems to be felt by a mouse
after the first shake of the cat. It caused a sort of dreaminess in which there was no sense of pain nor feeling of
terror, though [I was] quite conscious of all that was huppening. It was like what patients partially under the influence of chlorofonn describe, who see the operation but
feel not the knife.
Why should we be able to respond to pain by numbing its
,' l l i rcts? D r. L ivingst one's encount er wit h t he lion of f er s an exem plrrry event for considering this question, and a seminal jumping,l'l'lroint for exploring the nature of our reaction to pain and what
rls rlynnmic might mean for the rest of mental life.2
My premise is that the brain's basic design offers a prototype
, rl ' how w e handle pain of all sor t s, including psychological dist r ess
;rrr< soci
l
al nn xiet ies. These neur al pain m echanism s em body pat I.r'rrs thitt operirte also in our psychological and social life-or so I
rvi l l i u' gu(' .
( l rttsi tl t' r ' llair r . 'f lr or r gh r r ot or <lir r ar ilyt hr lr r glr tol'ir s sr r r 'lr ,
lr r t ir r
t\ r \(' tts(' , l i k t 'sccit r g ot 'lt cr t r ir r g;il lur s ils or vr r lnr t 't s ol'r r r . r 'r 'r .rsr r r r l

,t( l I r r t r t I n \, \l\n ' t.r .

n t rl t rr; l l

nrrrnts

. tl ri s r cgard, i s another sl i ghted sense).

nr ' ur ,rl l rrc rrrl r\ (l rrrl rrrrt' t'i rr
. ' \ sr r r l l r .l l rr.r s t.rrs t' stl, re l ts y c h o logi cal experi ence of pai n depends
or r lr u ' n r()r' (' tl ri rnth e s i m p l e s tre ngth of nerve si gnal s: fear of the
< lt ' r r t i s t' stl ri l l a n d th e j o y o f c h i l d bi rth each al ter pai n, i n enti rel y
op1>ositedirections.
The brain has discretion in how pain is perceived. Our view of
the neural plasticity of pain is based on evidence which has come
to light only in the last few years, mainly from research on animals.
For decades researchers had misgivings about the relevance to
humans of findings based on the reactions of laboratory animals.
Animals were thought to have a very simple pain system, while
humans had a complex one intertwined with the higher, distinctly
human brain centers. Veterinarians, though, had long known that
stroking an animal's head made probing a wound easier-animals,
too, had a psychology of pain.
A closer analysis of the pain tracts in humans and animals
revealed that the system had taken shape so early in evolution that
animals as primitive as snails and mollusks shared with humans
the basic design. This discovery meant that experiments on animals
could offer us an understanding of the human pain response; a
flood of research in the last decade on the neurology of pain has
been the result of that discovery.
While direct stimulation.of nerves in many parts of the pain
tract evokes pain, stimulation bf other parts of that tract does quite
the opposite: it eases pain. The effect is so strong that stimulating
a certain brain site in a rat will allow it to stay calm during stomach
surgery without anesthetics. Analgesia, the soothing of pain, is as
much a property of the system as is the perception of pain.
Pharmacologists had long assumed that a neurotransmitter existed with the capacity to numb pain. But it was not until the late
1970s that Solomon Snyder at Johns Hopkins (as well as other brain
researchers working independently) showed that the brain tracts
where morphine acted had cells with receptors that were specifically fitted to the shape of opiate molecules, like a lock to a key.
What were these sites of action for? As one researcher notes,
"It seemed unlikely that such highly specific receptors should have
evolved in nature fortuitously only to interact with alkaloids from
the opium poppy."
The subsequent discovery of "endorphins," a group of neurotransmitters that act like opiates in the brain, resolved that question. The pathways where morphine could evoke analgesia are
precisely the site of action of the endorphins. Endorphins, which
have been called "the brain's own morphine," are a natural pain
balm.

l s ()N t l , l l N (;

l \ t A t rl . l ' l l ) l t \

. ' \ l . l ()N

:il

' l ' he en dr lr l>hins ir r e par t of a lar ger clr t ss ol'lllir it t t 'lt t 't t t it 'it ls
[.rr,w n as "opioids. " * O piat es like m or phine and her <lir tlut vt ' t lr t 'il'
, l l r.r.tsbec ause t heir m olecular st r uct ur e im it at es t he opi<liclsir r t lr t '
l rr.ri rr.E nd or phin, I ike t he dr ugs t hat im it at e it , also pr oduces it
"high" f eeling of well- being t hat appeals t o user s ol.
,
' rgrl rori a,the
i

'l )r;l tes.

'l'he discovery of the endorphins led to a wave of research ort

,r lr;rt conditions trigger the release of these soothing chemicals. At
lrrrl rr variety of physical stressors were tried. Thousands of labor,rt,r'v rats have had their tails singed or feet shocked to elicit en,l ,,rprhi ns; hundr eds of hum an subject s im m er sed a hand in a
| 'rrt'ket of freezing water.
'fhen a new discovery was made: mental stress alone could
lu{ger endorphins. More precisely, apprehension in volunteers
rr,ri ti ng to get a shock dur ing a pain st udy led t o endor phin r elease.
\,,, tr)o, with other kinds of psychological stress. For example, sttt,l,,rrts taking final exams were reported to have higher endorphin
l , ' r r' l s.
lt stands to reason that purely psychological stress should trigr,r.r' the sa m e br ain r esponse as biological pain. I n nat ur e, pain.
r rnnos deliver ed in an envelope of st r ess.The t hr eat of pain is t he
r.rs(,r1c
of stress: an animal fleeing a predator is aware of the dan,,,' r.kxrg bef or e it exper iences pain, if it does at all. The winning
,l r.si gn i n evolut ion, it seem s, is f or t he pain r esponse t o be par t of
tlrc total package of reaction to danger.
That package as a whole is what Hans Selye, the pioneer of
,,trr.sSresear ch,dubbed t he "st r esSr esponse, " or "gener al adapt ive
,,rrrrl rome . " Selye'S use of "st r ess, " t hough it has f ound it s way int o
t onurlofi parlance with several loose connotations, has a very
l rrcci se meaning. 3 He descr ibed a ser ies of neur ophysiological
,lurnges that the body undergoes in response to injury, the threat
,,1' l rarm,or lif e's m inor or deals. Selye pr oposed t hat t he st r ess r e,Si rrc,e the di s c ov ery of the endorphi ns , other opi oi ds hav e turned up w hi c h are
,.\ {.1 r)rore p otent i n numbi ng pai n. One of thes e, c al l ed dy norphi n, has a c hemi c al
.r<ti9p two huldred times stronger than morphine. Another pain-relieving hornlone
rrs <liscgvered in an unlikely source: it was first isolated from the canrel pituitary.
(', trrllt,tl B-lipotropin, its main function was at first thought to be breaking down fats
(.r (.()pp1on
for hormones ), The l ater di s c ov ery of the endorphi ns l ed to a more
" hn."at B-lipotropin; it was found to contain within it a se<luence_ofamino
rll,rrgltttirl look
.rt.i rl si tl epti c al to nn" of th" endorphi ns . W hi l e the mol ec ul e as a w hol e had no pai nrr.l i r.r.,i l gproperti es at al l , no Ies s than three of i ts c ons ti tuents prov ed to be trc ti v t'
s t' t' tl t to
1,,,i 1rt,l i gv"ri . M* r-ty other s ubs tanc es hav e s i nc e c orne to l i ght w hi c h i tl s o
.,rr1l 1rl r.ss
the l trri n res p()ns e.There trre c ertai n to be rntl re: S ny tl er, w l x l < l i s t' ov t' n' rl
l i [' 1i ' t(' trt
rl ,,'i .r,,l ,rr1lhi ri1> atl rw uy sc, onj ec tures there mrty l te as l t)i l l )y rtstrv o l ttrrtrl rr' <(l
rrr,rrrol l i urs rrri ttt,rs y s tt' rtrs i rr tht' l l rai rt. W e tt< tw k rt< l s ' < l { ' l rt' tr' ,' t' t' rtl rv o l ttrtl l l l r,' ,'
r l ozctt ()l s(r.

32

| vrral

LIES, sIMPLE TRUTHS

s pons e is a u n i v e rs a l re a c ti o n b y th e body to tl rt' t' ;tl s;tn,l ,l ,tt,1,i ,'tlrtf

all s or t s , ra n g i n g fro m b u rn s a n d b a cteri a to l l t' rrtsrrrr,ll ,;t,l t,,' tr' t.
I n bri e f, w h e n a p e rs o n p e rc e i ves an ev(' ttt l ts;t sl tr" .' ,,rr,l l te
br ain s ig n a l s th e h y p o th a l a mu s to s ecrete a srrl l sti ur(' r' ,' ;rl l ,' ,1(:l l F,
or " c or t ic o -re l e a s i n g fa c to r." C R F t ravel s throrrgl r ;r \l )r' ( r,rl r' ,;rl t' way t o t h e p i tu i ta ry g l a n d , w h e re i t tri ggers tht: t' t' l t' rts,'ol ,' \(l ' l ' l l
( f or adr e n o c o rti c o tro p h i c h o rmo n e ) and opi oi tl s, l rrrl i t' rrl ,rrl r l l rt'
endor phi n s .* a P re s u ma b l y , e a rl y i n evol uti on thi s l rri ri rrrl rrrnr u' r' ttl
of f when a s a b e r-to o th e dti g e r c a me i nto vi ew . Itt tttotl ctrr l rnr(' \, rt
meeting with the accountants will do.
I n s u m , w h e th e r p h y s i c a l o r m e ntal i n ori gi n, pi ti tt t' r' gi sl rts rrt
t he br ain v i a a s y s te m th a t c a n d a m pen i ts si gnal s. Irr tl rr' l ' t;tttt' s
des ign t h e re l i e f o f p a i n i s b u i l t i n to i ts percepti on.' l ' l rrrt i s;t t' l rrt'
t o Liv ing s to n e ' s n u m b n e s s i n th e l i on' s j aw s-a cl trt' to u' l ri t' l r I
will r et u rn . B u t th e re i s mo re to th e story. C onsi der tl rc rol l ol
attention in all this.
* N o t t r l l s tr e ss e vo ke s e n d o r p h in s, a lth o u g h the stress response i nvari rrl rl t ttrr',,l vt's
A C T H . I t w a s ACT H th a t Se lye th o u g h t o f a s the pri me brai n chetrti c'ultttrrl ,'rl vi rrg
t h e s t r e s s re sp o n se . T h e r e a r e se ve r a l o th e r s, but few neurotranstrri ttt'rs l trrtl l rcctr
i d e n t i f i e d at th e tin ' r e h e wa s fo r m u la tin g h is theory. The endorphi ns, l i rt crrrrrrpl t',
1$
were completely unknown.

T H E PAIN - A'I''fIi N T ION LIN K

I
! r . r r olo t : ut if - one cannot t he ot he
and if we cun't tlu' gir'curT e. c. washpots prizeblootn

capacities-[11v71i,t{4
ortt-reTtlaced bu the head patterns
y_Uqun capucitit:,y-l u;as not DertJkind to them. e. C.
washpots underputtcrned againrtJbred to pattern. Animal sequestrutiottcu,tucitiei and animal sequesteredcapacitiesunder leash-and animal secretions. . .
This passage has an almost Joycean ring. There is an appealing lilt to "Now to eat if one cannot the other can"; it woid
''t
be out of place in Ulgsses.But it was written by a diagnosed schizephrenic in the ward of a mental hospital. Textbloks
on ps),chopathology enumerate many similar e*a-ples; clinicians
take
language patterns like these to be one diagnostic indicator
<lf'
schi zo phr enia. 5
These florid language patterns are unintentional, not eflbrts at
poe-sl. Schizophre_nic language is a symptom of
an underlying
problem, disrupted attention. Schirophi".rics are easily
distracte<l
noise, by movements, by ideai. Most significa'ily fb. thr.ir.
-by
odd language patterns, they are distracted by thlir o*n b""kg.,,,,,,,1
thoughts and mental associations.
A focused attention is one that can tune out or ignore <li.str.rr<,ti ons, o r at least m ut e t hem . For t he schizophr enic, t hix, gh, r list r - ir <, ti<rnsintrude into the focal zene of awareness with thc ,sarrrt,firr.t.r.
as th_e primary thread of thought. This sabotages th. t,ll,r.t <lr,rrrande dt o const r uct a sent ence.
C < lt t st r t t ct inga sent ence is u c<lm plex at t cnt i<lr lr l t r r sk s. lr ir . lr
s(' (' tl ts sir r r plt : lr cc: t r r se it hr t s llt : c<xnr , ir r r t or r lr t ir . .As r r lr ; r r r r , r l
l l rorrgl r t is t t 'lt t t slir l'r r r t '<l
it r t o lt r r r r t lr . r 'r r n( . (r, , t , lur ir r r l r 'r r r lr ; r r r , l
;tssot' i : t liot t s<'( ) lt l( 'slo t t t ir r r l. 'l'lr ( . \ \ 'or r l "sl, , , . k, " lor r . \ llr r gr t , . , , . , , r r l, l

34 | vrrel LrEs,sTMPLE
TRUTHs
lead by as s o c i a ti o n to b o n d s , Wa l l Street, di vi rk' rrrl ; ,,t l . r' ;rl tl e,
barn, and farm; or to theater, summer company, ittrrl s' ,n
O r dinar i l y th e m i n d s o rts th ro u gh these i rs.\(,(' t;rl rrrr',rrrd
,
c hoos es only th o s e th a t c o m p l e te th e thought w e w i rrrt l o.rl )r(' ss.
F or t he s c hi z o p h re n i c , th o u g h , a fa u l ty capaci ty to i rrl rrl rrl rrr,' l cv ant t houghts l e ts a s s o c i a ti o n ss tra y i n to the sentenct' sl rc rrr,rrrrrl i rr' t ur es . S uc h la p s e s s i g n i fy a b re a k d o w n i n the abi l i ty to i rtl crrrl
Attentional breakdown in schizophrenia has bc,t,rrwr'll rr'('rgniz ed f or at l e a s t a c e n tu ry . B u t o n l y re centl y has thi s tl t' l i ,' rl l rct' n
linked to another odd characteristic of schizophrenics: tlrcr' lurvc ir,
higher than normal tolerance of pain.
A s er ies o f e x p e ri me n ts b y a p s y c h i atri st, Monte l l rrt' l rsl ,:rrurr,
and a group of co-researchers at the National Instittrtt' ol N'|r'rrtul
Health make the case that both the schizophrenic atterrtiorr:rltlt'{icit and heightened tolerance to pain are due to an allnorrrr,tlitv in
the endorphin system.6
S ev er al l i n e s o f e v i d e n c e p o i n t to a n endorphi n abnorrrri rl i tyi n
schizophrenia. One study, for example, compared a grolrl) ol'scventeen hospitalized schizophrenics with a normal groul) rrrrrtclrcd
for age and sex. Both groups went through identical proccrlrrrt's t<r
measure their reaction to pain. Res8archers administere<l ir carefully regulated series of mild electric shocks to a point on tlrc lirrearm of each subject in the study. The shocks varied in intt:rrsity
from a barely noticeable tingle to levels most people woukl f'ecl as
sharp pain.
The schizophrenics were less sensitive to pain than were the
normal people in the control groups. That fact alone suggests that
the schizophrenics may have heightened levels of endorphins.
The Buchsbaum team went a step further. They gave schizophrenics doses of naltrexone, which blocks the activity of endorphins in the brain. If doses of naltrexone reverse any particular
behavior, it is a good sign the behavior was due to the action of
endorphins on the brain. When the schizophrenics-all of whom
were rated as pain-insensitive-took
the dose of naltrexone, their
pain sensitivity increased threefold. This result strongly points to
heightened endorphin levels as the cause of schizophrenics' pain
insensitivity.
The naltrexone had another intriguing effect on the schizophrenics: it improved their capacity for paying attention, even normalizing it. The Buchsbaum group pursued this lead through
another route. They compared a schizophrenic and a normal group
on the ability to attend. The schizophrenics did poorly-until
they
got rraltr'oxone. Btrt the real surprise came when the researchers
: r t lr r r ir r is t c r r.<rrtl
l trc x o n e to th e n o rn ra l gr< l trps;for thern, t< l rt,tht'

' rnr perN /A TTE N TtoN r,rN K

| 35

endorphin-blocking rlnrg irnproved attentiorral r.rrplcitv signifik

cantly. Endorphins scernrto hamper attention.*
The int er play lr t 't r veet t pain and at t ent ion ir r r 'olvcs anot her
neurotran sm it t er , A( l'f H. Ther e is an int r iguir r g ( . on) pllr r r cpt ar it y
betw een endor phit t s it r t r l ACTH, bot h of *f , i"ll , , r , . , . , 'lt . ir st 'rat
l t he
onset of the st r ess r ( 'sl) oI t se.Endor phins ease pir ir r ,r r r r t lt lr r r s1ll<lw
i t to be i g nor ed f or t lr t 't im e being. They alsr >lcssr . r r : r t t cr r t ir ) n,an
effect w hi c h m ay r t t r t kcclenying t he ur gency of
llir ir r r r ll t lr l t , 1sigr .
ACTH, however, hus jrrst the opposite effect.
The Buchslt ar r r t tgl'oup gave ACTH t o pat ier r t su'lr o \ \ , ( . r '(lr, t , ir r g
tested on t heir aler t ness t o t ones and light i. nC; 't 'lI t , t r lr t t t t . t , r lt lr . ir .
attenti on, just us hucl t he endor phin- blocker , sir r r r pr - r . r 'ior r st
s r r r ly.
Other rese ar cher s,Bt t chsbar t r r not
n es, have f ir r r r r r tl lr it t ir r r . r r t sACTH
increases sensitivity to pain.
A C TH , t hen, is som ehow keyed t o r lar r r pt , n( , n( lor 'plr ins.ACTH
and endor phins, it seem s, have opposir r g ir <, t ior r s.
, \ o't 'll f ueight ens
attenti on and seusit izes t he ner vous svst t , r r rlo
llr r ir r ,r vhile epdor phi ns do j ust t he r ever se.
E ndorphins and ACTH ar e split oll'{i'or r rt lr t , sanr erm ust er m olecul e-they ar e, lit er ally, par t of 't lr t ' sir r n( ,n( , lr locher nicalpackage
for confronting danger. The intt'r'irc'tiorrlrt'trvcen ACTH and endorphi n i s orchest r at ed,in par t , lr y t ir r r ing. l) r r r ing t he st r essr esponse,
both these brain chemicals iu'(, triggerecl b1, the pituitary. But
ACTH streams into the lrorlv nror'('<lrrickly; its effects
bL seen
"u1
i n humans wit hin t he f ir st t ir ir t y st , cr r , r cls
of a st r ess alar
m . Endor phins, though, have u slowt,r' rltr'; their effects don't show up
until
after two minutes or stl. 'fhe first response to an alarm alerts us to
the danger; the seconcl stxrke allows an obli,rlousness to pain.
Both ACTH ttncl enclorphins course through the brain during
* The l i nk w oul d be more c on' v ' i nc i ngi f there
w el e c enters i n the brai n w here thes e
two mental furlctions-selective
atlention and pain sensitivity-con)e
together.
Buchsbaum found some, using a computer-trveraging of brain
tig";ir L finpoint
where in the brain a given menial task goes on. This ni"thod r""a"r-r
u [pog""pfri"uf
picture of the brain with scaled shadings reflecting the degree
of activitl,--iir. ,"r.,lt
is a view of the brain rather like_a rnap color-coded lbr elevation,
which at a glance
reveals where the rnountains and valleys lie.
Using these brairt maps Buchsbaum found that there was major overlap
between
brain areas most active during selective attention ancl those active
in pain perception. While the data from this technique is still sketchy, it points to the
f.c,.rtai cortex
and a section toward the rear, in ilrL sensory cortex, o, ["y to b,rtl-,
oti."tin" o,r,f
prtin. N{ost of the effects he studied-strch ai the ability
of naltrexon" t,i ,iiil.t tr,,,
schi zophreni c s ' ordi nary l ev el of attenti on anc l pai n-l s how ed
c harrgr,.r-' i ur1,,.* ,,
l tr('l ts.
'l 'l rt'rt' i trt ' at l ei ts t tw o
otht' r l rrai n .s i tes ry ht,r' r,thc i rt' ti orr ol ' t,rr< l or.,l ri rrsrrr:rr
<l i rcctl v sl l l )l )l ' (' s sl tttt' rtti < l tr.;()rrt' i s tht. l oc ' rrsr,ort' l t.rrs ,tl rr..l l rt,r.tl ,,,,.,,1,i ,,,s \s l r.rrr
l 'l i l r'l r i s rt ttt;tj ot tt(' \trs ol ' t' r' l l i rs s c rrrl rl i r,sc s s r.rrl i rrll i ,r;rl l c rrl i orr.' l ' l rr.,..,1,,r1,1,rr,.,
i rrl ri l ,i l l l rr.i r ;rt.l i r i l r.

36

| r'rral

L IES, sr \Ilt- [,]' r RUT Hs

t he s t r es s r es p o n s e . B u t th c re l trti v e ra ti o of each w i l l rl cl ,' rrnnrc to

a lar ge degr e e h o w a tte n ti v t' u t-rdh o w p ai n-sensi ti vr' \\' (' ;rr,' l ' l rt' se
t wo elem ents o f e x p e ri e n c ' r' -th e n u mb i ng of pai n rrrrtl,l rrrrnrrrrqoI
at t ent ion- s e e m to h n v e r:r (' o n m to n p rl rpose: di mrtti rru :rll c rrl r,,rr i s
one way t o n u m b p a i n . ' fh u t th e s e n e u rochemi cal svsl t' nr\ \l r,' rrl tl
be link ed at te s ts to th e e l c g u rrc eo f' th e b rai n' s desi grr.
T he c on c e p tu rrl s p l i t l rt' tr.r,e c np tri n percepti on l urrl :rl l .rrl i orr
m ay be m or e a rti fi c i a l th a rr rv c rc i rl i z e . The brai n cl ocs rrrl n(' (' (' ss ar ily par s e m e n ta l fu n c ti rl rrs i rs w e c l <li n experi encr' . l l rrt' l rsl ' ;rrurr
n- r ak est he p o i n t th a t th e s c i c n ti fi c s tu dy of pai n an< l ,rl rrttcrrl i ort
has been s e p a ra te d b y v i rtu e o f' th e d i fl erent di sci pl i nt' s l l r:rl sl rrtl v
t hem . T hes e re c e n t fi n d i n g s a b o rrt th e i nti mate ti e bctu' r' r' rr rrl l crrt ion and pai n , i n h i s w o rd s , " i n c l i c a te that thi s separati orri s rrrti {i c ial, s inc e th e s a me n e trro tri tn s n ri tte r s,anatomi c stnrc' trrr,' s,rurtl
inf or m at ion- p ro c e s s i n g s y s te rn rs 'rn a y r nodul ate both l l rti rr rtrrrl rtttention.
T he end o rp h i n s y s te m, th e n , i s ri g ged to reduce attt' rrl i orrrrs i t
s oot hes pain . P a i n re l i e { ' a n c l s e l e c ti v e attenti on shrrrt' (' ()rnnror)
pathways through the brain, although their relationshilr is orrt' of'
m ut ual ex c lu s i v i ty : a s e n c k l rp h i n s a g ti v ate, pai n l essens urrtl :rttt' rtt ion dim s . T h e i n c re u s c c l a tte n ti o n * th a t accompani es A (l ' l ' 11 (' nhances pain sensitivity.
S uc h an a rra n g e me rrt i s p e rm a n e n tl y fi xed i n the l rri ri rr; the
neural networks that carrse this relationship between pairr arr<lutt ent ion hav e c o me a b o rrt th ro u g h mi l l ions of years of evol rrti on.
Cons ider ag a i n th e " d re a rn i n e s s " L i v i n gstone {-el ti n the l i < l n' sgri p.
Might it off'er a clue to the evolrrtionary basis for the curiorrs connection between pain ancl itttention P

WH Y D IN IN {ED AT T EN T ION
S OOT III.]SPAIN

vcr t he m issionar y, Livingst one wonder ed if his

detachment in the lion's mouth might have a role in some divine
plan. There must, he thought, be some higher purpose for what he
called "this peculiar state." This condition, Livingstone conjectured, "is probably produced in all animals killed by the carnivora;
and if so, is a merciful provision by our benevolent creator for
lessening the pain of death."
While there is a sentimental appeal to Livingstone's proposal,
a different interpretation seems more compelling. Evolution favors
responses that allow an animal to survive and procreate. A gene
that fosters peaceful dying would have little chance to be passed
on by those for whom it operates ltest.
Pain ordinarily prompts responses that aid recuperation and
healing-withdrawal,
rest, a slowed metabolic rate and lessened
activity. This round of recuperation, though, has zero survival
value if one is about to be eaten, needs to defend one's young, or
should run. In such instances a metlns to bypass the urge to attend
to a painful wound is essential. The endorphins allow just that.
The pain-numbing response to severe emergency-the attack
of a predator being the prime case-is an even more elegant design
for survival than it is for peaceful, resigned death. Utter terror is
paralyzing. But a predator's threat calls for action, for a response
that rallies to the challenge. What better than to numb the pain and
terror of the moment, while inducing calm? That permits a lifesavi ng resp onse, one based on an assessm entof t he sit uat ion less
clouded by fear and panic. This is precisely the state Livingstorrc
descri bed.
' l ' he: st ir nt r lat i<lnof cer t a. in pit r t s <lf t her enr l<lr lt lr ir rt nr <'l r r ls, r
t' vokcs i tggr ( 'ssiot tr t r t <l<lcf i'r r siv( . nur . n( 'lr \ , ( 'rlr's,
t l<. lt slin llr lr or ': r lr r v
i ttti trutl s.l "ot 'it t slr t t r t 'r '.lr lit 'r 't loir r u lr lr lllt 'lir r lcr liloli: r l r l, , r r r ir r ; r r r . r ',

:l u l v rl e r. r.rE S,
s IN { p t-F t' rR U' I' us
,' 1,' r,rl .rl .rrtl < l rr ' : r t ss lr ow i r s tl ' o n g p o s t-fi g h t a n a l g e s i tr,i rrcl i c' i tti rru
sl r' nr r' , { l rscl y
s\
p
a
i
n-ntrnrl
ri
rrg
th
e
th
a
t
lev
els
.
T
h
i
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
ts
lllr ir r
link ed t o t h o s e d e s i g n e d fo r h a n d l i n g danger i trr< ltl rrr' ;rl l l ' .r' (' rns
r eus onable -th o u g h , a d m i tte d l y , s p e c ul ati v-to srrl )l),' ,r' l l r:rl tl te
pain- num b i n g s y s te m e v o l v e d a s p a rt of a ptrcki l g('l l utl ,rl l ' rr s tl tt:
brain to rally to the challenge of a physical threat.
T his , t h e n , i s th e a l te rn a ti v e to L i vi ngstone' s tl rcorr. l " rl rrt' ss
f or s ur v iv a l fa l l s to me mb e rs o f a s p e ci es w ho, w l tt' n (' \' (' ttl s rr' i tl ' r ant , ar e be s t a b l e to i g n o re th e i r p a i n whi l e deal i ng u' i tl r l l rr tl tt' t' i tt
at hand. T h e h i g h s u rv i v a l v a l u e o f p ai n-numbi ng rvorrl ,l ,' rpl rti n
why it is f o u n d i n p ri m i ti v e l tra i n a re as,w hi ch hutrti trtssl r,rrcn' i th
m or e anc ie n t s p e c i e s . In d e e d , o p i a te r eceptors htrverl r< ' t' trl i ,rrrrtli n
ev er y s pec i e s e x a m i n e c l , i n c l u d i n g th ose w i th nervorts srsl (' nrs tl s
primitive as leeches.
A not he r l i n e o f re s e a rc h s u p p o rts the noti on that l l rl crrtl orphin r es po n s e i s ta i l o re c l fo r h a n d l i n g emergency, not l i r r,' (' ()\' (' l ' y
af t er war d. A U C L A re s e a rc h te trm f ound that i nesci tyrrrl ,l r'l i tot
s hoc k s - bu t n o t e s c a p a b l e o n e s -h e i g htened endorphi rr l t' r' t' l s i n
rats.s Shocks that can be escaped, they fbund, trigger it n()nopioid
r eleas e; es c a p a b l e s h o c k s i l re l e s s q f a t hreat than i nesci tprtl rl t'ottes.
This precise difference in rehctions to types of strt'ss, they
observe, is also found in turnor growth. When laborat<lry ritts u,'ith
cancer tumors get an inescapable shock, the tumor growth rtrte
quickens. When they can escape the shock, the growth rtttr tloes
not change. Endorphins n-raybe the culprit: when tumorotts rats
are given opioid anttrgonists like naltrexone, their tumor growth
rate slows and they survive longer. This pattern suggests that the
opioids, while they dull pr,rin,interfere with healing.* The brotrder
implication is that the enclorphin pain-suppression system, while
it may be of vital survival value in handling emergencies, is not the
response of choice when recttperation is needed.
The pain-numbing system needs to discriminate somehow between those times when it pays to relieve pain and those when it
does not. Some wounded soldiers, for example, have reported experiencing a state like Livingstone's. But for many, their pain rernains an agony. The pain-numbing system switches on selectively.
,* 'l'o firrtl otrt wh1', the UCLA group exarnined the effects of these different shock
lxrttt'rrrs orr the rat's immune system function. The rats subjected to the shock pattern
t l r i r t t r i g g t ' r s o p io icls h r r d im p a ir e d im m u n e fu ncti on on tw o counts: the anti tumor
r('sl)()us(o
' 1 'lr o tlr T - lym p h o cyte s a n d "n a tu r a l ki l l er" cel l s suffered. But there w ere
r r , rs r r c l r i r r r r r r r n r t,svstt' r nr le ficits in a g r o u p o f r ats treated w i th nal trerone (an opi oi d
l th e silm e in e sca p abl e, opi oi d-sti mul ati ng shocks. When
r r r r l r r g o r r i s rrr) r r <sr
l r lr .jcctcrto
l l r , , r ' r r r l . r ' p l rir r r ' ( ' sl) ( ) n s( .\vu ssu l) l) r ( .sst' tl,th t: inrrntttre system w i ts ttni ntl l l ri rt'rl .'l 'l rt'
, , r r r r ' l r r r i o r r : ",p io ir l 1 lr ' lr tir lt' sir r ( , sig lr ifit' lr r r tl v i trvrl l vt'tl i tr tl rt' t'l l 't'ts ol 'sl tt'ss ott
( , u r (r ' r , r t r , l llt,' r tr ttr r tttr .s\ sltttt."

\VIIy

I )t \ t N TE D A T' I ' F] N TI O N S O O TH E S I ' . \ I N

:}1)

Althotrgh thert' rtrc t'ationnl guidelines for wl-ren it pays to ir-rnore pai n and whcr t r r ot , t he endor phin syst em seem s t o f illlow it s
ow n i mpe r at ives. Jr r st u'hat t hey ar e is st ill a m yst er y: r ve ckr r r ot
know how a m echit r r isr r ras phylogenet ically pr im it ive as t his clisti ngui shes bet wee r r t lr t . lion and t he m or t gage paym ent s.
B ut ther e is lit t lt ' r lor r lt t t hat , in t he long r un, it pays a species
to have the capacit v lo over r icle pain in special inst ances.Ther e is
survi val value bot lr ir r t lr e per cept ion of pain and in it s num bing.
B ut w hy should soollr ir r gpilin dim inish at t ent ionP Such a r esponse
to emergency worrl<l s('cnl on first glance to have little survival
val ue. W hat posit ivt ' r 'ole in evolut ion r night dim r ling at t ent ion
pl ay? W e can <lr r l- sl>t
"- 'r 'r r lat e,
of cour se. Livingst one's lion suggest s
one sol ution.
A serious rvorrrrclis a Iifl:-and-death matter. It should get full
attention, beconre the primary focus, to ensure care. Survival
shotrld dictate a reflexive, involuntary attention to a pirin. lndeed,
the pain systeln is constmcted to compel attention to the source of
pai n-i n most cases.
Ilut in those instances when a greater danger looms, an animal
whose trttention is comptrlsively pulled to the rvound rather than
to the lion is as good as dead. Attention must swing in a wider arc:i*/
To override the reflexive attention to pain, awureness rnust somei.n* be wrenched away. Endorphin is the chenrictrl agent capable
of loosening attention in that way. While attention suf'fersthereby,
the evolutionary bottom line-survival-shows
that the outcome
makes the bargain worthwhile. The pain s.vstenris a fixture of our
neurological legacy. Its trntiquity ilttests tcl its success as a strategy
for survivtrl.
, My premise is that the pain-attention trade-off marks a pattern
rvhich has found a niche in both the psychological and social do-t,
rnains. For modern man, physical pain is a relatively rare event.
Far more colnmon is psychological pain-aflront
to one's selfesteem, appr ehension, loss. We m eet t hese pains wit h an alar m
system tunecl by millions of years of more primal threats.
. " The brain's tactic for handling physical pain through muting
rtwareness offers itself as a ternplate for dealing with psychological
and social hurts as well. Whether these brain mechanisms are the
itcttral root of the numbness that operates when we brush up
against mental pains, or are simply analogtres fbr it, is an open
tl rrcsti < l n .M y goal her e is m or e m odest : t o point ot r t a pat t er n t hat
t' ottnt' c' tsThe
.
per cer pt ionof pain inclucles t he al>ilit y t o r r r r r r r llpir ir r
l rv ttrrri rtg it or r t . Thit t pat t er n, us wc shall s( '( ', r ( 'l) ( 'ir t sit sr 'l{'ir glr ir r
rttrtlrrt1rrir ir
r ,r ( '\ '( 'r '\ 'r r r ir jort lor r r lr ir ro( 'lnunlur lr t 'lr r r rior '.

pArNMAKEscocNrrrvE srATrc I 41
MEN.TAL

MENTAL PAIN
MAKES COCNITIVE STATIC

o n c e i n m y l i f' e h a v e I b een paral yzed bv l i ,rr' .' l ' he

ls t
oc c as ion was a c a l c u l u s e x a m d u ri n g my fresh[l an year i rr r,ol l r.ge
for which I somehow htrd managed not to study. Looking lxrt'k, it
was a minor event, but that day it loomed enormous.
I still remember the room I marched to that spring nrorning, wit h f ee l i n g s o f' d o o r-n a n d { b rg b o di ng heavy i n my ht.i u' t. I
had been in that lecttrre hall for fiany classes: history, lrrrrrrrrnities, physics. It was a large amphitheater with bolted-in woorlen
straight-backed chairs, euch with a fold-up arm for note-takirrg. Its
large windows looked out over a vista of hills and woods. I had
gazed out those windows, Iost in thought, while one prof'essor or
another droned on about the Carthaginians, Henry Janres, or
Planck's constant.
This morning, though, I noticed nothing through the windows
and did not see the hall at trll. My gaze shrank to the patch of floor
directly in front of me as I nrtrde my way to a seat near the door. I
don't recall looking up as the tests were handed down the rows, as
I folded out the arm, as I opened the blue cover of my exam book.
There was a smell of old lacquer from the wooden floors, there
was the thump in my ears of heartbeat, there was the taste of anxiety in the pit of my stomach. There was the blank page of the exam
book.
I looked at the exam questions, once, quickly. Hopeless. F'or
an hour I stared at that page, the green lines thinly etched on white.
My mind raced over the events that had brought me there, unready,
und over the consequences I would suffer. The same thoughts repcatecl themselves over and over, a tape loop of fear and trembling.
I s at I t r < l ti < l n l e s sl i,k e a n a n i ma l fro z en i n rni d-move by crl rar(..
l\ lr ' lr r r r r t l lr r ' l < li ts p t' n c i l p o i s c c l ,l x rt s ti l l. N {y e' ye strrcl i ctlthc l rl rrrrk
( ' \ : un l) lll- I ( 's, trl rt' irr{ rro u ,l rt.r' t'
t.l s r' .

What strikes me n-rostabout that dreadful moment was how

constricted my mind became. I did not spend the hour in a desperate attempt to patch together some semblance of answers to the
test. I did not daydrearn. I simply sat fixated on my terror, waiting
for the ordeal to finish.
At the hour's encl I rose, a zombie, leaving my blank exam book
still open on the fokl-rrp arm.
A nxi et y is cognit ive st at ic. The essence of anxiet y is t he int r usi on of di st r ess int o physical and m ent al channels t hat shot r ld be
clear. A nagging worry invades sleep, keeping one awAke half the
night. A persistent fear imposes itself into one's thoughts, distracting from the business at hand. When anxiety crescendoes into
panic, as happened to me during that calculus exanl, its intensity
completely captures thought and action.
--r,Anxiety is a particular blend of emotion anrl cognition. It melds
the arousal pattern of the emergency response with the cognition
of threat. The forms of anxiety arre rnultiple, fbr it expresses a
complex melange of biological anrl c<lgnitiverevents, any one of
w hi ch can m anif est it self m ost pr or r r inent ly as t he key sym pt om . A
mental preoccupation is, in this scnsr:, the {irnctional equivalent of
heart palpitations. Both signal thc same trnderlying dynamic, a
stress response run amok.
It is not danger, ltrrt ratht.i' the threot of danger, which most
often primes the stress respor)sr,.'fhe central characteristic of the
information that signals strcss is uncertainty. Uncertainty calls
forth an early warning, an alcrt to check for the possibility that a
threat looms. A stirring in the btrshes may or may not be a predator.
But those small primates that startled into action at the first stir
were the ones whose descendants have survived to write books
about it.
In the most general case, anything new or novel, anything
unfamiliar or out of the routine, bears scrutiny, if only in passing.
The new, by definition, is unknown; novelty is the essence of uncertainty, which in turn is the harbinger of possible threat.
The brain confronts novelty by calling the stress response into
readiness (but not total engagement)-just in case. The stress response has a dual link to attention: Attention triggers that response
in the first place, and attention centers are in turn activated by the
stress alert. If the possibility of threat is confirmed, then the stress
response will go int o high gear . eThe exhilar at ion of t he new ar r r l
rtovt' l can be t r aced t o t his neur al hookup: novelt y gear s t hc lr ot lv
to rr< ' ltrv ct r glr ging a l<lw- gr aclet r r or r sal.
' l ' l rc ttt t ivt 'r s: t l r csllor r sc t o r r ovr 'lt v ir r lr r r ir r lr l sgr r . <'ir .is
s llr r .

' t2 | r' r' r' n r,

r,n ,l ss,r\r,r,r,,' fR U ' r' ns
" or it ' r t t in g re s p o n s e ," i t c o m b i n a ti o rr ol ' i rrcl t' i ts< ' rlIrr,urr .rrl rr i t\' ,
s lt it r lr c r t e csl e n s e s ,a n d h e i g h te n e d a ttenti on.' I' l rt' r l rrrr' l ,rl , r l rrr" ,s r)[
ir c ir t wutc h i n g a b i rd i n d i c a te s o ri e n t i ng. S o d< l t' stl rr' 1,,' r' ,{,n' ,l r,ri rrir - r gt o he a r i f a s tra n g e s o u n d b y th e w i ndow i s i t l rrrrql ;rr,r l l r, r' ;rt.
I f t h e e v e n t th a t tri g g e rs th e ori enti ng resl )ons(' r r.r' ,r' ,l r'\ r i rS
f am iliar a n d n o n th re a te n i n g (i t' s j u st the cat), tl rcrr l l r. l ,r.ur, .rrrtl
body s ub s i d e i n to a l o w e r s ta te o f arousal . B ut i l ' tl rl rrrl ,,rrrr,rl r,n
r egis t er s a s th re a te n i n g (b u rg l a r!), th en ori enti ng l t' rrrl r l . ,r ' ,tr.ss
r es pons e .
T he d e g re e o f b ra i n a ro u s a l d e pends on how grr' :rl l l r. rrrrsm at c h is b e tw e e n w h a t i s e x p e c te d and w hat forrnrl . \\' l r,' rr .rr' rrts
ar e r out i n e , th e h i p p o c a m p u s -a c enter i n the rni < l l rnri rr k.r,l )s
t he lev el o f a ro u s a l l o w ; e v e n ts a re noted and takcrr i rrl () i r(' (' ,unt,
but wit h e v e n m i n d e d n e s s . T h e h i ppocampus regi stt' rs l ;rrrri l i i tr
s t im uli w i th o u t th e re s t o f th e b ra i n havi ng to ori ent to i l . l l rl ot.s
t he dr udg e w o rk o f h a n d l i n g th e mu ndane routi nes ol ' l i l i ' .
A n a c c o u n t o f th e n e trro l o g y o f attenti on descri l rcs tl rr' Iri 1r1roc am pus ' s ro l e i n th e s e te n n s : ro
W hen w e l c o m i n g s o n re o n e a t o ur doorstep, w e n(.(.(l rrol
c ons c i o u s l y p rc l c e s sth e r,v a l l c ,door frrrme, etc.-l rut tl rt,st'
inpu ts to o u r s e rl s c ' s n c l n e th e l ess gui de our bel rrrvi or' .
Shotrld an earthrlrruke occur, we immediately pay itll<'nt ion to th e s e p re v i o rrs l v u n h e e d ed sti mul i .
T he i mp o rta n c e o f th e h i p p c l c a m pusi n these casescarr l )(' s(' er]
when it h a s b e e n s u rg i c a l l y re m o v e d. Then, " every envi rorrrrrcrrti rl
change takes on earthquake proportions. . . . Inputs intnrrlt', t[istract, and so disrupt the active encoding processes . . . that grricle
behavior." The hippocanlpus, then, keeps the brain from nrirking
every event an emergency, and keeps the routine from intrtrcling
on awar e n e s s .
In the stress response, purt of the brain circuit that triggers the
ACTH release is via pathrvrtys that ascend from the brain stem
through the hippocampus.rr These pathways prime attenticln as
well. The net effect is thart attention and stress arousal are intertwined: some stress steroids Are released whenever the brain
rouses attention above a certrrin threshold.
The total bath of brain chemicals in the stress response elegantly prepares a person to deal with danger. In early evolution,
this meant either fight or flight. After the danger passed, the body
could relax. But with the advent of civilization, neither fight nor
flight are called for with any regularity, if at all. More ofien thrrrr
nr ) t , wc a re l r:ft to s te u ' i n th e s e j rri c es. /
A s ll l ri tt t' tttt' rs tl rt' 1 l s v t' l to l o g i <' i tltl < l rrri ri rr,
i ts sour' (' t' l r,' r' ()nr(' \

\l ,tN ' r \t, I,A IN MA K l ,tsc oGN ITtv u s ' r",t.r,r<I. l l i

more a bst r act and t lil'lir st '.A lion's lt it e is specif ic. ;it t . r r r rlr , , , l, . , r lr
w i th decisively: f lr 't '. , r r '. if 't r apped, f lood t he br ail *, ir lr . r r r lr r
phi ns. But m ent t r l pit ir r is elt r sive. Financial woes, iur un( . ( ) nl
muni cat ive spous( ', t 'r ist cnt ial angst - none of t hest : st r . r . ssrsr
nec' essar ilyyielcls t o r t sir r gle sim ple solut ion. Neit her f iglr t n( ) r
fl i ght i s sat isf act olv; t lr c f ight could m ake m at t er s wor se, t lr t , lliulr r
even m or e so.
W hile st r essit r ot t sr t lis t f it t ing m ode t o m eet em er gency, lr . sir r l
ongoi ng st at e it is r r t lisr t st cr .St r st ained st r ess ar ousal leads t o pr r thol ogy : nnxiet y st r r t csor ' psychosom at ic disor der s such as h_vpt , r . tensi on . These dist 'it st 'sir x' end pr oduct s of t he st r essr esponse,t lr t ,
cost of an t r nr eler r t ir r gr . t 'r t r liness
f or em er gency.
Th at r espolr s( 'is ir t t 't 'r t ct iont o t he per cept ion of t hr eat . Tt r pir r g
out threat is otre tvat' to sl-rort-circuit stress arousal. Indeed, f,,rl
those dangers ttncl ltuirrs that are nrental, selective attention <lflbr.s
relief. Denial is the psy'chological analogue of the endorphin ltterrtional tune-out. I contencl that denial, in its nrany for*r, is an 11al gesi c, t oo.

\\\Illl'Y

AN X IE T Y IS S T R E S SOUT OF' PI,N( ;I.:

- ' r ' A " .i e ty

i s tl re e x tre me end of the orcl i rri ' r < ' ,rrti nuum of ar o u s a l . Gra p p l i n g u ,i th a to u g h mental probl crrr ot rt' trtrning a t er - r n i ss e rv e b o th a c ' ti v a .tea ro u sal . Thi s i ncretrserlrtr,,rrsrrli s
f it t ing and u s e l u l ; s u c h trrs k s re c l u i re extra mental arrrl yrl rvsi cal
r es er v es .
B ut wh e n th e a ro u s u l rl < l e sn o t$ t t he task at hancl -nror' (' pru' t ic ular ly , wh e n i t i s to o g rt' rrt-th e n i t becomes anxi ety. Irr rrrrri cty,
arousal that might be fitting firr cor-rfrontinga given thrett irrtrrrcles
into another situation, or o('curs rrt such a high pitch thrrt it sabottrges an appropriate respolrsc.
I)uring an anxiety statt', irttention can cling to the s,rrrrce of
threat, narrowing the rang(' of'awareness avaiLrble for othcr things.
The narrowing of attention rrncler stress is amply documentccl. For
example, in a classic study' r.olunteers were put through a sirnulat ed deep-s e a d i v e i n a p re s s trrec h a mber.t2The di ve, done rrnder
water, was dramtrtic, with rcerl changes in pressure and oxygen.
B ec aus e of th e o x y g e n c h a n g c s th e re were some actual , btrt mi nor,
danger s inv o l v e d , a n d th e v o l rrn te e rsl earned some emergency procedures. I)uring the dive sinrrrlation, the volunteers had to perfonn
a central tracking task and at the same time monitor a flashing light.
As the dive proceeded and ther volunteers got more and more anxious, they could continue with the central task, but lost track of the
light .
The notion that anxiety nilrrows attention is not new. Samuel
J ohns on s a i d i t p i th i l y : " I)e p e n d u p o n i t, S i r, w hen a man know s
he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderf ir lly . "
Wl'rt'n tlrer stress response drives atter-rtion,it focuses cln tht'
t lr r t ' r r tlr t lr l rrrrl .' l -l ri si s fi rre rw h e n a tte n ti on arr< l l < l < l i l ytrorrsi rl l rrc
l i s p i rtt' l t i t orr tl tc spot. l l rtl sl rt' ss
lr ois c r l l, r r l c rrl u ' i l l r rr l l rrt' l rl i rrr< rl

l S S ' l ' l t E S S O U T O l . ' l , l , r\ c 1 . . I

l5

si tuati ons in m ode, r . rlili.

r r - ar - ely
allor v 1br t hat opt ion. N{ost , lit , r r r r , , ,
have to co nt inue u'it lr lili'r t s usual r vhile dealing wit h sonl( '( ) ng( ) i ng si tuation of t hlt 'r r t : ( 'ir r r v on a. twor k dur ing a dr ar vn- out r nalit r r l
fi ght, do th e t axes r lt . sgr it ta' chilcl's wor r isom e illness.
A ttention pr ir r t t 'r l lo t ilcus on A t hleat dom inat es even r vlr e'n
other matt er s shot r lr l lr c r nor e pr essing; t hought s of t he t hr eut intrude out of turn. 'l'lrc olrcrational definition of anxiety is, in firct,
this very intrusiorr
The role of ir r t r t r sior rir r a. nxiet yis m ost t hor oughly descr ibed
by the psychiat r ist \ lr u'<li I lr lr owit z. r 'r"I nt nlsion, " Hor owit z wr it es,
refers to "uubid<k'rr irlcrt.sancl ptrngs of f'eeling which are dilficult
to di spel , a nd of 'r lir t 't 'l t , r 'svnr bolic behavir lr ial r eenact m ent s of t he
stress even t . " Tlr is s( lur u'( 'sr vell wit h an t r t t ent ional def init ion of
anxi ety: unbidclen t lr or r glr t sir nd f 'eelingsir npinge on awar eness.
Horowitz show't'tl ltrlr,l,anxiety impinges on awnreness u,ith a
simple experinternt. Hc hircl grotrps of volunteers watch one of two
stressful films-ottt'
sltor.r,'ingritual circunrcision among teenage
Aborigines, the other clepicting bloody accidents in tr woodworking
shop (both are n-ril<lly'ht>n'if1,ing)-aswell ns a neutral film of a man
j oggi ng.
After seeing the filnrs, the volunteers trnclerrtooka ttrsk in which
they rated whether a tone was higher, lor,vcr',or the sanle as the
prececl i ng t one. This t ask, t hough bor ing, r le, r r r ands
a f bcused, s1stai ned vi gilance. Bet ween segm ent s o1't r ) r r cs,t he volunt eer s wr ot e
a report of what had been on t heil nr ir r r l r lr r ling t he t ask.
Not surprisingly, the voltrnteerls rcprlrterd far more intruding
film flashbacks during the tone task trfter seeing the films on circurncision or accidents than afier tlrerfilrn ultout running. The more
peopl e w ere upset by t he f ilr ns, t ht ' nr or e int nr sions.
Basecl ort a detailecl investigution o{' ckrzens o{'patients with
stress-based symptoms, Horor.l'itz has been able to enumerate
rnany of the guises and disgt r isesanxious int r t r sions t ake. His list is
u'ide-ranging and particularly instrtrctive: every one of the varit'ties of intrusions is some arspectof the stress response carried to
trr extreme. These inclucle: r a
' P ungs of em ot ion, waves of 'f eeling t hat well up and subside
rather than being a prevailing mood.
' P reoc cuTt t t t ionand r um inut ion, a cont int r al r r wt r r enesso{'t lr t '
strt' ,s sf irevent
l
t hat r ecur s uncont r ollably, beyoncl t hc lr or r r r t ls
of' orclinur y t hinking t hr ough of t r pr oblenr .
' Irtl rtt. vit ; t 'idcu, s,sr r t lclcn,r r nlr iclck'nt h<lr r ght st hir t lr lr vc r r ollr
i rrg to r lo wit lr t lr t ' r r r t 'r r t irtl ir sk r r t lr ir r r r l.
' /' r' r' .ri. s/ r 't tttlt or t glt l. st t t t r l ll't 'lit t gs.t 't t r olior r . rsl'ir lr , : r s \ \ 'lr ir 'lrt lr r .
l )('tson

(' l rrrrol

s l ()l ) ()tr< .r. l l rc r

s l l rrl .

' t' rt(r'l ll\

1 6 | r' r' l ' ,1t,n
r, ,;ss,l \n ,r,r,:
. Hgperu i g i l u n c e , e x c e s s i v e a l e rtn (' ss,s(' :urnnrl i,nrr| ' .r ,rr, l ri rrg
with a tense expectancy.
. lns ot n n i c , i n tru s i v e i d e a s a n d i mages tl rat rl rsl rrr[,' .1,, 1,
. B ad d re a ms , i n c l u d i n g n i g h tma res an(l rrn\r.rr' , ,rrr,rl .r' rri rrS ,
as we l l a s a n y u p s e tti n g d re a m . The bacl < l rr' :rnr,1,,," .rr.l n(' (' es s ari l y h a v e a n y o v e rt c o n te n t re l ated to:r l r,rrl,' r,' rrl
. Unbid d e n s e n s o ti o n s , th e s u d den, urrrl ,rrrrl r' ,1.rrl r r i nt< t
awar e n e s s o f s e n s a ti o n sth a t a re u nusual l y i rrl cn\r' r)r ,rrr' ur)related to the situation at the moment.
. S t ar t l e re a c ti o n s , fl i n c h i n g o r b l a nchi ng i rr rt.s1)()n.,r'
l , sl i rnuli that typically do not warrant such reactiorrs.
A nx iet y , a s th i s l i s t s h < l w s ,c a n i n trude i n nri rrrr l orrrr.,rrprrrt
f r or n t he ob v i o u s . W h a te v e r i ts g u i s e , when anxi ety s\\' :unl )\ ;rl l crrt ion, all per fo rm a n c e s u ff' e rs .T h e a n ti dote athand, i rs \\' (' sl r;rl l st,c,
is at t ent ion i ts e l f-rn o re p re c i s e l y , d i sattenti on, or tl t,rri ;rl .' l o se
how denial c a n e ra s e a n x i e ty , w e n e e d fi rst to understrrrr,ltl r,, kt:y
r ole of c og n i ti o n i n th e s tre s s re s p o n s e, parti cul arl y tl rr' ,' .rti rri ti on
of threat.

THREAT
IS WHERI.]Y( ) II SI.,IiIT

t iny cir lr l( . ( : ar wollbles swif t ly over t he st eep r avi nes leading up to a pcuk in Poland's Tatra lUountains. Inside a
dozen people are pac:kt'rl tightly, including a traveler who de-

rs
scribesthe various reat'tir)ns:

To the old Polish grandmotherswith babushkason their

heads,it seemsjrrst anotherweekend distraction.To three
or four young children in the car it is high adventure.To
my wife, who shtrtlderseven at the tram ride to Roosevelt
Island in New York City, it is very nearly heart-stopping.
And to the condtrctor,of course,it is all too familiai even
to pay attention;he sits by a terrifyingly open window and
readshis newspaper.
Events are what one makes of them. What delights a child
bores the conductor; what is a bother to a grandmother strikes
terror in a Manhattanite. How one construesevents determines
whether or not they will be stressful.This is a major tenet of an
especially instructive view of stressand how people cope with it,
a model developedbv Richard Lazarus,a psychologistat Berkeley.
Stress,in his view, occurs when the demandsof the environment in a person'seyes exceedhis resources.The operativephrase
is "in the person s eyes." rt is not just that an event is in and of
itself overwhelming; whether it is so or not depends on how the
person construesit. A given event-divorce, job loss, childbirthcan be seen as a threat,as a challenge,or as a relief, depending on
the person'scircumstances,attitudes,and senseof resources.
The natureof threat is highly subjective.It is not the r.vr.rrt;rcr'
.srr,bttt its meuning thnrtmatters.When eventsirr(,,$(,(,1
irs tlrrr.irls,
tht'strt'ssresl)onseis triggerre<l.
$[11rss
is tlrr'prorlrrctol'rrcogrrilrvr.
i t t 't , i r l l l l r i ri si r l .

48

| vtr e l

rs WHERE
THREA'I'
You sEErr I 49

L IES, sll\ll' l,lt T RUT HS

O nc e a p e rs o n h a s rl t.{ i rrt,(la s i tu a ti on as a pott' rrl i ;rl l l rrcrrl ,hi s

s t r es s r es po n s e w i l l fl rrc ' tu tte w i th h i s apprai sal . I" ot ,' \;rrrrl rl r' ,i n
Laz ar us ' s lab , s tu d e n ts i n i u r e x p e ri m e n t sat w ai ti rrg l i ,r ;ttt l l ct' tt' i c
r' '
s hoc k f or pe ri o d s v a ry i n g fi ' < l m3 0 s e c onds to 20 rrri ttttl cs S l t' t' ss
v ar ied wit h h o w th re a tt' rri n g th e s tu d e n t found the si ttt:rl rort.' '
F or ex a mp l e , o n e rttti ttttte w a s l o n g enough for tl l t' sttl ' 1r' r' l
t o as s im i l a te th e th rt' i tte n i n g i d e a that he w as goi trI l o l ct' l
pain wh e n th e s h o c k (' i l l n e ,b u t n o t lo19 enough to < l cvr' l o1r
doubt s a b o u t th e th ru :a t.H o w e v e r, i f the subj ect l rrrrl l i r,'
m inut es to th i n k a l l tl rrt i t, h e b e g a n to refl ect ol l ()r' 1(' :rl )" r\
g h i m sel f, for ex1tn1rl ,' ,
pr ais e t h e s i tu a ti o n , s r.r1 ,i n to
st'
\('
r' ('
ttl
c ollege p ro fe s s o r s rrrc l y w o u l d n ot expose me
rr'rrs
it
arrtl
"I
a
laboratory
in
pain,; o;
had a shgck [efore
har dly a n y th i n g to w o rry a b o u t." A t 20 mi nutes, tl r(. tl i m ens io n s . . . c [a n g e c l . S trb j e c ts c o mmonl y begun t0 l i ' r' l
anx ious , p e rh a p s tl ti n k i n g th a t s o l o ng a w ai t must pot' l rtt< l
something of major inrPort.
Such rumination, alternating reassurance with worlv. is litrrliliar to us all. No matter the specifics of the matter irt lrrtrrtl, the
s ubs t anc eo f s u c h p ri v a te n r< l n o l o g u e sb oi l s dow n to: FIow rtttttrhof
a threat is this? The search fbr thaf answer engages tht' olit'rrting
r es pons e. D e p e n d i n g o n th e a n s w e r a t a gi ven moment, tl l t' ttl ' i cnting mechanisin will elevate or darnpen the stress responst, itcctlrdingly.
As Figure I shows, an event leads to the stress respol)se)or"rly
if it is appraised as a threat. That appraisal starts a spiral, where
events that might otherwise have been seen as neutral ttrke <xr the
negative flavoring that anxiety lends, biasing their apprais:rl. The
mechanism can be seen at work in an anxiety attack of the sort

ORIENTING
RESPONSE
-attention
aroused
-mild stress
alert

STR E S SR ES P ON SE
-attention focuses
on threat, narrows
capacity for other
cues
-"fight or ffight":
stress hormones are
released, blood
pressure rises,
increased glucose
metabolism, etc.

l , ' r r , r 1 1 . l . l ' r r ,lr r r l,, lo llr t. str t,ss r ' ( ' sl) o n s( ' : A ttrl vr'l t'vt'ttt t'vtl kcs i ttt tl ri cttl l ri ggcrs l l rr'
r s [ , r r . \ ,1 ) ( ) 1 s r .,r vlr ir .lr is;r l) l]r ' ilisr ,r lr r s llr r cittctti rrg.'l 'l rl rt;rl l l l rrti sl tl

A aron B eck , a psychiut r ist , deso. ilr r . sin one of his pat ient s, a f or t yyear-ol d man who wit s lnr r r ghl t o r r r r( 'r ne) r gencyr oom in Denver in
s('v('re anxietv continued after
an acute state of distn'ss. rn(l r,r'lr,)s('
he returned hom e t o I 'lr ilr r r lt 'lplr i; r : '*
... H e r ecalled t lr ir t , ', r 'lr r . rlr
r c lur r l r eached t he t op of t he
ski l i ft, he not ict : <llr r ' \ \ 'r s slr or t ol'br eat h ( t his was pr oba. r em em ber ed havbl y due t o t he r ar r 'I ict l r r lr r r oslr lr t : r e)He
i ng had t he t hor r glr t t lr r r tlr is slr or t nessof br eat h m ight be a
si gn of hear t dist 'ls, '. llr 'llr cr r t hought of his br ot her who
had had shortnt.ss ol lur.rttlr and had died of a coronary
occl usion a f ew r r r or r t lr splt 'vi<nr sly.As he consider ed t he
r 'v
thought of havir r g r ( '( ) r '( ) nir ,occlusion
m or e ser iously, he
became incr ensir r glv r r r r xior r s.At t his point , he began t o
feel weak, persllirt'tl rr grctt deal, and felt faint. He interpreted t hese syr r r pt r ) n) s: r s f ur t her evidence t hat he was
having a heart attirck rrrr<lwas on the verge of death. When
examined at tht' ('n)('r'gencyroom, he was not assured by
the normal elerr:trot'itrrliogrambecause he believed "the
disease might not lrirvt: shown up yet on the test."
Had he not been irr a state of stress arousal, preoccupied by his
worries about heart rlist:ase,the man might have been able at some
point to reappraise his irritial reaction as a normal response to high
altitude, not a sign ol'heart attack. But his continued anxiety led
him to read every picce of information as confirming the appraisal
of threat. Only weeks later, when Beck pointed this out and the
patient was able to srrc that his "heart attack" was a false alarm, did
his anxiety abate.
Reappraisal is often relied on to vanquish a threat. If the threat
can be reappraised as a nonthreat (the fire alarm was only a drill;
the letter from the IRS was a refund, not an audit notice), then the
stress arousal that accompanied that appraisal ceases. We remind
ourselves that the plunging roller coaster is only an amusement
ride, that a scary scene is only a movie. A famous instance of a
scene that calls for the latter reappraisal is in Luis Bufluel's early
surrealist short Un Chien Andalou,, in the scene in which a young
woman's eye is sliced open with arazor blade. A reviewer writes:re
People still gasp when this scene is shown. There is no
way of reducing the intimacy of its violence. The fact that
the same young woman appears soon after in the film, both
eyes happily intact, and the fact that the sliced eye on
inspection can be seen to be that of an animal . . . are n<lt
i rs (' ol lsoling as we m ight hope. I don't gr lsp anynr or ( ) ,llr r t
| < l o l rir vc t o sit t ight ir r t lr c t 'incnr ir , t 'r r t 'r 'gt 't i<'it llv
r t . r r r ir r <li rrg rtn'scll'llr r r t t lr t 'r 'v't 'lr cir r g slit 'r . r l is r t ol I ll, ' u'r ) nunl s
tl r:rt i l is t r cr t lr lr lt t nt t , nrn( ) r , 'lir ', '

5o

I r t r ,r t, r .il.:s,stu t,t,t,; .t.tttr.t.l s

A lr , r.i ri s i rll rc g i rrs:rt th e i ' i ti a l

i n .st.rrt ol i t.rrfi trg i rrrrli rri ti ates
ir t . lr ir ir ro f' c o g n i ti o n a i me d
' 1.
a t fi n d i ng the
nt< tst [i rrr.l r, l rurcrl response. When reappraisal fails_the
ihreat does rrol r.r.,i r111y1.i 1[gthen other strategies are needed.

THE SERENITY
TO ACCEPTTHE THINGS
I CANNOTCHANGE

I
f 962 the psychiatrist Robert Lifton
spent several
"
months in Hiroshima
doing intensive interviews of hibakusha.
sur_
vivors of the A-bomb:20
I found the com_ple_tion
of these earry interviews left me
profoundly shocked and emotionalry
spent.. . . But very
ithin a few davs, in fact-i ;"ii";J thai;;,;;"_
tions were changing I **r ristening
io" i"r".iptions of the
samehorrors,but thtir effect upon me
lessened.I concentrated upon recurrent patterns I was
beginning to detect
in theseresponses,thaiis, upon my scieniifi"
while I bv no means became insensitive_ il;"il",
""a
to the suffering
described,
comfortable op_erating
distance
between
"and,_-v*rf
hibakusha
-or"
[;;li;ffi;i"iJa.
rhis distance
was necessary,I came to realize, not
onty to the i;t"il;;
tual but rhe emotional demands
_".f..
"fi[L
Lifton, a psychoanalyst,recognizeshis
responseas ..psychic
closing off," a form of coping. re'chni"uii;
speaking,..coping,,is
the term for a range of
maneuvers that relieve stress
"ogiitive
arousal by changing one'r
o*n reaction rather than altering the
stressfulsituationitself.
A homily used by Alcoholics Anonymous
bespeaksthe two
main coping alternatives: "God grant
itrrrerenity to accept the
things I cannot-change,the courage -"
!-ochangethe things I can, and
the wisdom to know the difference."
one
t"k" some action to
remove the threat-call the insurance
"L get
agent,
to the emergency
room, pay the overduetrill. Or, one can
try to calm oneself.
Lnzarusrefers to the first of these uli".nuiirres ..inst.rmenas
titl" ancl the second as "emoti<ln-foctrsed,,
Inst.r'rt,rrtlrl
t 'o l l i r t g i s s t r a i g l r tfi l r w a r cl : th t'r c
i s s<l r r r cth i r r g ",rpir-,g.
<l l r g
r .i r r r<1 , l ' r .r .r r r r l ,t,

5t

llll,,

r t r r .r t r r , ' , r r ;' ;' ,. ,:' ::;;:,:;,,,,,

rt' rr .rrr' rr r\ r,rr.rrrr ,, r, r ri l rr ,r
llr r - llr l.I r r ll rc rrro rl c rrrl v o r' l rl ,s rrc ' l to l l tr r)nsi u' (.r' i l r(..
\ lot ' r ' o l i t' rr tl ri ttrtto t, th e p e rs o n i s l cl t to l ti rrrrl l r.:rrrl rr.rtrrrrr
tl r:rt
is it r t r lr igt r o rtsu, ttc e rtA i n ,a n d o n g o i n g . W hen the ul l pr;rrs;rl,,1tl rrr' ;rt
lr as led t o a s tre s s re s p o n s e , th i s m e a ns he i s stew i rrg, l rotl r rrr l l rt,
lr r ain' s s t r e s s h o rm o n e s a n d i n h i s w orri es about the thrr.rrt.' l ' l rrrt
stew is what we call anxiety.
While a threat can call forth any of a range of emotions, fi'om
anger to depression, anxiety is the most pervasive reaction. Emotional coping generally means calming anxiety. If anxiety goes unallayed, it will intrude on attention in one or another of the many
guis es Hor o w i tz d e s c ri b e s .
Those intrusions can interfere with the whole range of cognition, in ways we will investigate later in more detail. For now, it
will suffice to point out that anxiety spews cognitive static, which
makes reappraisal difficult. Anxiety itself can hamper the reappraisal that might allay the sense of threat.
If reappraisal fails, one or another {brm of denial may work. In
the natural course of recovery frorn a devastating event like the
death of a loved one or loss of a job, there seems to be a spontaneous oscillation between denial and intrusion. Mardi Horowitz,
the psychiatrist who enumerated the varieties of intrusion, proposes that following any serious life event, intmsion and denial
come and go in ways that suggest \asic phases of adjustment.
Horowitz offers as extensive a list for the varieties of denial as
he did f or i n tru s i o n . T h e fo rms o f d e n i al i ncl ude:2r
.Aooided associations, short-circuiting expected, obvious
connections to the event that would follow from the implications of what is said or thought.
.llumbness, the sense of not having f'eelings; appropriate emotions that go unfelt.
. Flattened response, a constriction of expectable emotional
r eac ti o n s .
. Dimming of attentiorl, vagueness or avoidance of focusing
clearly on infbrmation, including thoughts, feelings, and
phy s i c a l s e n s a ti o n s .
. Duze, de{bcused attention that clouds alertness and avoids
the significance of events.
. Constricted thought, the failure to explore likely avenues of
meaning other than the obvious one at hand; an abbreviated
range of flexibility.
. Metnorg
failure, an inability to recall events or their details;
a selective amnesia for telling facts.
. Disarsousal,saying or thinking that obvious meanings are not
s o.

\l,.ltl,,Nltl

llf

{t

t I l'1

tlll'.

t'lllNr..,

s'r'ttHss
RESPONSE

t t ANNttl

I ll{Nr.l

-',I

\\,^,,,'.
I
*ft" l.-[.t,(,
PALLIAI'IVI.;

n"'I
[:'*-'.-'
s'l'lt l,;ss
l)ts( ) ll l )l,.rr
A N I)/()tt
ANXil,l'l'l'

Frcunr 2. Options for short-circuiting stress: If an event appraise-d as

a threat can be reappraised as a non-threat, the stress reaction will not
begin. Once begun, the coping options are external-change the sitthe
uation to make the event no longer a threat-or internal-soothe
arousal. If these fail or are not tried, stress arousal can lead to stressbased diseases and/or anxiety states.

. Blocking through fantasg, avoiding reality or its implications

by fanciful thoughts of what might have been or could be.
The operative principle that unites these forms of denial is that
they all betoken a way of blanking from awareness a troubling fact.
These tactics are countermoves to the intrusions listed previously.
Denial and intrusion are the two sides of attention, the one an
avoidance, the other an invasion. Neither is healthy; both skew
attention. While the multiple forms of denial do not lead to a more
realistic appraisal of what is actually happening, they can be powerful antidotes to anxiety.
Lazarus lumps such intrapsychic maneuvers with taking drugs
or drinking to ease anxiety. All are palliatives: they reduce anxiety
without changing the status of the threat an iota. Such a strategy,
says Lazarus, is normal: "For many serious sources of stress in life,
there's little or nothing that can be done to change things. If so,
you're better off if you do nothing except take care of your feelings
. . . healthy people use palliatives all the time, with no ill effect.
Having a drink or taking tranquilizers are palliatives. So is denial,
intellectualizing, and avoiding negative thoughts. When they don't
prevent adaptive action, they help greatly." 22
Palliatives are intrinsically rewarding, just by virtue of their
easing anxiety. What is rewarding is habit-forming. There is ample
proof that a person's palliative of choice, whether Valium or Jack
Daniels, can be addictive. So also, I contend, are the mental maneuvers on which we rely to ease our private anxieties.
The cognitive palliatives fall, by and large, within the rangt: ttf'

5 .1 | r l r' ,rr,l .n ,;ss,l \n ,r,1 ,,'

t nl \
n (r'
r v lr t t t I " t ' t t tttltl e s c ri l l e s tts " c l e f' e n s err rt' r' l urni snrs. l l r,' l rol crrcy of
t lr e t lef ' elt s e si s i n th e i r a l l a y i n g a n x i t' ty. A s l ,rrz,rrrr.,pri rrts out,
palliat iv es a re th e n o rm; a l l h e a l th y peopl e rrsr.l l rrrr t,, \()rrrt:degr ee. B ut a s F re u d o b s e rv e d , a l l n o rm al peopl t. u\(. ,l ,.l ,.rrs. rncchanisms to a degree, too.
M ent a l p a l l i a ti v e s s k e w o n e ' s a b il i ty to sec tl ri rrri s;rrstrrsthey
ar e: t hat is , to a tte n d c l e a rl y . Wh e n a nxi ety i s at l :rrur.rrr l l rt.rrri ncl ,
ev en if c a p p e d b y a n a rtfu l m e n ta l maneuver, tl rt' rt. r\ ;r t,ost to
m ent al ef f i c i e n c y . D e n i a l c o mp ro mi s es ful l , unfl i rrt' lri rr11.rI I r.rrt i < l n.
W e ha v e o n l y re c e n tl y b e g u n to know enough rrl rorrttl rr, rrri nd
as a pr oc e s s o r o f i n fo rma ti o n to u n d e rstand how rurri r.l r :rrr< the
l
defenses we erect to contain it operate, and the rnerrtrrlt'ost ol their
oper at ions . T o c o mp re h e n d th e d i mensi ons of that r.ost, rvc rnnst
f ir s t look a t th e c o n te m p o ra ry mo d e l of the mi nd at w ork.' l ' l rr.n w e
can use that model to analyze the trade-off betweetr iurxit,tv and
attention, and the self-deceit that trade-off promotes.

[)ARTTWO

The Machinery
of Mind

F R EU D 'S M 0I) I.;I

O F T H E M IN I)

A,
w a st l r t , t . ; r st r '.s , nr any ideas in psychology, t he'
fi rst to anti c ipat e a cor r t ( . nr l) ( ) r 'iu'\
r ,,it ^w of t he m t . r d; s m echanics
w as S i gmun d Fr eud. I r r llXX) , ir r llr t . st 'vent h chapt er of The I nt er pretati on of Dr eam s, [ , 'r 'r , r r tst
l 't lir r t lr a m odel of how t he m ind
handl es i nfo r m at ion. r l"r 'r 'r r t l'sr r r , r k. l is r em ar kable in how well it
anticipates what has lrt't'<lrn ('|- ovr' r' l l re intervening three-quarters
of a centur y- our lt est r r r r r lcr st r r n<lir r<lf
g t he pr ocesses t hr ough
w hi ch the m ind t akes ir r , r r st , s,r r r r t l st or es inf cir m at ion. and ho
those proces sesar e pr one t o lr ir r slr v t lr t , t r ir <ler - ofbet
f ween anxietJv
and attention.
There i s a ser ies o{'way st at ior r sir r I , 'r 't . r r r l's
r n<lt lel.The t wo he
posi ts at the out set and end ar e ir r kt . r , pir g wit lr t lr e physiology of
hi s day, w hi c h had as a r ecent t r ir r r r r lllrr r r appe<lt he nlt r r al basis of
the reflexes. The reflexive stimultrs-r.,rp.rir.re se(luence was well
accepted and widely known, and Freud borrowed it. The first point
in Freud's psychic apparatus was "perception," the point at which
the mind takes in sensory stimuli. The last point was motor activity,
the " R esponse. "
This simple sequence from sensory to motor end is akin to the
"stimulus-response" of the reflex
arc, which became the working
rnodel of behavior for behaviorists from pavlov on. pavlov and
F reud could have agreed about the nature of behavior if Freud had
stclpped there. The behaviorists, however, went on to regard everything in between stimulus and response as a "black bJx," impervi.rrs to scientific observation, and so unworthy of learned
t'ott.icctttre. But that terrain was Freud's favored domain. D:runtIt' ss, ht' fi l l ed in t he spaces in t he black box bet ween st im r r lr r sant l
| ('sl )()l ts('.
'l 'l rt'

;r\

\\'('

l l svt' l ri t' l rl l l l l rt' l tttts , s i ti rl I.' r' t,rr< 1,l rl rs l r s (.1s (. 9l ' < l i r.< ,t.l i 11rr;
"l l r)\v s
l vorrl < l s :r\' n()\\' , i rrl i rl rrrrl i on
(s c r. l ,' i grrrr. :I). l rr

58

| vr r e l

L IES, sIN{ PL ET RU' l 'l l s

!-REUD's I\{oDEL oF THE MIND

the " U ncon scious. " 'l'lr ( ' unconscious has no dir ect accesst o ir wlr r t 'ness. Mate r ial f r onr t lr c r r r t consciouspassesnext t o t he r ealm callt 'r l
the " P reconscious. " 'l'lr ( ' l) r econsciousis t he gat eway t o awar eness,
or " C onsc iousness" ir r lir er ud's m odel. I f t he m ent al ener gy invested i n a t hought ir r t lr r : pr econscious becom es st r ong enough,
then it will burst into corrsciousnessand become the focus of attenti on.
Thi s p assage is r r 1x'r 'ilousone. I f t he t hought s com ing int o
aw areness ar e ner r t lir l, lir r t '. But if t hey ar e in som e sense "f or bidden," then, said Fr t 'r r <1,t lr ( 'v ar e likely t o be t am per ed wit h as t hey
pass from the uncot t scior r st hr ough t he pr econscious and on t o consci ousness.
A t thi s junct ur t ' ir r t lr t ' r r r ind, Fr eud saw, t her e ar e censor s of
sorts at w or k. Par t it 'r r lr t r 'lr<lr
' r r ing our waking hour s, censor s bar
forbi dden t hought s li'<) nr( , onsciousness.But dur ing t he night , t he
censors can be bypirss<.r1.I,'rerrd formulated this model of mind to
explain how dreanrs ('xl)r'('ssembargoed information. In dreams,
Freud felt, forbid<krrr tlrorrghts leak through to consciousness in
di sgui sed f or m s.
No information, srritl F retrd, gets from the unconscious into
awareness without ltussirrg through censors. It is at this point that
material which woultl arouse anxiety is filtered out. The memories
may be quite recent or from long ago-a wilting glance a child has
just received from her rrrother or a chain of hurtful looks a woman
recalls from a childhood krng past. Whichever the case, it is at this
point that the flow can be impeded in the service of keeping threatening facts and ideas from awareness.
There are two sorts of censors, in Freud's view. The first
selects out unwanted memories from entering the preconscious.
A second, between the preconscious and the conscious mind,
serves as a back.rp. Although threatening information may have
leaked into the preconscious, and thus may stand on the fringe of
awareness, the second censor can still weed out facts not easily
fbced.
Modern research shows that, if anything, Freud was too cautious in proposing points where biases could sidetrack the flow of
information. What he did not realize is that the flow of information
is not linear, but is intertwined among mutually interactive subsystcrns. The mind does not pass information along a single track, like
ir tnrin going from town to town. Rather, information flows in trr<l
rrl rorrtci rctrit s t hat loop like New Yor k Cit y subways or Los Ar r gt 'lt . s
l i ' r.t' w i rvs. '[ 'lr tlr
r ossilr ilit ies f <lr llias ir r sr r cha syst t . r r ar
r ( . ( . v( . r rr . i<. lr r . r
l l rrn l ,' r' t' rr r l's
r r r ot lr 'lsr r ggt . st s.
N t' r' t' r 'llr t 'lt 'ss,lr is t t t or lt 'l r r ut kcssr '\ , r 'r '; rk,
l . t 'por r r ls, r t l n( ) \ \ , ; r ( .

@H+ggE[fgil_:u'l
J
ttr-t
I' romThe l ttl t' r' 1tt' t' !trtiof
, rrl rtetl
F lc unr 3. F re trd ' smo d e l o f th e rrri rrrlrrrl
sttl r-slsl t' trrs'then
memory
t
,,,l
i
t'
.ts
th
ro
rrrl
l
,
Dr uo*r , I n fo rm a ti o n i s s o rte d
tl tt' t,tt{lt't t' ttsors'
r rrrrll treconsci ous,
f inallypa s s e do n { i o m th e u n c < l n s t' i o rrs
l
i
'
l
l
t'
rr
n
l
rl
\'
'
s .re s p o n s e
t o c ons c i o u s n e sA
F r eud' s m o d e l , i n fo rma ti rl rr l l o u s l i rrcarl y, from i ni ti al st' ttsi tti tl nto
f inal r es p o n s e . A s i t p a s s (.stl rro rrrl l rthe mi nd, i nfi rrrtntti otr i s not
m er ely t ra n s mi tte d -i t i s tri rrrs l i rrrrrcclW. hat the eve s(' ttst' si s an
ar r ay of w a v e s ; w h a t th t' t' rtr s (' rrs (' si s a form of vi l l r:rti orr. l l y the
t im e s ig h t a n d s o u n d l tt' t' o rtt(' tl l (' l tl ory, they have gorr(' through
r adic al c h a n g e s i n th e k i rrtl o l i rrl o rr nuti onthey em[ocl v.
of i nformati ou, tht' r' t' i s sel ecA t e a c h p o i n t i n tl rc tn rrrs rrri s s i on
l
l
e
e
n
recei ved are tt< l t l xtssed on,
l
u
rs
w
l
ri
tt
o
f
a
s
p
e
c
ts
t ion; s om e
p
t'
rt'
t:p
ti
on,
the fi rst w ay st:tti ol l , i nfbrn
rrrr
F
s
u
rv
i
v
e
.
while oth e rs
"
N
l
t'
rl
l
o
l
)'
Thi s mel l l ol ' \' , thotrgh,
S
ystem."
fi
rs
t
to
a
mo
v
e
s
m at ion
cal
l i t, transfi l rrrtssensami
ght
rv
e
M
e
ru
o
rr,,,,,r
quit
e
fl
e
e
ti
n
g
.
is
thei
r regi stt:t' i trg, and
w
i
th
s
i
tttttl
trtrrc
<
l
tr
sl
y
m
e
m
o
ry
t ions into
pas s est h e m o n a l m< l s ti rttrtrt' tl i a te l y.
F r eu d ' s p re s c i e n c t' i s t' rt' tn p l i fi ed i n hi s posi ti ng i t perceptual
capacity that has no ln('nrory of'its own, takes fleeting tttlte of the
, " . , r or y w o rl d , b u t s ttl rt' s tl o l a s ti n g i mpressi ons. H e saw that the
function s of receiaing s(,nsoly signals and reg,istering them are separate, a fact later borne orrt ll-v the neurophysiology of the sensory
cortex. It was not until 1960 that his description of percepticln
found a scientific basis with the experimental discovery of what we
today call "sensory stot'itge," a fleeting, immediate impression of
our sensory world.
Memoryr passes its infbrmation on to a subsequent chain of
num er ou s s u c h m e m o ry s y s te m s , as show n i n Fi gure 1. These
memories, said Freud, ttre unconscious. We are not aware of'them
until a later stage in the flow of information. Nevertheless, he contends, they can have e{I'ects on us while they remain out of our
awareness:2 "What we describe aS our 'character' is based on the
memory-traces of our impressions; and, moreover, the impressions
which have had the greatest eflects on us-those of our etrrliest
youth-are precisely the ones which scarcely ever becotne cotrs c iot t s ."
F r lr a n te mo ry to ri s e i n to a w i u' en(' ssi tt [' -t' t' trtl ' srrrotl ,' l ol l l rt'
r r r ir r t l,it rrrrrs tl l i rs sfr' o rr)i t r' n (.n )o t'svvstt' ttti ttl o tl tt' t' t' l rl rrrl r,' l rrl ' ,' l l ,' ,1

| 59

60

| vrrel

t.n.ls, sr\{pLE TRUTHs

c ept ed in t h e c o n te rrry ro n u 'vyi e w , e a c h of w hi ch ofl i ' r' si rrsi gl rtsinto

how t he mi n d c a n s k r,w ,i rtte n ti o n :
. I nf or m a ti o n fk rw s . i trrd i s tra n s formed duri ng i l s
;rrssrrgt:bet wee n i n te rl i n k r' < ls rrb s y s te m s .
. I nf orma ti < l n i s rrrr< ' o rrs c i o ubse fo r e i t i s consci orrs.
. F ilt er s a n c l c t' n s ()r' ss e l e c t a n d d i stort i nformati orr.

TH E I N 'I'I.]LLIGEN TF ILT ER

hat words do these fragments suggest to you?

shi_

L _k
Reading these, you shotrld have no trouble completing them,
more likely than not, as suggestive or off-color words. But imagine
yourself in a room with a stranger, repeating aloud the words you
make of these fragments. Your responses might take another turn,
if only to avoid embarrassment. Your thoughts might, too.
over more than two decades following world war II, researchers conducted a gargantuan number of studies to test ways in which
what one perceives can be muted or heightened depending on its
emotional salience. Several hundred published studies dealt with
this question, for the most part without resolving anything. The
problem was not so much with the studies themselves, as with the
then-current understanding of how the mind processes informati on.3
Take the words in the list above. If I ask you to complete the
fragments and you tell me they represent the words "six,; "shin,"
.nd "fork," I can surmise that you either did not allow yourself to
perceiae the more suggestive alternatives, or that you suppressed
rcTtorting them to me. In more technical terms, the question is one
,{' the l .ctrs o f bias: is it in per cept ion or in r esponse}
I{'the bias was in your response, then I can assume the suggestivt' w,.r'rls first came to mind but you quickly thought of rnore
rr< ' < ' < ' l l ti tl rlt 'it lt t 'r t t it t ives.
Br r t if t he bias was in yor lr <lr iginalpclr c( ) l) l i ott l ttttl votl , t ( 't ) ( 't 'w( 'r '( 'ir wr r r ( 'of 't ht . sr r ggr . st ivt 'wor r ls,
u. r , , , . r r r ir r r l
s()ttt(' l l ttrvctr git t ( '( 'r '( 'tils
l ( '( 'n: ior slr illor r t si<lrv(
. ) n1lt wls. ( , 1( . ss.

( i2

| r ' r ' r ' ,tt-L It,.s,sti\tr ) L E T RU' t' n s

' l' lr c ir rrp l i c a ti o n sfo r h o w th e m i rrtl ' s w orki ngs rur' ,,r,' l rcstrated
(
: u( ' 1r it t : di ffe re n t fo r e a c h o f th e s t' i rl tcrnati ves. l l i rrs rn r(' sl )onse
s r r ggt ' s t st h a t th i s i s me re l y a n i n s trrrrceof soci tl tl i ss,' rrrl rl i ngr r ot hing v ery s ta rtl i n g . B u t a b i a s i rr p t:rcepti on i rrrpl i r.s:ur rrncons c iot t s c ente r a t w o rk i n th e m i n c l , i rrr posi ng i ts j rrrl grrrr.rrl son al l
we perceive, shaping our experienct: to fit its pri<lritit's.
F or m a n y y e a rs th e s e tw o p o s s i b i l i ti es vi ed w i tl r r' ;rcl rother as
mutually exclusive alternatives. An exhaustive revit'r.r.'irr 1966 of
t wo dec ade s o f e x p e ri m e n ta l re s u l ts pro and con w :rs rrrri rbl eto
r es olv e t he d e b a te .aT h e re v i e w e r' s c o ncl usi on, afi t.r'l i ri l i rrg to settle the battle, was a conciliatory suggestion: since tlrt' tw,, possibilities are not incompatible, perhaps, just perhaps, lrollr rrray be
c or r ec t . T he re ma y b e c e n s o rs i n p e rc e pti on as w el l i rs i rr rt' s1tonse.
That suggestion fits well with what is today tlrt' r'orrrmonly
accepted view of how information moves-and {irils to rrrovethrough the mind.
There was a half-century lapse before experimt:rrtirl grsychologists seriously addressed the proposals Freud made irr tlrt. seventh
chapter of The lnterpretation of Dreams. From the ll)20s on, the
ascendancy of behaviorism made wlrat went on within tlrc mind a
taboo topic for most psychologists. When the mechanics of mind
finally re-entered psychological research, one immediatc impetus
was most unlikely: the rise of aviation.
The next major volley in the debate over how the nrincl handles
information was fired in 1958 by Donald Broadbent, a tsritish psychologist.5 His interests were very different from Freucl's. Broadbent worked with the British Royal Navy in the years alter World
War II. Because of the explosive growth of aviation in that era, the
volume of air traffic beseiged controllers. The controllers, Broadbent realized, took in far more information through their eyes and
ears than they could deal with. He wondered just how the mind
sorted out this barrage.
Broadbent. like Freud. used a flow chart to describe how the
mind handles information. His chart showed that people receive
more data through the senses than they can handle (see Figure 4).
'Ihis information gets to a short-term store-akin to the sensory
s[1;1s-4nd then flows on to a "selective filter," where most of it is
weecled out. This filter somehow blocks all but those messagesthat
rrrt:rit firller attention. The passage is seemingly instantaneous. But
tlre li:w thousandths of a second it takes allow ample time for the
tttirrtl to sort thnrtrgh the mass of data in sensory storage and filter
ot t t it ' t ' t ' lt ' v i trrc ' i c sl rc fi rre th e i n fo rm a ti on passes i nto consci otrs
ilwlu'('n('ss.

lllolt r llrc rrt;rs s u n r(' <tll rrrt l l rt' rrri rrtl trcr' < l sto Ii l tt' r tl rc i rrl i rrrrur-

THE INTELLIGENT FILTER

-..>

-_-l>

-+
-.->

SENSORY
STORE

AND

FILTER

I 63

*|;lD@

--.'>

Ftcunr 4' Broadbent's r',rlel of the mind,

slightly modified: sensory stimuli are analvzed as they reach the sensory
store and sorted and filtered on
their way to awareness'(or short-term
memory),

tion that impinges on it through the senses

becauseit has only a
limited capacity. The selective fflt"r,
h" t"tl"rrra, is essentialhere
becauseof a bottleneck:there is asharpry
iimited channercapacity
at the next stage of processing,often
..short-terrn- ..pri_
n.
mary" memory.
"ir"a
Primary memory is the region of perceptirn
that falrs under
the beam of attention.For our purposes
we wiil cail it ..uwareness.,,
The contents of the zone of awareness
are what we tilke to be ..on
our minds" at a given moment; it is our
window t>nt<l
the streamof.
consciousness.
This zoneis quite fragile, it.sc''tents fleeting.
The traffic betweer
ond iong-term memory is two"*"i"rr"rr
w&y, according to Broadbent's
moclel;what il i' long-term memory
can be called into^awareness,
what i, i"
finds a place in
memory. only information that reaches"*"reness
awareness,he proposed,
will be retained for very rong-that is,
*. ."*"mber only what we
first pay attention to. Awar"i"rr, then,
is the gateway to mernory,
and a filter controls what enters awareness.
But what controls the
filter?
For Broadb,ent,-onry
the grossphysical aspectsof a messageits Ioudness or brightnerr, ,"!-d"i"r*irrei
wheth", it *o,rld get
through, not its meaning. rhat view was
put to rest soon after he
proposed it by experiments on the "cocituit
party
At a
cocktail party or in a crowded restaurant
"]i;;;;
there is typically
a
din
of
competing conversations,all carried
on at high volume within earshot of the others.
contrary to Broadbent's prediction, you
don,t hear simply the
l'.dest voice. For exampre,if you
ilk
listening to a bore
rec'.rt the grtresomedetails oi hir "r"
l"rt
rocky reration_
slrilr, .e.rly co.s.nr'ated dear, it
i; "*"ution,
t' ttrne hinr .rt .'rl
'r
tunt. irr orr ir lnot.cirrtert,stinl{
"";;ncirrlry_yr:u.tir.rriarlv
(:onvcrsatiorr
if

( r .l

r t t,' r t, l,ll' ,s' sl\ll' l,t' l

' t' ltLr ' l Ils

tl rr' ( (trrtsr'of' these

r r r r lr ( . : r .\,o .r.o w n n rrn l e me n ti o n e c l . l )rrri rtg
yorrr t' ' tts tttal ybe
i tp C l tttn e -i n S, th e S OU n d SCtl rrri rt$to
f r r r r t . - 9r r t .s
n rtttt' ttti ,,i< l. r r t ic ir li n v o l u m e . w h a t c h a n g e s i s the foctrs ,l ' \' ,r
l rt' {i rre i t
T his n te a n s th a t i n fo rma ti o n i s scanned fbr ttt(' (t,ti rrg
l l rrrt tl rC fi l ter
r eac hes t h e fi l te r, c o n tra d i c ti n g B ro a d bent' s asst:t' ti rtr
The
rrr(' ssi tgt:'
t unes in o r o u tb a s e d s o l e l y o n p h y s i cal aspects ol ' rt
tl
rt'
i
rnporl rV
f ilt er s eem s to h a v e s o m e i n te l l i g e n ce; i t i s tunctl
message'
the
of
person
tance to a
This has major consequences for how the mintl's itlt'lritecture
tlritt reads
must be arrang"i. t' ord", for an intelligent filter-,rrt'
setls'r'y storage'
meaning-to operate during the few moments of
elements must be nrttclified in a
of the
the arrang"-"it
-ir,d',
is intelligent, then there mttst lle some
critical fashior.. If the filter
reccircuit that connects the part of the mind that cognizes-that
through
sorts
ognizes m"ar"rirrgs-with the part that takes. in and
Freud and
initial i-pr"rr-iJnr. A simple, linear model such as
Broadbet i ptoposed would not work'
required is
Meanings are stored in long-term memory. What is
and the earlier stages of infora looTtbetween lgng-term
a feedback
-"*.y
nratio' p*rcessir',g.fhut loop is shown in Figure 5. Such
on
drawing
by
logp allirws f or the scrrlsorystore *o sort its contents
understandand
the vast re pertgire rtf't,xpcrience, on the meanings
memory' The
long-term
in
stored
s't'1,
lif.'
n
ov()r
.p
ings btrilt
"i.relle,v,tllt"
"s,rlic,rrt" t)r
can be made only on the basis
i.rfig*""t
to the mind's
of the knowledge ir-rlong-tentl lllelrlory. With access
goals,
the filter can
lifelong store gfexperiettce, pref'erences, and
of i'rpressi.us that assail it trt each successive
sift thrlugh the
-o*
tttne in clr out what matters'
moment. attd i-*ediatel;'

LONG.TERM MEMORY

m-ffi;*lilG
[ 7 : tl
adapted from Donald
Frcunr 5. A simplified model of the mind, loosely
stage <lf ilfitrllrlti.tl
earliest
the
at
perceptitln
N<trman: Mern<lry Screens
t' itwitrt'rtt'ss'
thrgrrglr
all.wt'cl
ii
what
s.lie'c't'
firr
fif
t,'ri.g
if .,*,

' l ' i l t , , t \ t l , , l . t , t (; t , : N t t n l t t r

I l rl r

Itt< l t' ct l, c't lt t t t 'r nl) ( ) r 'lu'y

t heor ist s no\ v iI SSlr ur rllr
' ; r l r r r l, , r r r , r lr , r r
prtssi ttgthrtlt r glr t lr e sensor y st or e is subject t 'r l t o scr r r lr r r r ; r r r r l lr l
tt' l ' ccl on th e basis of it s m eaning and r elevanc( . . "l, lsslr r lr : r llr , "
surl rs up Mat t hew Er delyi, a cognit ive psychologist , "lor r r : - lr . r r r r
urernory i ts elf becom es t he f ilt er , deciding what t o lr lock ll'or r r
short-term st or age ( and t her ef or e awar eness) ,t her eby det cnr r i r r ir r g
indirectly what to accept for eventual storage in long-term rnenr()ry
i tsel f." 6
That means the contents of awareness come to us picked overr,
sorted through, and pre-packaged. The whole process takes a fracti on of a sec ond.
There are compelling reasons for this arrangement in the design of the mind. It is much to our benefit that the raw information
that passes from sensory storage to awareness sifts through a smart
filter. The region of consciousness would be f'ar too cluttered were
it not reached by
vastly reduced information flow. while the
"
information in consciousness
seems limited, it also seems to be the
case that before getting there, that information-and an even vaster
rumount left behind, seemingly to evaporate-has gone through a
rnassive amount of analysis.
The more thoroughly information in sensory storage can be
sorted out, the more efficiently the next way station-awarenesscan operate. If too much gets through, awareness is swamped; as
we have seen, one such intrusion is anxiety. It is of critical import
that this filter operate at a peak, in order to save us from continuous
distraction by a mass of irrelevant information. If the filter were
rnuch less thorough we might literally be driven to distraction by
clistractions, as happens in schizophrenia.
The idea that information passes through an intelligent filter
led to what has become the prevailing view of how information
flows through the mind. The most comrnonly pictured flow chart
was proposed by Donald Norman in 1968; Figure 5 is a simplified
version of his rnodel. 7 In this model what enters through the senses
gets a thorough, automatic scan by long-term memory-specifically
by "semantic" memory, the repository of meanings and knowledge
abclut the world. For example, every bundle of sounds automatic'ally is directed to an "address" in semantic memory that yields its
rrretrning. If you hear the word "grunt," semantic memory recogrri zes i ts me aning; if you hear a gr unt , sem ant ic m em or y also r ecognizes that tl-ratsound is not a word.
A l l thi s f ilt er ing goes on out of awar eness.What get s t hr ough
to l tw i trt' ttcssis what m essageshave per t inence t o what ever nr ent t r l
rrt' ti vi tv i s t' tt t 'r t 'nt .I f 'yor r lt r t , looking f ilr r cst ar r r ant s,yor r will r r ot ir : t '
si gtts l i rr tl r('nr , lr r <lr r ot lin'gt s st lr t ior r s;il'\ 'or r lr lt 'skir r r r r r ir r gt lr r or r t r lr

(i (i I r' r' r' n lr,n

T R U 'l ' l l s
, ,,ss,tN tt' l .E
y o u w i l l n o ti c e th o s e i tetms tl tl tt vr)l l (' l l l ' (' l rbout.
I t r r . n( . \ { , s l )rrl )(.r,
W lr r r t gt , t s tl rn x rg h e n te rs a w a re n e s s ,atndtl nl y w l rrrl t\ rr\(' l i rl occupic s t lr ir t r tre trta ls p a c e .
l) c r c e p ti o n , Sa y SN Orma n , i s a m atter Of cl t' gr' ,' ,' .l rr st' i tnni ng
ir r < , or r r in gi n fo rm a ti o n , s e m a n ti c m e m ory neecl trol go i rrl o every
r lt , t lil; it n e e d o n l y s o rt o u t w h a t i s a nd i s not rt' l t' vrtrrll o l l re con( . r ) r n< lft h e m o m e n t. Irre l e v a n t i n fo rm ati on i s onl y l ti rrtl r ,rt' rtl yzed,
il'just to the point of recognizing its irrelevancy. Wlr;rl i.s rt'levant
get s f ulle r p ro c e s s i n g . F o r e x a mp l e , i f you casl ri rl l v sr' :trrrt new s" l t' rtp out"
p" p" t pag e a n d s u d d e n l y s e e y o u r n ame, i t w i l l s(' (' rrtto
partly
ut Vo". Piesumably the words you saw as you skirrrrrtt'tlr,r'r'r'c
processed and found irrelevant; your name-whit'lr is rrlwrtysrelevant-rated full processing.
T his m o d e l o f th e m i n d h a s s e v e ral i mportant i rrrl rl i t' :rl i ons.For
one, it posits that information is screened by memory rtt lvt'ry stage
of its processing, and that memory scans informatiott rttrtl filters it
for salience. All this processing goes on before inforrrrrrtiottenters
awareness; only a small portion of the informatiott rtvitilirlrle at a
given moment filters through to consciousness.
That is not to say that attention is entirely passivt:. We can,
after all, decide to scan for something, and so awareness clllr modify
how the filter operates. But awareness does so indirectly, through
the services of long-term memory: the activity of the filttr is never
directly evident to awareness. We can, however, bring infilrmation
into awareness from long-term memory. There is twtl-way traffic,
then, between awareness and long-term memory, but there is only
one-way traffic between the filter and awareness. There is a very
sum total of experireal sense in which long-term memory-the
a more decisive say in the flow of
ence one has about life-has
information than we ordinarily realize.

HO W M U C II
CAN W E KEEP IN M IN D ?

ertain blind people:sightless

as the result of
stroke or brain injury, rather than damage to the eye-can do a
remarkable thing. If an object is put in front of them, they cannot
say what or where it is. If they are asked to reach {br the object,
they will say it is impossible, since they cannot see it. But if they
can be persuaded to try, they will find it with a sureness that
amazes even themselves.
Thi s uncanny abilit y is called "blindsight . " I t t ur ns out t hese
people have superb vision, but they d<ln't knous they can see, according to Anthony Marcel, a psychologist at Carnbridge University
who has done research on blindsight. Using a high-speed camera,
Marcel tracked the precise vectors ofthe patients'arms, hands, and
fingers as they reached for objects they could not consciously see.
Their reach, analysis of the film showed, was quite precise.
What could account for this startling performance? The neurological understanding of blindsight is that the brain damage that
has rendered these patients blind is confined to neural areas that
play a role in awareness, not those areas that have to do with seeing per se. While their vision is fine, what their eye sees is never
transmitted to the part of the brain that brings vision into awareness. Blindsight suggests a startling possibility about the mind: that
one part may know just what it is doing, while the part that supposedly knows-that is, awareness-remains oblivious.
Other experimental work by Marcel shows that for normal people, too, the mind has the capacity to know usithout au)areness o/
what is knoun Marcel inadvertently made this discovery while
strrclyinghow children read. He would flash words on a screen very
ritpidly, some so fast that they could not be read. When he askecl
tl rt' t:l ri l < l rr:r r t o gr r ess at t he w<lr ds, he wns st r t r ck lly t "c'levt . r
rrri strrkr" ' :s() nr ( 't 'lr ilr lr cr rwor r lr l gu( 'ss it woxl wit lr l <'lost . lvr r 'l: r lt . r l
srrt 'lrls ( lr n'" li) r ' niglr t . "
nrr' :rrri rrg,

T R (r' r' n\
6 ti I v rl n r, r.n rss, rN I' L E
I nt r igu e d , Ma rc e l b e g a n to s tu d y tl rt' l tl rcnorn(' n.n nr()r' emeof a
t hodic ally . H e w o u l d fl a s h w o rd s { b r j rrst a l crr' l l r,,rr.' ,,rr,l tl rs
s ec ond- s o q u i c k l y th a t p e o p l e d i d not even kn,,,, tl r,' r l r:ul seen
a wor d. Th e n h e w o u l d a s k h i s s u b j ects w l ri t' l r s' ,' r,l rr,,r subsequent pair me a n t o r l o o k e d th e s a m e a s the ont' l l r;rl l r.r,I l rrsl fl ashed
bV . I f , f or e x a mp l e , th e u n s e e n w o rd w as " l l ook," l l rr' l .,okal i ke
would be "look," the related word "read."
E v en th o u g h h i s s u b j e c ts h a d n o t the sl i gl rt,' sl rrl r' ;rrvl rttt the
f ir s t wor d h a d b e e n , th e y w e re ri g ht i n thei r gu(' s\rrrr1,rl rout 90
per c ent of th e ti me -a n a s to u n d i n g rate of accttri tt' t'l , rt 1,,' ,,pl ew ho
did not even know they were reading.
T he r e s u l ts o f th e s e s tu d i e s o n w hat Marcel t' i rl l s un(' otrsci ous
r eading" a n d o n b l i n d s i g h t a re i n e xpl i cabl e i n tt' t' tttsol l row w e
commonly think about the mind. But contemp()r'irr'\'t,'st':rrchers
have adopted a rather radical premise: that mtrclt ot rttost consequential activity in the mind goes on outside awar('tr('ss.
The tenability of this proposition hinges on two litt'ts: tlrc channel c apac i ty o f a w a re n e s s -th e a mo unt i t can hol < l rtt otrt' ti rneand t he a b i l i ty o f th e mi n d to c a rry on i ts w ork urr(' ()rrsci ousl y.
Current wisdom in cognitive psychology puts tht' t'rtprtcity for
awar enes s a t " s e v e n , p l u s o r mi rtu s tw o," w hi ch i s tl rt' ti tl e of a
famous article on the topic by George Miller. 8 Millt'r, lrtsing his
ideas on a detailed review of technical evidence, proposed that
seven or so "chunks" of information were about all tlrtt c<luld be
held in short-term memory at one time. "Chunk" is tht' t(|rlrl used
to describe a single unit of information. For example, itt it sevendigit phone number, each digit is a chunk. Phone nunrbers of much
more than that length-say ten or twelve digits-are harrclto hold
in mind unless they are rechunked, for instance by remernbering
an ar ea c o d e a s a s i n g l e u n i t (M a n h a t tan as 2I2,Los A ngel es 213).
A more current estimate, made by Herbert Simon, puts the
capacity of short-term memory at five plus or minus two chunksan even more restricted capacity. If awareness has that small a
capacity, and if information must pass through this narrow channel
in order to lodge in long-term memory, then this juncture is a massive information bottleneck. The offerings of information at the
threshhold in sensory storage are overrich; the transfer from there
to the pinched channel of awareness demands a massive filtering
out of information.
But not all theorists agree that the mind must discard so much
information. Some psychologists-notably Ulric Neisser-take exception to the idea that there is a necessary limit on capacity at all.
S < lm eof N e i s .s e r' sa mmu n i ti o n w a s p rovi decl by Gertnrrl c S tt' i rr."
I n t he l tt9 0 s . l te frl re s h e b e :c a n l eu l i tr,rtry fi grrx' i rr l ' rtt' i s,(l cr' -

l t()\\' \ttrc n ( \\

\\ l ,l K E E p rN l ttN u' i

| 69

trude S tei n was a llr olcqlic ol llr r 'l, sr . , chologistWillianr Junr es ut

St cin, wit h her f ellow st udent
H arvard. U r - r derJit r r r , 's'slr r lr 'lr r r qr '.
r .ut t lr e idea of channel capacit y
Leon S ol om clnsas it <', 'll: r lr or r r l( , l)
to a test-l on g belir r t ' llr , 'r r ' \ \ ; r *r r , 'lr ir nr odel in psychology.
S tei n an d Solr ) nr on\ \ \ ( 'r ( ' nr t r iur r cclby aut om at ic wr it ing, an
occul t fad at t he t r u'r r ol llr r ' <r 'r r lr r r r '.The aut om at ic wr it er holds
penci l to paper , anr l t lr cr r r r ; r r ls lor it t o r nove as t hough on it s own.
N o consci ou s ef f or t is r r r , r , l, ',r r lr ; r lt 'rt 'r wr it ing com es f or t h pr esum o1'som
et hing ot her t han one's
abl y does s o undt 'r 'llr . r r , r r r , l, r r r ct
'
consci ous m ind. I {'or r t ' lr , r r , r lr sr clr ological bent , t he wr it ing is seen
as er-Il anatingf r ont t lr t ' 1) ( 'r \ ( ) ns unconscious m ind. I f one has an
other-w orl d ly bent , t lr c u r ilr r r u is seen as a m essagef r om t he spir it
world.
S ol omo ns anr l St t 'in ; r clt 't l ir s t heir own guinea pigs, r esolving
to teach them selvt 's t o u r ilt ' r r r r t or nat ically.They began by copying
w ords the other clict r t t r '<1,
u'lr ilt 'sim ult aneously r eading som e ot her
materi al . S o lom clns, lir r cr r r r r r ple, would r ead a st or y t o him self
w hi l e at the sanle t ir r r c r vr it ing wor ds dict at ed bV St ein. Pr esum abl y readi ng a st or v ( ) ( '( 'u1lit 'cl
t he cclnsciousm ind, leaving t he act
of writing the dictrrtt'rl u'orcls to some part of the mind beyond
aw areness.
Thi s w as a pr elir r r ir r ir r vst age in t r aining. Lat er t hey achieved
the remarka ble abilit v t o play bot h par t s sim ult aneously: Each
would read aloud to tlrt' other-two different stories going at the
same time-while
eaclr also copied down what the other was reading. From here they rvcnt on to automatic writing, where each
would read a story trlorrrl simply to avoid paying attention to what
his or her hand was rvriting. Rather than taking dictation, the hand
was free to write "alltonrrltically."*
The methodology of'this experiment, done as it was by two
undergraduates in the 1890s, was not strict by n"rodern standards.
N ei sser, i ntrigued by t he possibilit y t hat St ein and Solom ons had
stretched the lirnits of cognition, persuaded his graduate students
Elizabeth Spelke and William Hirst to repeat that experiment some
e'ighty years later. They hired two Cornell undergraduates to spend
tn hour a day for a sernester doing what Stein had done. Each
would read to himself short stories while an experirnenter dictated
rvorcls.The study was well controlled, in all the ways Stein's had
rrot lreen. For example, each student would start a stopwatch when
c i rn
'Wl r:rt tl ri s trrti rri rrgnl ay hav c rrrei rntfbr N { s . S tei n' s s ubs e< l trc rrtl i teri tr-yorrtprrt
,,rrl v l rc rr rrur ttc r < l f' t' < l n.j t' c trrrt'LIl
. ri c N t:i s s c r, w ,hrl rt' p< l rts rl t' ti ri l s ol ' tl rc S tc i rr/
Sol orrrorrst'rl l c l i nrc rrl , r' < l rrrrrrc rrl "l
s ,t trrrrrt' < rl
l rrt tl rl t w l ri tt i s rv l i l l c n s l l orrl l rrrr' ,rrrs l v
,rrr,l ,'r l l r,'r,' ,,,rrrl i l i .,rrs i s rrot r' < ' r' \'i rrt< ' rts ti rrt{ ;l rl l c rrs l i t i s rrol i rrl l rl s l i rrl l l o rrrr' .
( l rrl r rrtl c Stti rr \(' (' urs l o l r:rrr' l rk r' .1i t.'

70 | vIrat. l.nrs,sr\{r,LE
TRuTHS
he began re a d i n g th c s to rv a n d c l i c k i t off w hen hc fi rri sl rt' tl ,then
t ak e a wr i tte n te s t to s c c l ro w w e l l h e had fol l ow ecl tl rt, rri rrri tti ve.
A t t h e o u ts c t, tl rt' s trrc l e n tsfo u nd i t i mpossi l l l t' to rt' rrcland
wr it e at th e s a l n (rti rtrt' . ' l ' l te i r re a d i n g w oul d go i n stol rs rrrrrlstarts,
wit h a ha l t w h i l t' tl rc v t' o p i e d e a c h di ctated w ord. ' l ' l rr. rrl tt,rnati ve
is t o r ead s l o w l y rtrr< lrn rrl e rs ta n dl i tt l e. N ei ther w orkt.< l u,r,l l . D es pit e t he d i ffi c rrl tv rrl tl re s ta rt, th e students mustt,rt.tl tl re task
wit hin s i x w e e k s . l fv tl rc e n d th e y coul d read w i tl r g,r.rrl rrnders t anding w h i l e ttk i rrtl tl i t.tu ti o n w i th o ut pause.
O n t h e b a s i s o l ' tl ri s l l rtl l a te r s tu d i es w i th vari otrs l x,r' rrrrrtati ons
of t as k de m a n c l s ,N t' i s s (' r' (' o n c l u d e dt hat peopl e can tl o tw o erl ual l y
c om plex m e n ta l ti rs k srrt tl re s a me ti me. " S uch an achi t.vcrnt,nt,"he
not es , " ch a l l e n g t' s tl rc tn rtl i ti o n a l v i ew that al l cornl l l t.x tcti vi ty
inv olv es a s i n g l c c l u rrrn r' l w i th a l i mi ted capaci ty." A t l r.ust i n thi s
ins t anc e, th e b o rrrrtl so l ' i rttc rrti o n s e e m stretchabl e.
Y es a n d n o . A tl ri rrl v i t:w , o ffe re d by the cogni ti vt' psychol ogis t s Don a l d N o rttu rrrrtrr<'ll ' i n r Sh a l l i ce, reconci l es thc N t' i sser objec t ion t o a l i mi t o n (' tl )i r(' i tvw i th th e Mi l l er theory that the l i mi t i s
f ix ed. r o N o rma n a n tl Sl u rl l i t' t' p ro p o se that the mi ncl can process
several parallel strirrrrls ol' irrfbrmation simultaneotrsly. A few
s t r ands c o m e w i th i rr tl rt' l x rrrtlo [' a fu areness;the am< tuntthat can be
handled t h e re i s l i m i tt' tl . l l rrt a rr u n k now n-and l arge-r' rumber of
s t r ands op e ra te o u t o l ' l tw i l r' ('I l (' s s ,n e ver enteri ng consci ousness.
T his v i e w a g re e s w i tl r l \l i l l e r that there i s a fi xed l i mi t to the
s pan of a w a re n e s s . B rrt i t rrl s o u l l o w s for N ei sser' s contenti on that
there is no fixed limit to tlrt' totul amount of information the mind
can handle. The necessirry a<klcd trssumption is simply that much
goes on in th e m i n d o u t o [' i rw u re n e s s.
Indeed, people perfirrrrr ir vust number of activities simultaneously: we drive while t:rlkirrg to a companion, listening to the
radio, munching a hamburger, und reading fieeway signs. We can
do all these things so long as nrost of them are habitual, automatic
sequences; these can go on outside awareness, since they need no
attention allocated to them.
Donald Norman gives an apt description of how the split between conscious and unconscious activity operates:rt
As I sit at my typewriter writing these sentences, ffiy conscious resources are devoted to determining the intention:
I then watch over the words as they appear on the paper.
I do give conscious guidance to the forms of the sentences
and to their higher level structures. I sometimes select
particular words that capture the concept I wish to expr es s , a n d th e n h o l d th o s e w o rd s i n consci otrsnt.ssw l ri l t.
t he s e n te n c e b u i l d s u p o n th e p apcr, (' orrstnr< .ti rrg
rrn l rl r-

( r ANwE KEErr N ur xup | 7 |

rr () \ vM UCH
propriat e sca{I ir lt lir r g.I am not nor m ally conscious ol't hc
actual selecti<lrr rl' words, nor of the activity of typing. I
l i sten t o m y "i. r r t '! ' voice" speak t he wor ds. . . and t *ui"h
them appear or r t lr t , t yping paper .
This arrangentt'ttt slves us from the petty details of our lives;
we need not plan wlri.lr key to type, where to put a foot for the
next step, how muclr l)r'('ssureto grasp a doorknob with, what word
to say next . The t r r r cor r sciousm ind t akes car e of it all. This f r ees
awareness to makt' gnurrler plans: what to write, ushere to go,
which door to open, tt,lutt nuance to get across.what the conscious
mi nd decides and ir r t r . r r <ls,
t he unconscious execut es. But t he unconscious can also ext'<'rrtt:its own intentions. To accommodate this
fact, our model of tht' rnind needs one more wrinkle. We need to
add pathway for irrlorrttution flow and the execution of response
1
that bypasses awaren()ssultogether.'
Much of our lif'e is lived on automatic. More often than not, so
long as we are following routine, we don't even have to plan what
to do; we do it autornatically. We need to plan only *hen we deviate from routine. Norman gives an example: In deciding to pick
up some fish on the way home from work, he says, "I must hu,u"
'fish store' active in mind at the time I pass
the critical choice point
between home and the store . . . Let'fish store' lapse from memory
junction and I am apt to find .tryrilf at home, fish_atth9 critical
l ess."
Norman has studied such moments in detail; he collected more
than two hundred instances of what can be called "post-Freudian
slips": while cooking a meal, someone puts the salad in the oven
and the cake in the refrigerator and leaves them there for several

LONC-TERM MEMORY

SENSORYSTORE AND FILTER

l i r r ; r r n r .6
l . F l o w <l f infirrmution in an attt< l nrati c r< l rrti l rt,' : F' r' orrr i l rti tk t. ol
l r c r t 'r . i v t 't l s ti l r r r r l r r stl r r o rrg l r t'xe t,r r tio l r ol ' rt.s l torrs t' , tl rc c rrl i rc s l rprr.rrc r. i s
o r r l s i r l r .i l w l u'( .n ( .ss.

7 2 | r' l ' l ' ,ul.,u ,:ss.r\u ,r.E

-rR UTIts
hour s . A j o g g e r (' ()n r(' si rr l o l ' a s h o wer ancl throw s hi s' l ' -sl ri r.ti n the
t oilet ins te a c l o f' tl r< ' l r;rrrrl rc r's.o rn e one says, " I w arrt yorr (6 l l e me,,
ins t ead o f " y < l tt to l rr' \()u ." T h e c a r stops and the rl 1i r,,' r.rr.l ^rckl es
his wat c h b a n tl i rts l r' ;rrl,l ' th e s e a t bel t. Orange j rri t,r' ur.l s p6ured
int o t he c o fl i :c ' < ' rrP .' l ' l r.s rrg i rrl i d g o es on the
i r,ri ead of
" oi fi ' .' r.rr1r
t he s uga r b o w l .
T hes e n ti .s l l tk r' \.s ;r\s N o rma n , i ndi cate that arr l rrrl orrri rti csequenc e h a s l l t' < ' tr(' \(' r' trl c tl i n c o rre c tl y. The sl i p tri ggcr-si tttenti on
t o t he s e q u c l n (' (' :i l r.rrl c rs i rw a re n ess for repai r w ork..l ' l rr.se mi s_
t ak es ar e " p < l s t-l " l ' t' trrl i :trr"
i n th e s e n se thatthey nel rl l rrt l l t: rnoti v at ed by h i rl c l t' tr i tn l rrrl s c s .' fh e y o c cur by vi rtue 9l ' tl rt,r' r-rursand
s lippage th :tt g o t' s rtr i n ;r.n v c o mp l e x system. Freucl ' s col l t' cti on of'
par apr ax e s tl r(' l t s ttl )(' ;tl (' l fo rvttf s l i p s, l ess i nnocel t l rrtl r.i rrc,r
than
t he er r or s N o n u l u r ru r;rl rz t.s .
Lear n i n g to tl t) s ()rrrt' tl ri n r:
n e w requi res ful l attt,rrti orr.It takes
c ont inua l mrl rri to ri rtt{ l o ;rl rs o rl rth e ta.sk' srequi renrcrrt. ' l ' l i e poi nt
of m as t e ry c o l l l (' s u ' l r,' rr tl rc ti rs k c an be done w i thotrt thi nki ng
about it , o r w i th rtto s l o l ' i l o rr a rrto mati c.Once thi s i nfi rrrnati on i s
enc oded w e l l i rr n rc n r()r' \,rl rt' c .rre s ,events, and resl ronsc.sthat i t
ent ails c a n g o u n rro ti r.t,<;rs
l i t i s < k l ne.
E x pe rti s e , i ' tl ri s
i s b v e rl earni ng. The expert does not
' t.s p .t' t.
hav e t o th i n k a b o rrt tl rt'
s l r' ;rs l l rrrtth e novi ce stumbl ei over. That' s
why , whe n th e { b rrrr(' r'\\' o r' l rlr.l rt' s sc hanrpi on
Jos6 capabl anca w as
as k ed, " H o w m a n y l )o s s i l ri l i ti t' s rl o y u,, ," " on the board w hel you
" O' e -the
ponder a mo v e P" h i s rt' ;l l \ \\,i 1 .\,
ri ght one."
A s lo n g a s th i n g s g o s \\' i rn rrri rr gl y,* "
i n i 11yrtrsrerabl e
m indles s tra i n s o f' a c ti v i tr' . l l rrt u .' h c n one of" rrguge
them gi ves us troubl e,
it t ax es o rl r c a p a c i ty i rrrrlu ' t, l rrrv c to .stop or sl ow dow n most of the
ot her s .
S lips d e m a n d th trt a ttt' rrti o rrl rc real l ocateclto address the aut om at ic ro u ti n e th a t h a s f,rl t' rl rrp . w hi l e the repai r goes on, the
z one of a w a re n e s s i s o c c trp i c c l l r1 ' rvhat i s usual i y i n-the paral l el
unc ons c i o u s c h a n n e l s . I)rrri rrg th i s repai r w ork, l i ttl e o, ,o conscious attention is available filr all'c.tion to other rnatters.
The reverse of this invarsion of awareness by the automatic
c hannels i s th e " a b s e n t
p ro f essor" phenornenon, i n w hi ch
ri ' d e d
a person is so absorbed 'in
conscious thought that little attention is
available fbr autonrartic routines. For example, Einstein's wife,
Elsa, used to bundle him up in his overcoat and see him off to the
foyer to get on his boots, only to find hirn there half an hour later,
lost in thought. But rvith most of trs, when matters are routine, trnrl
well-learned, the bounds of attention are quite elastic ancl t[t' rrrrc ons c iot r sm i n d c a rnh rrn d l e th e m .
F lt t t trtl tttrt' lI)< tn t' h i rt,i t l c i trl i rrg n,sci u' < .l rcri rr tl rt,strr< l r ,rl t..1g-

It()\\.\l uc t{

c ,\N \\' E K E E p tN H l l l l l i

I 7:l

ni ti ve psy chobiologr ', gr r r t sit blunt ly: r 2 "The

not igr r t lpr t ir r f . r . . : r ti on proc essing is lr r 'ut 'ly pr e- conscious
or
n. t r r r , : r ilr t lr l. t <l
aw arenessis so cleir
r 'r , r r r t 't hat it seem s self - evident .
" There's a ht r gt 'it t lr ( ) r r nt
of evidence t hat when w( , ( , n( . or r r r t . r
arnevent o f any s<lr tllt . t t . 's t ln enor m ous am ount
of ver . v f ir st 1l. r . ir ll el proces sing alor t g r r r r r ' nr 'lt iple channels. 'ir , "r "- ; ir , , ; ; ; , ; , ls
ir r . t ,
acti vatecli n an obligr r t , r 'r lir . shion,wit hout any
conscious c<lr r t r . '1.
" It go es on cot t t ir r r r ; r llv,wit h
incr edible r apidness. For . , xir r ) pl e, i n our r esear clt u't ' lir r r l t ht r t t he m ind
r ecognizes a wor d wit hir r
the fi rst 150 m illisr . r ', r r r r s , f seeing it . But
not hing shows t r p ir r
al \/arenessf or anot lr t 'r ' l( x) r r r illir ""n. r d, or
so, if it s[ o; ,
ut ull,
A w areness is a lir r r it t 'r l . r r pr r cit vsyst enr .we don't
"f
know- ar d
don, t
need to kn ow- t t lr ot t l r r r r st of t he st uf f t he
m incl does. I have no
i dea how I sear ch r r ( . r r ( ) r '\ 'o. how I . get gr am m at ically
cor r ect sen_
tences out of m y r r or r t r r . r t 's har d
t o handr e ih" ht t l. yo. ,
"nor g1
need to keep t r ack ol'ir r ir \ \ , ir r . cness.
" Fi gurat ively sp. r r kir r g, g9. g
per cent of cognit ion m ay be un_
consci ' us. we'd b. ir r t t 'r 'r 'ilr leshape if ever yt hing
wer e conscious. , ,
In sum ' m uch ot ' t t t , st of 'r vhai r ve do go. , on
ot r t of awar eness,
gui ded by well- leit r r r t 't i s( '( lucnces.
We r eser ve consciousnessf or
particularly demanclirrg ttrsks, or leave
it as a free spac" rnl o"ti.r"
attention, for thought arrrl clecision-making,
or fbr tire reverie that
passes for consciot r sr r . sscl'r ing m uch
uiir , . waking day. . . con_
sci ousness , " conclt r <k's . t ext on cognit ive psycholo"gy, , i. . is
t he
exception, not the .rlt' . . . but by its very nature,
conscious thought
seems-the only sort. It is rot the only ,ort, it
is tire ,r-,irr,rrity.;;The mo del of m ind t hat {bllo*, f r o- t hese
conclt r sions is al_
rnost complete. still
though, is the intelligence that
'nexprai'ed,
gui des these unconscious
r out ines, t haf select s and f ilt er s exper ience and defines_the range of awareness. The
assemblage of mental
systems is rigged together in a machinelike
fashion. yef mer.ial life
is rich, pungent, a'd full. where are the ghosts
that enspirii this
r.achi ne, that endow it wit h t he quar it ies
oTa living m ind?

nn

THE PACKETSK N OW LEDGE ( ;0NI I.,SIN

\ro.rnd the age of four, I had a vivirl lirrrtusvabout

I
the construction of reality.
I entertained the benignly paranoid notion that wlrcrever I
went and whatever I saw was made of stage sets, r:rtlrt'r'like Hollywood studio streets which from one side appear to lrc real and
from another stand revealed as false fronts.
T he h o u s e s , tre e s , c i rrs ,d o g s ,h n d peopl e I passed on the street,
I was sure, were props placed there just before I came on tl-rescene,
which vanished after I le{t. The rooms I entered likewise came into
being and evaporated as I made my way through them.
This Herculean task was accornplished by some group or force
outside my ken. I imagined a htrge, unseen horde of workers f'everishly-but
silently-at
work constructing these sets as I approached, and just as f'everishly dismantling them and storing them
away as I left. All this work was gtrided by hands I never could see
directly, and with purpose and motives I never could know.
That childish fantasy, I have since come to realize, is a rather
close metaphor for the workings clf our minds.
The stuff of experience from moment to moment is concocted
for us just beyond the periphery of awareness, in realms of mind
which scan, select, and filter the array of information available from
t he s ens e sa n d m e m o ry .
The pervasive illusion is that we dictate the scope and direction of awareness. The facts seem to be more akin to my childhood
fantasy, in which the mind is arranged by unseen forces that operate to present us with a constructed reality, which we apprehend
in its final, finished version. It is as though there were invisible
stagehands erecting a set-the world around us and in trs-in firll
intricate clettril. moment to moment.
W lr < l rn i g h t l l t' tl tc s t' ti n k e ri rrg l )r(' s(' n(' (' sw i tl ri rr tl rc rrri rrrl .rrrrrl
u' lr c r r ' < l o l l rt' r' < ' rl rrrr'
l i ' o rn?

t,.\(;K t;' t:.ix \l ()\\,t,tt)(;E ( j ()M1,.:i

tN I i 5

They ar e t t s- llr r "'r r s" t hat accr ues f r om t he sr r r r rt ot r r l ol or r r

l i f' e experiencr : . "l', r 1r cr . it . nceis kaleidoscopic; t he expt , r icr r cc ol
every moment is ut r ir lut ' ir nd unr epeat able, " wr it es J: ur cs llr it t or r
i n Langua ge and lt 't t t - t t ir r g."Llnt il we can gr oup it em s in it r lr r t lr r .
l tasi s of their sir r r ilr r r it v we can set up no expect at ions, m ake r r <r
predi cti on s: lackir r g t lr t 'se we can m ake not hing of t he pr esent r nornent."
Perception is irrtt'r'active,constructed. It is not enough for inforrnation to flow throrrgh the senses; to make sense of the senses
requires a context that organizes the information they convey, that
Iends it the proper rneaning.
The packets that organize information and make sense of experience are "schemas," the building blocks of cognition.ra Schemas embody the rules and categories that order raw experience
into coherent meaning. All knowledge and experience is packaged
in schemas. Schemas are the ghost in the machine, the intelligence
that guides information as it flows through the mind.
Jean Piaget, the pioneer Swiss developmental psychologist,
studied how schemas change as children grow. Cognitive development, Piaget saw, is cumtrlative; understanding grows out of
what has been learned already.rs we have become who we are,
learned what we know, by virtue of the schemas we have acquired
along the way. Schemas accrue with time; the schemas we have at
a given point are the end product of our particular private history.
Piaget used the concepts "assimilation" and "accommodation"
to describe how these mental structures are shaped by interaction
with the world. As we learn, schemas change. For example, as a
child growing up in California, I learned that trees with no leaves
were dead. When I saw pictures of spooky-looking trees with no
leaves, I took them to be dead. when I moved East, I discovered
that trees lost their leaves when winter came, but that they weren't
dead. I revised my schema accordingly: a tree is not necessarily
dead, I realized, just because it has no leaves.
when someone fails to revise a scherna to fit the facts. the
resulting perceptions can be bizarre. To make the point Ulric Neisser tells the joke about a man who goes to a psychiatrist with the
pnrblem that he thinks he's dead. 16After several sessions, the psychiatrist sees that the patient is firm in his delusion. So the psychirrtrist says to him, "You've heard, of course, that dead men don't
"
l l l t' e< 1.
' l -ht:
l l at ient says, "Yes. "
' fht' psychiat r ist t akes a pin and jabs him in t he ar r n so
lr c
l rl ccrl s. " Wlr r r t <lo yor r sir y now?" ht 'asks.
' l ' l rr' yllr t icr r t sr r vs. "Wt 'll, r vlr lr t <lo ylr r r kr r ow'/
l) r . r r t l r r r r . n t lt ,
l ,l ccr l . "

76

| r ,t' Ie l L IES. sr \[,L E' fRlr - r 'i l s

'I l il

t ' \ ( . K l . l ' t ' s K N ( )\ \ t , t . t t x ; E (; ()i \ i l , . s rN

l --

tt

sti l l l ook l i k e her i' l) , r . s slr t , ur <lvelike her . wear t hc sar r r t 'kir r r l ol
r' l ' thes? A l l t hest ' ( r r ( 'sr ir . s Ar e sm all t est s of t he t heor y t lr ir t "it is
rl l (]."
I'I(;E ON

t I

-+
___>
---+
__-__>
--+

w)w

F t c t r nn7. \\/l r< ' rr

l l rr' (' \(' r.r' l ' ,l .t\ i u r i rrrl > r' t' ssi t>
n,
schentrrs
i rrsti rntl ivrnal yze
it s at t r ilr r rtt' ss,rt,l r,n ,' ,,1 ,,r,rr,,l rl r,r1 r,',
sc,rnal l possi bl ertrt' i rrri ngs
rrrrcl
as i t
pir s s ( ' st lrro rrg l rtl rr' :r' rr\()r\ rl .rc rrrrrlfi l ter. The < l nesel ec' tecl
nterrrti rtgiut ( llt l) l) r ' o 1 l ri ;rl
l r(r' 1 rlrrrrr l )()l )\ i rrt oi trvrl reness.
l )('
I r r , : r s c n s r' , rr s l l r(,n rr i s l i k t' t theory, an assun-rpti onabout
c t x llt ' t ' it ' tt(' (' i l trrll r,' u i l rro rk s . r\ s c ' l t etna,i n the w ords o{ the cogni t iv r ' ps v t ' l ro l o u i s l l ):rr rrl l l rrrrrr' l l r,l rti,s " a ki nd of i nfbrmal , pri vate,
ul) ilr t i( ' lt l l rl c tl tl r,' ,n\ i l l ro rrl l l rc rrl ttr re of events, ol tj ects, or si tuat ior t s wlt i t' l t u ' r' l i rrr' .' l ' l rr' l o l rrl s c t o f ' schemasw e have avai l abl e fbr
int c t ' 1t r t ' ti rrgr)u r' \\' (,r' l tli n i r s (' n s (' c o nsti tutes our pri vi rte theory of
"
t he n: r t r rl t' o l ' r' r' i rl i | \' . I
W it h s c l rt' rrn rs\\'
, (' :rrr' :rl rl t.to g o beyond the data gi ven. If w e
s ee a c it r, w t: c i u l l rs .s rrrrrr' l l l rrl
o l l rc r attri butes go w i th i t-a steeri ng
wheel, g tts ta n k , l )r.rs s (' rrr-Ic
s t'ri tts . c t c.-even though w e l nay not
appr ehen d th o s e i rs p t.t' tsrl i rt' t,tl r,.l -ike a theory, a schema embodies as s u m p ti o n s , w h i c l r \\' (' trrk t' :rs gi vens w i th compl ete confi denc e. Th i s l e ts u s rrn rk t' i n tt' r preti l ti ons that outstri p the
immediate evidence li'rlrrrour s('ns('s.'fhis cclgnitive shorthand lets
us navigate our way throrrgh tht' irnrlrigtrity that is more often than
not what we corlfront in the w,orlcl.
Lik e th e o ri e s , s c h e m a s a re p ro n e to revi si on. Our know l edge
accrues by revising or adding schenrils to onr total store. Schemas
are theories that test themselves. When an ambiguous situation
arises, we adduce schemas to render it clear. Each schema we
apply in a puzzling situation is automatically tested for aptness or
fit. r8
Most of the time we have complete confidence in the schenrus
we use. But when the fit is not cluite right-say, when you tlrink a
f ac e in t h e c ro w d i s th trt o f a fri e n d , btrt A ren' t rl ui te s1116' -fl 1t' rr
tl rt.
s c hc t t r a' s fi t i s tc s tt' c l ttg :ri n s t l l l o r' ( ' r' v' i < l t' nc' t'.j, rr.stl i kc rr l l l corr,;
t ' ot t l< lit l rc s l rt' i Wo rrl < ls l rt' l rt' l rc r' < 'rrou' i A s vorr (t' l r' l osr.r,rl or.s i l

S tereotypes ur '( .sir r r plv a var iet y of schem a. The f ollowilg ir cr' < )ui l tby su san F- iskr ',: r ( 'ognit ive psychologist , of her st er eclt ype
of' steel w or ker s sit ys r r t r r clrir bout t he dynam ics of schem as in gen-

c rttl : l n

si nce m oving t , l'it t sbur gh, I have encount er ed a new

stereotype . . . a "r r r ill hunk, " t hat is, t he pr ot ot ypic st eel
worker. A mill lrrrrrk, so the stereotyp" .,-,i,r,
male
"u.ri.
or female but is irrvariably macho und raunchy
regardless
of' gender. A
htrnk always drinks Iron ciiy beer,
watches every 'rill
steeler game, and wears a T-shiri in ali
weather. . . . My mill-hunk stereotype is stored as an abstracted generic example, not as a collection of all the
steelworkers I have ever known, althotrgh the stereotype
does contain specific examples too. I am llkely to ignoie
information irrelevant to the stereotype . . . Iand] I" will
tend to recall only consistent informution-a
miil hunk
who reads Hustler magazine.
Schemas can deal with domains irnnrense or minute; they act
rtt all levels of experience, all degrees of'abstraction. "Just as theocan be about the grand and the .small," says Rumelhal.t:2o"ro
'ies
schemas can represent knowledge at all leveis-from
ideoiogies
,rrrd cultural truths to knowledge about what constitutes an approlrriate sentence in our language to knowledge about the meaning
,f'a particular word to knowledge about what patterns of
[soundl
iu'e associated with what letters of the alphabet."
The notion of schemas is itself a schema. As such, it is the most
pr<lmising account we have to explain to ourselves how we explain
l, ourselves. Schemas are the organizing dynamic of knowledge.
'l', realize
how they operate is to understand understanding.

l N r)t ; l t s ' t ' A N t )t N (;

UNDERS'I'AllllNt;

7\)

U N D E R S T A N D IN G UNDERSTANI) ING

TONGUE

EN AM EI,

A
a re th e b a s i c rrni ts ol cxP tt i .n(' (' . Li ke mol Vc h e m a s
ec ules , th e y o rg a n i z e l e s s e r t:l t:r' n t' ntsi ttto l t w ,,t' krtl ,l t'w hol e. Onl y
when e x p t:ri t:trc t, i s tl rg i ttti z ,t' <l ,y st' l tt' ttt;ts l s i t rt' i rl l y uS eful ;
em llc t l< l t.rli rr i r s t.l rt.rrrlirs l l o tl r l n u rr< l crsl rttrl i trgol ' tl rt' experi ence
it < lr ga rri z c s ,i u rrl i rrl i rrrrr:rl i o rr;rl rortll ror.l tl r:tt krr,,w l t' tl ge i s to be
r r s c t l.
S t t' 1 tl rt' rrl ' i rltttt' t' ,r r s lr r r lt ' r r l ol l l r r r r r c l l u t t 't l t t r t l N t l r t r t a n , d e m o n s t r at est l rc p o i n t rv i tl r t lr t ' lr it ' r ' ogll' p l r I r t 'l o w .

b,

1-

ORTHODONTI

FLUORIDE

Ftcunr 8. The train of thought runs through linked and embedded schernas._"Face,"
for example,might lead by associationto thoughtsof a coming dental appointment,linking the schemasshown above.

ar-'

These are parts of a whole, but without knowing the context,

there is no meaning. The lines suggest interpretations, but do not
of themselves conjure a workable one. To understand the context
that gives meanings to these parts, turn to page 80.
If you have turned the page to see the context for the lines
above, you know them to be parts of a face. The face is immediately
recognizable; its parts out of context are not. While the lines might
suggest appropriate interpretations (the wiggly line could be a
nose), and could eventually lead to you recognize the features of a
face, it is much easier when the "face" schema organizes your
perception of them.
As Gestalt psychologists have long told us, the whole is greater
than its parts-it gives them meaning. Knowing that something is
a"face" sets up a vast number of potential uses of that informatitln.
A network ties the .schema for face to other kincls of inforntittirltt,
,
tt' ti vt' tl (' ss,[i r< ' i i rlt' x1l t' t' ssi tl tt,
s r r t , I ir s fi rr.t' s6 f fri e l tl s , s k i n (.' i rr( 'nttri

the colors of eyes. Each of these can, in turn, Iead to myriad bits of
information; as a schema activates, connected ones more readily
irctivate. "Ey"," for example, might tie into schemas such as "the
time I first got glasses" "big eyes are sexy," "glaucoma is from
I)ressure within the eyeball," and on and on. Fortunately, schemas
rrttune their connections within the range of focus germane to
tlre moment, neither straying too far afield nor staying too confi ned.
A schema is the skeleton around which events are interpreted;
:ts events are complex and layered, so schemas are interlocked in
r ich combinations. A train of association is a roadmap through
l oosel y connect ed schem as.
Schemas are the structures memories are stored in; the invenl ol y of' schem as t hat a per son accum ulat es m akes up t he c<lnt t 'pt s
of' l ri s l orrg- t er nl r nem or y.
S t' l tt' tt t it slt r t t l it t t t 'nt iot t ir r t t 'r act in ir n ir r t r icat r . r lir r r t . r . At
. . livr .
;tl l t' ttl i ol r l lt 'ot t s( 'st 't 'lt 'vit t r l sr 'lr cr r r ir s;s<'lr r . r r r irirs r t r u'r r gr r ir lr . t lr r .

80

| vr r e l

TIN D E R S TA N D TNU
c N D E R S TA N uTru< ; l J I
I

L IES. SIM PL E T RUT IIS

the tape, they wer ( ) sr r r 'pr isedt o see t he wom an. Nt 'isscr . 'st . xper iment i s a visual er lr r ir ': t lcntof t he cockt ail par t y ef li: c, t .Sr r t . lrsclecti ve percep t ion go( ) sot r c: ont inually.As you r ead t his yor r lr r t ' r l<lipg
i t at thi s ve r y m onl( 'r r t ; \ , our schem as r ender t he t ype nt ( , r ur ir r g{lr l.
A s your focus picks ot r t t he wor ds on t he page, it ignor es wlr ir t is i1
your peri pher al vision. . fr r st calling t his f act t o your at t ent ior r r r r av
suddenly make yolr rr\\,lle of what surrounds these worcls in yorlr
vision. Otherwise, it is sinrple to see the effect. Keep your eye,fixc<l
on the spot below, lrtrt rrrove your attention to the white borders <lf'
the page-to the lrook's t:dges-and to what surrounds the book
itself:

f bc us ol' i tttt' rtti o tr. ' l ' l rc v rts l rr' p t' t' t< l i reof schemas Ii t:s tl ormant
, tti c s t' r' ttlrrrrl i l l rt' ti v i tted by attenti On. Oncc acti ve,
in r t t gr r r r)t' \'(q
n ' l rrrl ;ts 1 rt' t' l so { ' the si tuati on attenti on w i l l
t hey < lt , tt,r' rrri rrt.
trar:k.
' l' lr is i rrtc r' 1 l l :rv
l rt' l tt' r' r' ttl tttt' rtti onand schemasputs them at the
hglr t el' tl rt. rrl rl l c r' . S t' l r,' rru rsrro t o n ly determi ne w hat w e w i l l not ic . r ' : t lt t . r :tl s o rl c l c rrtti ttr' ,.r' l ti rty e do nO, noti ce. C tl nsi der the
r y r r c s t iorr(l l ri c N c i s s t' t l )()s (' s :" T h e re i s al w ays more to see than
ally on( ' s (' (' s ,l u rtl n t()t' ('l o k tto u ' th a n anyone knOw s. W hy don' t w e
s ee it , wl ry ' < l o tt' t n ' r' l ro tl tt' t'l o k n o w i t?"
T [ e l rrs w (.r' s i v t' tr l rv I" t' t' rtda nd B roadbent, i mpl i ci t i n thei r
m odels < l f' rtri rr< 1i s, l l r:rt u ,t' fi l te r e x peri ence S o w e S ee onl y w hat
we need to s e r(' ,k rro u ' o n l v rv h a t w e need to know . N ei sser' s anS wer , ho w e v t,t' , i s tl l tt i t i s trttt s o much that w e fi l ter i t out, as that
we s im pl y d o n < l t l ti t' k i t rr1 l .Irt te rm s of our model , i nformati on not
pic k ed u p d ro p s o u t i tt tl rt, [i l tc r.
C)ur schemas cltoost' this and not that; they determine the
scope of attention. Tuke, lor example, the simple act of looking. Do
we really see what we look af P The best evidence is that we don't;
instead, we see what we ltlok.frrr. Neisser makes the point with an
elegant, straightforward demttnstration. He made a videotape of
four young men playing basketball. The tape lasts just one minute.
About midway, an attractive young woman carrying a large white
umbrella saunters through the game. She is on the screen for four
full seconds.
Neisser would show the tape to visitors at his lab, who were
asked to press a key whenever the ball was passed between players. When Neisser asked afterward if they had seen anything unus ual, no t o n e o f th e v i s i to rs m e n ti oned the w oman w i th tht' w hi tt'
r r nr lt r ell l . T h e y h rrc l n o t n < l ti c e d her; the sc' ht' trr:tgrri tl i rrg tl rt' i r'
y ir . r v ilg l rr' l < l l ttg rrti r)1 o l r tl rt' l l l l l . W l rt' rr N ci sst' r' l l rt' tr t(' l rl ;rrctl

o
while reading, y<lrr notice the words, not the margins of the
page and what lies beyond. Your attention is channeled like the
visitors who watched Neisser's video of the basketball game.
You don't notice what is irrelevant until something makes it relevant: your attention is guided by u schema {br reading until another one, which directs your attention to the page edge, takes
over.
schemas guide the mind's eye in deciding what to perceive
and what to ignore. Here, for example, is an apt description of
how schemas operate in directing a man's attention toward women:

2l

. . . you realize that all your life you have screened women
out. Too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, ill-dressed, disturbed. . . . You didn't have to look, actually, not to be interested. A- hint in _the eye s corner kept the eye moving
for the fresh face, the springy hair, the youthfui waist be'tween firm hips and bust. Negative efficiency. when
you're looking for an object, the eye in an instani discards
a thousand that are not it.
when emotions stir schemas, they lend a special potency.
Flnrotions and thoughts are part and parcel of the same process.x A
tlr.rrght stirs a {beling; feelings guide thoughts. The intricate conrrc< ' ti orrsbe t ween t hought and f eeling can be seen in a depic. t ior r
t .'\ r l r 'l l i tl ( '
l i tg (' s o t t l l t c c x l t t l l c l i t l i o n s l ri l l
l rr' l , n t ' r' r' n < ' o g rri t i o rr l t rrrl r. rrro t i o rr, p : rrl rr. rr
l ,ttl r ' ,tr ','t ul r c ll r. r
l l r. rrg l ri l )t (' ( (' (l c s l c r. l i n g , o r l r. r. l i rrg l l ro rrr: l rl . N ,
, 1 r, , . . 1 r, , r, . , .
' rrr.
Ir ,,r r ,'r 'r 'r , l l r :r l l l rr. l rv o : rrr. rrrl t rrr; rl r. l r, l i r. , l .

5j

TTN D E R S TA N D INuN
G D E R S TA N rrrrur; |,!t:t

i r r r ..r r ,L u ,;s. slln ,t,t,l' l- RL I' t'l ts

r .AR ( i l .,

A!'RAIDI']

,,,rt,.,*-\

\, ,,,,
)

t\

ADVANCI' ON

I
I

A\1I{Y

SNAKI,]

I ), '' 1',.Lr.G1
\1* t tnuz

;'' I
r\

Ftcun n 9. S c hem as f or a per s on af r aid of sn a k e s w h o c o n r t 's u l ) . n ( ) n ( 'w h i l e

r sf
wa lkin g al one in t he woods . Em ot ions s u c h a s f e a r a r e s t n r r r g : r <'t i v 'r t t o o
relevant schemas.

of t he s c h e m a s i n a p e rs o n fe a rfu l o f snakes w ho en(' ol rrrtt' r'<s l nei n

the following scenario.22
A pers o n , w a l k i n g a l c l n e i n th e woods, sees a l argt' srrtke
moving toward him. The snake has a diamond pirttcrrr on
it s ba c k , a n d c o trl d b e d a n g e ro u s.The snake' squi ck si nous
movement nrukes his heart race. Snakes are unpreclic:table,
he t h i n k s . H e ' s v e ry fri g h te n e d . E ven though he' s al one,
he blurts, "God, I'm scared!" and starts to run.
The schemas for his thoughts and his behavioral ancl erlotional
reactions are all intricately linked aspects of a single reaction (See
Figure 9).
Such emotions as f'ear hyperactivate schemas, making them
compelling centers of attention. Our angers, sorrows, and joys capture attention, sweep us away. The particular case in point, for our
purposes, is anxiety. As we saw in Part One, schemas of threat and
worry, empowered by anxiety, intrude into awareness. As the varieties of denial demonstrate. attention itself offers antidotes to such
int r us ions .
In my childhood scenario, unseen hands backstage in awareness constructed reality. The agents of that construction, we have
seen, are schemas. Schemas are intelligence in action: they guide
the analysis of sensory input in the sensory store, simplifying and
organizing it, weeding out what is not salient. They scan in{ornration that passes out of the sensory store, and filter it throrrgh tht,
pr ior it ies a n d re l e v a n c i e s th e y e mb ody. S chernascl t:tt' rrni rrr.w l ri t' l r
W l rcrr
f oc t t s er t t e n ti o ns e e k s , ttn d h e n c e w h at w i l l t.rrtt' r' i l w l l r' (' rrcss.

_+

/ I \t'tu \
| \B ty
\)l (
QU IC KIJ

=--\

\ -..-

r-;

{_r,

.-.'

,'+

--/

FrcunB 10. Cognitive sequence for someone who sees a snake in the
woods, gets scared, and runs away. Activated schemas guide attention,
comprehension, and action.

driven by emotions like

special force.
Another implication
-schemas are the lions
not only what enters but

anxiety, schemas impose themselves with

of this model is more to the point for now
at the gate of awareness: they determine
what does not.

A w A TuTN E S S
IS N oT A N E C E S S A R vs ' r' ()r, I fl s

AWARENESSIS NOT
A N E C E S S A R YS T O P
SHNSORY STORE AND FILTER

t'\(()\5(:t.(rs
z
f lt 1..(r()\ s( ;l( ) tr s

lf
c ri ti c a l i n fo rm a ti o n -processi ng g(x' s ()u l rcyond
awar enes s , th e n m u c h o f w h a t w e th i nk and do i s rrrrrl t' rtl rt, spel l
of inf luenc e s w e c a n n o t p e rc e i v e . F ' reud' s sense tl rrt tl ri s w arsso
led him t o p o s i t th a t th e re w e re th re e zones of consci ()usn()ss:
the
unc ons c io u s (b v fa r th e Ia rg e s t), p r econsci ous, l rr< l r.onsci ous.
G eor ge Ma n d l e r, a c o g n i ti v e p s y c h ol ogi st, suggests tl rrrt F' reud' s
m odel f it s w e l l w i th h o w s c h e mfs act to gui de attcrrti orr.r' The
r
preconsciotts is rl sttrge midway between the uncorrsc'ious and
awareness, a sort <lf backstage area to mental life. Herc, says Mandler, there is a pool of schemas at various levels ol' activation.
Which ones are activirted varies from moment to momerrt. 'I"he most
highly activated schemrr is the one that reaches consciotrsness.
An activated scher-naclorninates awareness; it glides from the
pool available and guides attention. As you walk down a street, you
may not notice a dog approaching, but the relevant schema for dogs
would float toward preconsciousness. At the moment you hear a
growl, though, the "dog"-s1 perhaps the "dog bite"-schema becomes most highly activated, and the dog looms into awareness.
But while a schema is quiescent in long-term memory, waiting for
its moment to come, it is in something very like the unconscious.
For many years, psychologists (other than those with psychoanalytic leanings) doubted that zones beyond awareness existed, or said that if the unconscious existed, its impact on behavior
was trivial. This debate broke into public scrutiny when, in the
early 1960s, an enterprising advertising man claimed to have
boosted sales of Coke and popcorn by flashing subliminal messages
during a movie. The psychological community, lry ancl largc,
hootecl.
S r r lllirn i n a l ma te ri a l -th a t i s , s ti rr rrrl iyrrt' scrrtr.<
l rl rri < ' kl rtl urt.
so
t t < l t t t lt t t c t' l to w i tl t' r' t rtrrtl l i l c rrs r' < r'
l o u l l r' (' ,\' ()l r (' i urrrrl lr' ()ns(' r(,rrsl v

(.()\s(;l()us

[''tcunn ll. Three zones of awareness:'['lrt' sonsoly store and filter, and
'fhe preconsciousis that part
rtrostof long-termmemory are uncorrsciorrs.
o1'long-termmemory where schenrashitvt' been partially activated.Schenraswhich becomeactivatedmost lirllv reachawilreness.

see them-was thought to go entirely unperceived. But evidence

lirr unconscious perception was mounting. By 1971, a comprehensive review of research literature concluded that subliminal perc'eption iS, indeed, possible.2a At the same time, a theoretical
li'amework evolved that explains how such perception might be
lrcrssible.By L977, although some holdouts remained, many cognitive scientists took unconscious perception for granted. For exam1> l e,as psyc hologist s discussing t he issues not ed: 2s
The basic question of whether people can respond to a
stimulus in the absence of the ability to report verbally on
its existence would today be answered in the affirmative
by many more investigators than would have been the case
a decade ago . . . Iargely because of better experimental
methods and convincing theoretical argument that subliminal perception . . . [results] from . . . selective attention
and filtering.
In the ensuing year s, t he weight of evidence f or r r nconsci<nr s
1r' ot' r' ssi ngo{'inf ir r nr r r t ionhas }r ec<lm eover whelm ing. The clr sc r r o
l orrgcr rcsts on t hc wcight <lf - t ht : or ct ict l ir r t {ur n( 'nls,llr r t or r st r '( ) ng
trpcri l rrt' rrt ll r . vit lcr r ct '. [ "or cxir r t t plr ', ir r lf ) lJO ,llsvclr ologist s; r r r lr
l rsl rcrl i rr Scilr r r 'r ' <Lt t ltslt ou'ir r g t lr : r l pcoplr ' lir t t r t cr l gr r , 'li't r 'n( '( 'slor

fi (r I r n n l , t.n ,:ss,tN i l )LTER t_r' t' l ts

( ( ' onr r ' l rtc s l u tl l c s (a v a ri e ty o f o d d l y sh:rpcclocti l gorr.,)l l rrrtthey had
lr t ' r ' n c r l ro s c tl to w i th o u t b e i n g c onsci otrsl y aw rrrr' l l r;rl they had
s ( ' ( ' n llt t' n t.2 (jT h e fa m i l i a r, th e d a ta show ed, becorrr.s tl rr' preferred
- -('\'('rr r.r'henfamiliarity is unconscious.
A g re a t d e a l o f o th e r re s e a rc h has made tl rr,\rnr(' 1roi nt, that
ir r { ilr m a ti o n w h i c h n e v e r re a c h e s aw areness n(.\' (.rtl rr.l csshas a
s t r ong i n fl u e n c e o n h o w w e p e rc e i ve and act. Fr)r' (.\;rrrr1rl t,,
H ow ar d S he v ri n a t th e U n i v e rs i ty o f M i chi gan measur' (.(ll ,r:ri rrw aves
while s h o w i n g s tu d e n t v o l u n te e rs a seri es of w or' < l s:rrr,lgri ctures.2T
T he pr e s e n ta ti o n s w e re m a d e a t a few thousarrtl tl rs,,l rt second,
pr es um a b l y to o b ri e f fo r th e v o l u n t eers to be cons.' i orrsl vrrw are of
their meaning. Meanwhile, the volunteers free-atss,
rci rrI r.tI irloud.
T he fl a s h e d m e s s a g e sm a d e a n i mpact on fret' i rssoci :rti on.For
ex am pl e , w h e n th e v o l u n te e rs s a w a pi cture of' i r l rcr.. thei r free
as s oc ia ti o n s s tra y e d to c o n n e c te d w ords l i ke " brrg,' " sti rrg," and
"honey." Although they had no idea what the worrl or picture
might have been, there was clear evidence that tht'r, got the message at a level out of awareness, and their schemas w(,r'(,activated
accordingly.
Shevrin's explanation fits well with the working rrroclelof the
ft
m ind we h a v e d e s c ri b e d :2 8
At any one time we are aware of only a small perrccntage
of the total stimulation reaching our senses. We actively
select what we attend to mainly on the basis of need, interest and perceptual prominence. The selection process
self , ho us,e
o er, i s unc o n sc iou s .
experie nce so-me th i ng
!!
-We
"popping" into consciousness but
a complex and unconscious process prepares that "pop." . . . Taken together,
subliminal and attention studies show that our brains are
humming with cognitive and emotional activity prior to
c on s c i o u s n e s s .
The model of mind we have generated here easily accommodates this version of the mind's operations. Schemas work
backstage, in the vicinity we have labeled "long-term memory"
(another, more general term might be better-like
"the unconscious"). The mind is aware of the meaning of an event before that
event and its significance enter awareness. In schema terms, this
preawareness means that schemas which are activated but are otrt
of awareness organize experience and filter it before it gets int<r
awareness. Once the most relevant schemas are activtrte<I, tht'y
" pop in to c o n s c i o u s n e s s ."
B ut, a s th e re s e a rc h re s u l ts s u g gest, schernas(' i ur grri rl r,l w :u' (,nes s wh i l e re m a i n i n g o trt o f rtw i trt ' n(' ss.W c ol rsr.r' \,'orrl
(. r' l l rt' i r r.l -

A\\"\ItI,;NESS IS NOT A NECESSARY SfOI)

+
4

--+
+
+>

SI]NSORYSTORE AND FILTER

I 87

^m
"qy
^m
"qy

lftcunr 12. In an unconsciorrs

response,inforrnationflows from the sensory
store and filters directly into memory, bypassingawarenessaltogether.
'l'he responseis also executedoutside awareness.AutomaticroutinesfolIow this pathway,as do other out-of-awareness
phenomena.Note that this
,rllowsfor parallel channelsof perception and action, one in awareness,
the other unconscious.

l'ects,not their identity. As Freud put it, "We learn from observing
rreurosi sth at a lat ent , or unconscious, idea is not necessar ilya weak
one."
This model can accommodate several diverse phenomena that
lrave long puzzled students of'the mind (see figure l2). For instarnce,Ernest Hilgard, a noted hypnosis researcher at Stanford,
te lls of a classroom demonstration of hypnosis during which a volrrnteer was hypnotized and told he would be temporarily deaf.
While "deaf," the volunteer did not flinch at loud sounds like a
grrnshot and blocks being banged together.2e
One student asked whether "some part" of the subject might
Irc aware of sounds, since his ears were presumably functioning.
'l'he instructor then whispered softly to the hypnotized student:30
As you know, there are parts of our nervous system that
carry on activities that occur out of awareness, Ilike] circulation of the blood. . . . There may be intellectual processes also of which we are unaware, such as those that
find expression in . . . dreams. Although you are hypnotically deaf, perhaps there is some part of you that is hearing
rny voice and processing the information. If there is, I
shotrlcl like the index finger of your right hand to rise as a
si gn tlr at t his is t he case.
' l ' o tl rt ' it t st nr r : t <lr 's<lisr r t it y,t lt t ' f ingt 'r x) s( '. I nr r r r t '<liat t 'lyir f it 'r rvl u' rl ,tl rt' lr vlt r r ot izt '<l st r r r k'r r t sllor r t ilr r cor r sll, sr r irtllr lr t lr r 'li'lt lr is
i trrl t' x l i rrg t 'r 'r 'isr ',lr t r f lr r r l t r o i<1, 'rwlr
r v it lr r r r lt lr ) n( 'so. llr , r vr nlcr l
l o krrorv rr'lr r '.

A W ' , , \ I t I . , N E S SI S N O T A N E C E S S A R I ' S ' I ' o I '

, \ i l ' i I r lr ..r t, l,n ,,s, st\u ,t,E T Rtr l' lls

' l lr , ' r r r s l rrrc to r

th e n re l e a s e d th e v o l rrrtteerl i ' r,rr,l ,r l ,rroti c deafn( " , \ ir r r r l: r s k t' <w
l h a t h e th o u g h t h a d h a p pened. " l r' r' ur.r,tl rt' r,"sai d
llr . r , lr r r r t c t ' r' , " y o l l r te l l i n g m e th a t I w oul d be tk' ;rl .rl l l rc count of
llr r . r ' . r ur < lw o u l d h a v e m y h e a ri n g re s tored w ht' n \ ()u 1,1;rt' t'your
cl
lr ; r r , r l( ) n n' r y s h o u l d e r. T h e n e v e ry th i n g w as < l rri ct l ol r u' l ri l e. It
\ \ ' ir sir lit t le b o ri n g j u s t s i tti n g h e re , s o I b usi ed nrv' sr' l lrr rl l rt stati st ic r r l pr < lblem I w a s w o rk i n g o n . I w a s sti l l doi rru l l r:rl rrl rt' n sudr lt , nly I f elt m y fi n g e r l i ft; th a t i s w h a t I w ant yorr tr) (' \l )l rri rr."
Hilgar d' s e x p l a n a ti o n (a s s u m i n g the vol ttntt' r' r i s to be bestore
liev ed) is t ha t th e re i s a c a p a c i ty o f mi n d that can r' (' gi sl ,' r' rtrrd
inf br m at ion o u ts i d e a p e rs o n ' s a w a re n e ss. U ncl t' r' (' (' rl ;ri rrr:i rcums t anc es ,t hat u n c o n s c i o u s a w a re n e s sc a n be contac:tt' rlrrrrrl t' ancomm unic at e, s ti l l o u ts i d e th e p e rs o n ' s ma i n aw aren(' ss.' l ' l urt speci al
capacity Hilgard calls the "hidden observer."
per,
Hilgar d, s i n c e th e s u rp ri s e d i s c o v e ry of thi s c' al ri rt' i tr'htrs
f or m ed num e ro u s e x p e ri m e n ts w h i c h c onfi rm the rol rrrstncssof the
hidden obs e rv e r. F o r e x a mp l e , i n a s t udy of hyprroti c rtrti tl gesi a,
Hilgar d hy pn o ti z e d a y o u n g w o ma n w h o w as abl e to i rrrnrerseher
hand in a bucket of icy water, but reported she felt rro pirin. When
Hilgard asked one hand to report eoutof the wonran s irwareness
what was going otr, the hand filled out a pain rating sc'rrlr,showing
an increasing level of distress, essentially normal pirin. Nlcarnwhile,
when asked, the young woman was calmly reporting she felt no
pain at all.
An even more exotic line of inquiry adds to thc weight of
evidence for the potency of out-of-awareness cognition: the study
of multiple personality. Such cases have long p:uzzled psychiatry;
books and movies about them, like The Three Faces of Eue and
Sgbil, have fascinated a large public.
The bizarre puzzle of independent subpersonalities inhabiting
the same mind is well captured by this journalistic account of one
c as e: 31
The searing pain roused Marianna from sleep. She
switched on the bedside light and saw dark red streaks of
blood covering her sheets. She counted the fine lines of 30
razor cuts on her arms and legs before she carefully
climbed out of bed. On her dresser was a note. written in
c hildis h s c ra w l :
W A RNI N G T O M AR IAN N A
T hc lies n u rs t s to p . Pu t o s to l t to th e chi l d or l ' l l ki l l .
- 'l 'l

l l ., l l l l ,l ,l .l l t

It u' r r s r r t lc r r llr t lr lt ' r r t . llr r l il r v r r s r r l s o r r s t r i t 'i r l t 'r r l l c t t t g r l

lirr \l; r r i: r r r t t : t , llr r ' ( llr ilr l : r r r r l llr r ' l l i l ) l ) ( 'r ; r l l i r r l r r l r i l l l r r '

I TJ g

same body. Thc lt ipper , a violent m ale p( 'r 's( ) nr r lit ygiven
to fi ts of rag e, f 'elt r r r r gr yand t hr eat ened be<. r r r r sr . t lr t '( lhild,
a youngster of 'lir r r r ', had t old t heir t her alr ist t lr r . t k'c'ply
hi dden sec r et s t lr t ' llipper had guar ded {ir s( ) nnr n\ , \ , ( : r u- s.
H i s vi ci ous at t uck r vas int ended t o m ak<' sr u'r ,llr r ' ( llr ilcl
stopped tat t ling. Nt 'r , cr m ind t hat he, t ht ' ( llr ilr l ; r nr l l\ lir r . i annaal l shar e t lr t 'sar ne body; t hey do not slr r r r . llr r , sr r nr t ,
pai n. To the Rilt pcr ', t hey ar e dif f er ent pt 'oplt . , r ur t l lr t ' <lot 's
not real i ze that clcat h t o t he Child m eans r lt . r r t lrlo lr ir r r ,t oo.
Our model handles bot h t he hidder r ol) s( , r '\ '( . iur
r ' ( l r r r r r lt iplc
B
o
t
h
r
equir
e
t
hat
ol'r
r r ir r r lt lr at ct r n
t
her
e
lir
t
'r
r
lt
it
's
be
l rersonal i ty.*
operate outsi de awar eness.The m odel allou's lir r t lr is: it slr ows t hat
i l w arenessi s not a necessar y st op as ir r lir r r nr r liolrllou's t hr ougli t he
rrri nd.
A compl etely dif f er ent line ol'r 't 'st 'r u'r 'lrr r r r r ler r scor es
t he potency of unconscious inf or m at ion. Sr r r git 'r r lr vis<lor nhas it t hat pati ents under ane st hesiacan neit ht 'r ' lr t 'r u'r r or r t : ct lll what goes on in
the operati ng room . This f r er essur g( . ( ) r r slir r bant er , som et im es at
the pati ents' exp ense.
A group of researchers at ir lt'habilitation hospital in Chicago
tested the effects of a rnessag(' on patients undergoing back sur{ery.32 The patients were trrrrler total anesthesia at the time; presumably they had no awarerressof what was going on in surgery.
The single most comrnon postoperative complication for this
sort of surgery is the inability to urinate voluntarily. The medical
solution is catheterization. The researchers, however, tried another
r'oute. Near the end of surgery, while the patient was still anesthetiz.ed,the surgeon addressed the patient by name and said:
The operation has gone well and we will soon be finishing.
You will be flat on your back for the next couple of days.
When you are waiting it would be a good idea if you relax
the muscles in the pelvic area. This will help you to urinate, so you won't need a catheter.
The results were striking. According to the researchers, not a
.irrgle patient given this suggestion needed a catheter after surgery.
\l .re than hal f of t hose in a cont r ol gr oup, who hear d no such
srrggesti on,needed cat het er izat ion.
A rr< l thcr gro r r p of m edical r esear cher s m ade t he point m or e
'l l r c
'
r r r r r l ti l l l r '1l t't's o t t i t l i t v rt ' t l ri rc s rr s ; rt ' r' i i rl rrt l . j rrs t rrrc rrt .O rre rrrrrs t ; > o s i t s rrl rc t , rrs rl rs
l l r :r l ol r t't:r tt'r v i tl r i r r
l o n g -l t ' t ' t t t n r(' l n ()rv t o k r. t ' ; r t l rc rrl rrl i rrt ' s i rrr< l t ' x 1 rt ' ri < , rrc t , s o l ' r, l r< , l r
''r tl r 1r c r .,,ti ;tl i l t's t'l l i ttl t l c
l i o rrr l l rc rc s l . ' l ' l rc
rrr, , , l , , l t ' : rn , rv i l l r s o n r(. s l )(. (. rrl rrt i v r.
',l r r 'l r 'l r r r r r ,. i r { { r }nl uot l : rl r' l l rrs l ro s s i l ri l t l r, l o r, , rl u , , ; r\ \ rn n (. t l r; rt rv l rt ' rr o rrc s rrl ri rl t rr
ItIt or '( | | | ) II'( ,.| \\;| | r 'tI(' \ \ .
| | , , , , | I rr. rs ; rI r. r' rrt 1 | | | r6 rrr; | \ \ , : | | (. t | (. \ \ .

1 X) | r ' t t,r t. l.n .r s, slNl,l,E T Rtr ' nts

w orn
r lir , ' t ' t l) . " l )rrri n g a n o p e ra ti o n a ta pc, 1> l i tyedi rrl o r' .rr1' l rr)nes
lr v r t r r c s tl rt' ti z e dp a ti e n ts , s u g g e s te dt < lthem thtt u' l r,' r, .r rt' .serarcher
( , lun( , t o i n te rv i e w th e p a ti e n t a fte rw ard, " i t i s v(' r\ rrrrl rot' tttnt
that
y ' or rllt r ll o n y o u r e a r s o I c a n k n o w you have hei tt' tltl ,' t."
Dur in g th e i n te rv i e w s , mo re th an 80 perct' rrl ol tl rt' l ti rti ents
who hea rd th a t s u g g e s ti o n tu g g e d at thei r ears; rttosl tl i < l so si x
t im es or mo re .
' l ' l rc rvei ght of
I n s u m m a ry , p e rc e p ti o n n e e d n ot be consci orrs.
r es ear c h e v i d e n c e s u p p o rts th i s c o n tenti on; the l l rt' r' :ri l i rrgmodel s
of m ind a s s u me i t. In d e e d , p e rh a p s the most cnrt' i rrl rrt' l ol ' percept ion is in ma k i n g th e d e c i s i o n a s to w hat w i l l arrrl u' i l l rrot enter
awar ene s s . T h i s fi l te ri n g i s c a rri e d out before i rrrvtl ri rrgreaches
awar ene s s l th e d e c i s i o n i ts e l f i s ma de outsi de aw i l r' (' n(' ss.
The later volitional decision of what to attenrl to luts, rrsa cons equenc e , a p re l i mi te d ra n g e . Wi l l i am James strggcstt' tlthat cons c ious , v o l u n ta ry a tte n ti o n i s th e essence of w i l l . ' l ' l rt' cvi dence
r ev iewed h e re , th o u g h , s u g g e s tsw i l l i s free onl y w i tl ri rr l i rni ts: The
array presented to awareness, from which we can t'lroose to note
one thing or the other, is preselected. Attention crur rirr)ge freely,
but within a delimited domain. fue never can know wlrirt information our schemas have filtered out. because we cannot tttend to the
operation of the filter that makes the selection.
The pieces are in place. The model of the mind sltows that an
intelligence scans, filters, and selects information; schemas embody that intelligence. The whole operation goes on ottt of awareness. What does this portend for the trade-off between anxiety and
attention? Answering that is our task in Part Three.

I' ART THR EE

Secrets
fromthe Self

lF

J OH N l ) l ,,AN 'SM EM OR Y

y nrincl is not a tape recorder, but it certainly

rccei ves t he m essage t hat is being given. " The wor ds ar e John
l)ean's, from the Watergate hearings in ]une of 1973. There was to
lre an ironic twist to Dean's comparing his memory to a tape recorulirrg. Soon after his testimony came the revelation that President
Nixon had taped conversations in the Oval Office, including many
l)ean testified about.
Dean's comments were remarkably long and detailed; he strlrrrritted a 245-page statement recounting events and conversati<lns
()\,er the many months he was involved in the Watergate cover-up.
'l'he statement was so specific that Senator Inouye, incredulorrs,
\\'irsmoved to ask Dean, "Have you always had a facility for recalli rrg the det ails of conver sat ions which t ook place m any m ont lr s
l rc{ore?"
That sam e quest ion m oved Ulr ic Neisser t o com par e Deut t 's
r.t'callof conversations with what the tapes revealed to find in wlr:tt
\\'lrvs Dean's memory was accurate, in what ways it was ofl'.r 'flrt'
;rrral ys isshowed t hat Dean was on t ar get only in r ecalling t he spir it
.rl ' those encount er s. His f act s wer e of t en scr am bled. The nat r r lc ol'
tlntt scramble is instructive: it seems to have been clictirtetl to l
l rrrgc ext ent by what m ight be called "wishf ul m em or y, " skcw'ir r g
spccifics to make himself look more important.
' fi r ke, f ilr exam ple, t he event s of Sept em ber 15, 1972. ( ) r r t lr ir t
,l rrv i r g r and jur y indict ed t he f ive Wat er gat e bt r r glur s, alor r g u'it lr
l l ou,i rx l I I r r nt ancl G <lr clonLiddy. Der r n wus exr r lt ar r t ,llt 'r 'ir r r st lr
' is
r' l ri t' l ' t ir sklr ar l lr cer r t <lcont er int he Wat er gr t t ein<1r r ir y.
l )t'lr r r wr r s r iur ) lr r r ont 'rtlo t lr t 'O vt l O lTict 't lr it t alit 'r 'n( ) ( ) rlir
r r :r
rrrcr' l i r r gwit lr Nixor r lt t r t l I I lt lr lt 't t t it t rt lut t lir st t '<lf iliv t t t it t t t t cs. llcr r '
rs l rort ' lr is pr - r '; llr r crst
l it lt 't t r ct r lr lt 'st 'r 'ilr csil: - l
' l ' l r c l'r csir lcnl : t skcr l r r r c lo sil r lor r r r . llollr r n( 'n lr 1, g, , '; r r , ', 1
l o l l c i rl v c r\' l 1o(,,

1s l ttttl s ;ttr,l ttr\

t(' ( r' l rl ton

\\;l \

\' r' t\

\\' i l rl rl

1 J|

| r lr n r , L tF ts, sti\t[' l- L lr Ru ' l'l l s

rcf' er: r r r r lt' ,rrtl i rtl .' fh e Pre s i d e n t th e n t< l l clrne that l l ,l '
r ir r g to l l rrl d e ma n -h a d k e p t h i m posted on rrtr' l r:rrrtl l i ng
ol' t l rt' Wtrte rg a tec a s e . T h e P re s i dent tol d me I l rrr,l.l orte a
job and he appreciated how difficult :t t:rsk rl lttrd
11oo<l
lr c c n a n d th e Pre s i d e n t w a s pl eased that thc r' :rsr' l tad
s t op p e d w i th L i d d y . I re s p o n ded that I corrl rl ttol trtke
c r ed i t b e c a u s e o th e rs h a d d o n e much more di ffi < ' rrl ttl ri rrgs
to l d h i m that al l I had l x' r' rr rrl rl t' to
t han I h a d d o n e ....I
c a s e a n d assi st i n keepi rrg i t orrt of
th
e
do w a s to c o n ta i n
t he W h i te H o u s e . I a l s o to l d h i m there w as a l orrg w :rv to
go before this matter would end and that I certitirrll' <'otrld
make no assurances that the day would not (:()sr(' when
this matter would start to unravel.
When asked while testifying to recount that sanl(' ('()nv('rsation,
Dean gives very much the same story.
Not
How accurate are Dean's written and Spoken itc't'<lttttts?
v er y . A c c o rd i n g to N e i s s e r:3
Comparison with the transcript shows that harclly a wold
of Dean's account is true. Nixon did not say tlny of the
things attributed to him hgre: he didn't ask Dean to sit
down, he didn't say Halde?nan had kept him postecl, he
didn't say Dean had done a good job (at least not in that
part of the conversation), he didn't say anything apqut
Liaay or the indictments. Nor had Dean himself said the
things he later describes himself as saying: that he
couldn't take credit, that the matter might unravel some
day, etc. (Indeed, he said just the opposite later on: "Nothing is going to come crashing down.") His account is plausible, but entirely incorrect.
In trying to understand these distortions, Neisser concludes
that Dean's testimony really describes not the meeting itself, but
his fantasy of it: the meeting as it should have been. "In Dean's
mind," says Neisser,a "Nixon should have been glad that the indictments stopped with Liddy, Haldeman should have told Nixon
what a great job Dean was doing; most of all, praising him should
have been the first order of business. In addition, Dean should
have told Nixon that the cover-up might unravel, as it eventually
did, instead of telling him it was a great success [as Dean actually
did] . "
The stitching that holds together such pseudomemories is, in
this case, wishful thinking. Dean, for example, gives prominence
t o Nix o n ' s c o m p l i m e n ts o n c o n ta i n i ng the granclj trry i rtvesti gi tti tl n.
I n f ir c t , D e a n w trs p trtti n g w < l rc l si n N i xon' s nl (ttttl r.N i xrtrr' st' otttl l l i nr r . r r tn (' v (,r (' !trn (,-rrt l r' :rs t tr< l ti ts I)r' i rrr t' t' 1l ot' l si t. l l rrt i l t' r' r' tl ri rrl v

J OH N D E A N ' S r\u,;\t()l r\ | 95

rrrusthave been what l) t : an year ned f or . As lr r . r , r 'islr t 'cl

it t o be, so
lre recalled it.
N ei ss er 's analysis slt ows t hat m em or y, likt . r r llcr r t ion,is vulner rrl rl e to skews. The r t 'lit t ionship bet ween lt t t 'r r lior r lr r r l m em or y is
i nti mate. Mem or y is ir t t cnt ion in t he past t cr r sr . :r r 'lr r r t! 'or l r em em Iter now i s what y<lt rr r ot iced bef or e. M em or v is ir r <lor r lr lejeopar dy,
fbrapartfrom an init ial skew in what is not i<'r 't l.t lr t , r e can be lat er
l ri asesi n what is r eculled.
" A re we all like t his?" asks Neisser . "ls r . \ , ( , r - vone's
m em or y
constructed, st aged, self - cent er ed?" A sir r ulr , cir se hist or y is
scarcel y b asis f or a scient if ic answer t o t lur t r lr r cst ion.Yet , Neisser
conj ecture s,t her e is a bit of John Dean ir r r t ll ol'r r s: 5"His am bit ion
reorgani zed his r ecollect ions: even whr . n lr c t r ics t cl t ell t he t r ut h,
he can't help emphasizing his own rolc in (,\,(,r'yevent. A different
rnan i n the sam e posit ion m ight havt ' olr st , r 'v, t 'tml or e dispassionittely, reflected on his experiences nlor'(' tlrorrghtfirlly, and reported
them more accurately. Unfortunately, srrc'htraits of character are
l'are."
Dean may have been knowirrgly twisting the truth, or may
have believed his own story :rntl rnislecl himself. Whether his dissembling was knowing or n<lt, lris reconstruction of events betrays
rr selective recall in action.
Another such example wils provided by the Darsee afhir.
John Darsee, a research fellow at Harvard Medical school, was
caught falsifying data on his research. When, as one newspaper
irccount reports, "several young researchers watched in astonishrnent as Dr. Darsee forged data for an experiment," Darsee blithely
tdmitted that fabrication while denying any others.6
After a thorough investigation showed that virtually all his data
had been faked for several years, Darsee wrote a letter to federal
investigators "in which he stated that although he had no recollection of falsifying any research data, he acknowledged that the intlrriry had established both the falsification and his personal role."
Darsee's letter, if it is to be believed, displays the mincl's
l)ower to stonewall even what it accepts as fact: it seems to haver
l rrrppened ,I seem t o have done it , but I disavow it - I don't r er nen) lrcr d<ling so. Dean and Darsee offer public examples of a privatt,
l i rct. The ease wit h which we deny and dissem ble- and cleny ur r r l
rl i ssernbl e t <l our selves t hat we have denied or dissem llkr cl- is r - r , rrrrtl kal l l e .Bt t t , as we shall see, t he m ind's desigr r f ir cilit at t 's sr r r , lr
st' Il -< l cc' c yr t ior r .

wHo coNTR()l,s r lu,l pAST coNTRoLS THE Fu.r'uRll I 97

WHO CONTROLS THE PAST

CONTROLS THE FUTURE

n e ' s p a s t i s a gradual l y i ncreasi ng w t' i gl rt," w rote

Bertrand Russell. "It is easy to think to oneself that on(' s emotions
used to be more vivid than they are and one's mintl nrore keen. If
this is true it should be forgotten, and if it is firrgottt'tt, it will
probably not be true." Russell's sentiments are giverrrit rrlore sinister twist in a slogan from Orwell's 1984: "Who corttrols the past
controls the future: who cbntrols the present controls the past."
Who, in the realm of mind, does control the past?
Memory is atrtobiography; its author is the "self," iln especially
potent organization of schemas. Sometimes also called the "selfSystem" or "self-concept," it is that set of schemas that define what
we m e a n b y " 1 ," " m e ," a n d " m i ne," that codi fy a sense of onesel f
and one's world.
The self is built up slowly, from childhood on, as perhaps the
most basic grouping of schemas the mind holds. Its origins are in
the interactions between parent and infant; its development runs
along lines carved by the contours of relationships with parents,
family, peers-any and all significant people and events in one's
life. The self-system sculpts the way a person filters and interprets
experience; it invents such self-serving readings of past events as
Dean's and Darsee's. In doing so, the self has in its power all the
a totalitarian state. The self acts as a
tools-and temptations-of
censor, selecting and deleting the flow of information.
In an article entitled "The Totalitarian Ego," Anthony Greenwald, a social psychologist, makes the case for the analogue between self and dictator.T Greenwald paints a portrait of the self'
from many areas of research. "The most striking features tlf tht'
portra i t," s a y s h e , " a re . . . c o gni ti ve bi ases, w hi ch corr(rsl )orr<tll i st ur b i n g l y to th o trg h t c o n tro l and propagi urtl i rtl t' vi t' t' s tl rtt rtt' t'.
< lc fi n i n g c h a ra c tr:ri s ti c s< l f' ato tul i ti tri i rtrl l ol i ti t' i tl svsl t' rrr."W l ri l t' tl rr'

st' l f' may be a dict at or '. lr c udds, t her e m ay be good r easons: wlr : t l
s(' ems "undesir ablc ir r r r polit ical syst em can nonet heless s( , r '\ , ( ,
;r< l aptivelyin a per sonr r lor ganizat ion of knowledge. "
A s t he cent r al olr scr vt 'r and r ecor der of lif e, t he self st ant ls ir r
tl re role of hist or ian. llr r t ir npar t ialit y is not one of it s vir t ues; ir s
( l reenwald not es- ar r r l l) can showed- "The past is r em em ber r t , r l
rtsi f i t wer e a dr am a ir r r vlr ich self was t he leading player . " Revir : wi rrg ext ensive r esear t 'lrlir r t lings, G r eenwald concludes t hat t he sell'
"lirbricates and revist's lristory,
thereby engaging in practices not
, rrdi nar ily adm ir ecl ir r lri st or ians. "
Greenwald cites t:xperimental results showing how egocentlicity pervades mentirl lif'e. Some examples: Facts are better rethe more thcy have to do with oneself. Or, most peoplt:
'rrembered
irt a group feel that they are the center of activity. In international
lrolitics, decision-makers perceive the acts of distant nations as
lrcing aimed at themselves, when in fact they reflect local condilions. And people see their own acts as accounting for chance
cvents, such as winning a lottery ticket.
People, too, take credit for success,but not for failure, another
lirrm of egocentric bias. Language reveals this bias: after a university football team lost a game, students reported "they lost"; after a
victory, the report was "we won." or, from a driver's explanati<ln
,rl'un accident to an insurance company: "The telephone pole was
,rpproaching. I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it
struck my front end." A deliberately tongue-in-check example ol'
llris variety of egocentricity is Greenwald's own footnote of ackrrowledgment, which reads in part:
The author is prepared to take full responsibility only fbr
the good ideas that are to be found in it. I am nonetheless
grateful to the following people, who commented on etrrl i e r dr af t s. . . . [ Ther e ensues a long list of nam es. ] I f t his
disguise of gratitude is itself seen as inept, then the reader
should know that it was the suggestion of Robert B. Zr
jonc, modified with the help of Robert Trivers.
A t elling sign of t he self 's egocent r icit y is t he f hilur c of 'st . lr t . ttr;tsto it ccom m odat e new inf or m at ion. This bias bec<) nr csr r r ur r ilcst
ttr st' i ( : r t ( : e,f ?lr exam ple, as t he inclinat ion of r esear chcr s t o <lisr r . ,
t' ,.tt' tlrt 'st r lt s inconsist ent wit h t heir own t heor ies. I ) colt lt : lr ol<l t o
l ' ,' l i t' l .s ol'ir ll sor t s in t hc f ir cero{'evidence ar r <lar gr r r r r t 'r r t slo llr r .
l oI

tt l 'l U' V .

'l 'l r t'st' st'l l - tl t't't'l l ti o r r s i r r r tl l r i i tst's

i u '( ' s( ) l ) ( ,r 'vl r si vr .,( l r ccr r u ,;r l tl
. r t r l r t ( 's, l r r '( 'i tl ts( 'l l r t't'r tt't'l ti g l r l v r r r l r r p ti r t'; l l r cr ' l r r o l ct'l tl r t. i r r l t.g r r l r
, 'l l l r c s r 'l l 's ( ) r 'g :l r r tzr r l i o r ro l kr r ,,r r 'l ctl g ,.. Sp ct'i l i t';r l l r ', tl r r .r 'r r l l r r .l l r .t.t

1 ) li I r n ' ,r r , r ,r r ,ts,s| \tp L E T RU 't'i l s

llr c s r ' ll' s 1 )r' ()l x )n s i ty

to e n c o d e i n fornrrtti on arourr,l ,r ,' r' rrtralorgar r iz ir r s lrri rrc i p l e : w h a t m a tte rs to th e sel f. W i thorrt srr,l r :rrrorgani zir r s s llr r c tru ' t' ,k n o w l e d g e a n d b e h a v i or w oul d be l i rrk,' ,1n' i l l y-ni l l y;
r v it lr it rrc w i n fo rma ti o n i s a s s i m i l ated i n an ortl l rl r ,rrrrl useful
lr r s lr ior r i,n c l e x e d i n th e w a y th a t w i l l be easi estto l i rrrl .
' l' lr c re i s , i n o th e r w o rd s , a s tru ctural advantrrgr' l ,r l nrvi ng the
s r ' ll' it s a rc e n tra l fra me w o rk fo r m e m ory and acti t)n; (' rrrt' i rrlknow l t ' t lgc c a n c o h e re w i th i n a s i n g l e c odi ng scherrrt' .' l ' l r. i rnal ogue
( lr c enwa l d u s e s i s a c a ta l o g i n g s y s tem i n a l i brar' \,: ' ()rrt' c a comr r r it r nen t i s ma d e to a s p e c i fi c c a ta l ogi ng schemr' , i l rrurv l re more
efficient to maintain consistency with that schenrt' tlurrr lo allocate
librarian effort to . . . recataloguing and reshelving tlrt' t'risting collec t ion . . . e v e ry ti me a n o th e r i n d e xi ng system conr(' s:rl ong." The
s elf hold s s w a y a s th e D e w e y D e c i mal S ystem of' tl rc rrri rrrl .
I n a re v i e w o f th e s e l f-c o n c e p t, S eymour E pstt' i rr rt' rrrarkson
how ina c c u ra te p e o p l e ' s v i e w s o f themsel ves can l r< ' .' l ' l re i naccuracy is not always in keeping with the positive biast's ( )reenwald
des c r ibe s :8
People who are highly competent sometimes lircl tlceply
inadequate; people who arqinferior feel superior; people
with an ordinary appearance feel beautiful; ancl people
who are attractive feel ugly. More impressive yt't, some
people who have lived exemplary lives are torn with severe guilt to the point they no longer wish to live, while
others who have committed horrendous crimes suf'fbr not
a twinge of conscience.
The basis for these skewed perceptions, says Epstein, is people's self-esteem. A school of thought argues that one's sense of
value and worth is embodied by the self-system. A threat to these
views of oneself is particularly upsetting; there is an overriding
need to preserve the self-system's integrity. Information that fits
the self-concept is easily assimilated-Dean was glad to report how
important his efforts were considered by the President-but data
that challenges the self is hard to take; Dean is oblivious to the fact
that the President did not actually say most of the laudatory things
Dean recalls.
Information that threatens the self-that does not support the
story one tells oneself about oneself-threatens self-esteem. Such
threats are a major source of anxiety. For animals, stress is nrtlst
often in the form of a threat to life or limb. For humans, thorrgh, rr
challenge to self-esteem is enough to brew anxiety.
i n ()l x' r' A aro n B e c k , a p s y c h i a tri s t, d e s cri bes l < l w scl f-r' str' < ' rrr
grcri
orlol ' rr
at ion in o n e o f h i s p a ti e n ts , a d e p rt ' sst' rl rrrl rr. W i tl ri rr l r
ht lf ir r r l to u r tl tt' rtu ttt t' t' p o rtt' tltl rt' l i rl l ou' i rtrl t' r' r' ttl s:' '

wHo coNTROt.s't'ln,t eAST coNTR()t.S THE r..u.t.tnu.t | 99

H i s w i fe was t r pst 't because t he chilt lr t 'r r w( 'r ( ) slow in

getti ng dr essecl. l lc t hought , "I 'r r r a l) ( x) r '{ir t lr cr lr ecause
the chi l d r en ar e not bet t er discipliner l. " I lt , r r ot it . t 'r lt hat
thi s showed he wir s ir .poor husband. whilc t lr ivir r g t . r vor k,
he thoug ht , "I r r r r r stlle a poor dr iver or ot hr : r t '1r s wor r l<l
not be passing I'n(). As he arrived at work, he notir.t'rl sorrrt:
other personnel lurcl already arrived. He thought, "l r.arr't
be very dedicatecl or I would have come
Wht:rr
"urli"r."
he noticed folders and papers piled up on
his desk, he,
concluded, "I'm a poor organizer because I have so much
work to do."
Such self-defeating trends of thought, Beck observes, are the
lrallmark of depression, which he sees as the chronic activation of
rregative self-schemas. In milder depressions, says Beck, a person
r.vill have negative thoughts about himself, but retain some objectivity about them. But as the depression worsens, his thinking will
lrecome increasingly dominated by negative ideas about himself.
The more such negative self-schemas activate, the more distorted his thinking becomes, and the less able he is to see that his
tlepressing thoughts may be distortions. At its most severe, a delrressed person's thoughts about himself are completely dominated
lry intrusive, preoccupying self-condemnations, completely out of
touch with the situation at hand.
self-schemas in depression, says Beck, finally lead the person
"to view his experiences
as total deprivations or defeats and as
i.reversible. Concomitantly, he categorizes himself as a 'loser' and
,loomed." Beck contrasts the skewed self-perception of a depressed
t)orson with the more balanced view of someone who is not in the
urips of the disorder: ro
I'I IE D EP R E S S E D
\I.]I,F-S C H E MA

THE HEALTHY

l. I am fearful

I am moderately fearful, quite

generous, and fairly intelligent

.1. I am a despicable coward

I am more fearful than most people I know

l. I always have been and always will be a coward

My fears vary from time to time

and situation to situation

l. I lravt: a clef'ectin nty charactt'r

I avoid situations too mtrch 1n<l

I have nrrrny fears

," r S i rr< ' r' I i t t t t lr ir sit 'r r llv wt 'it k,

l l tt' r' r" s rr r t llr ir r g t lr : r t ( 'iur lr c

| <'r t r rlclr r n wir ls ol'lir <'ir r gsilr ur t ior r s r r r r r lf iulr lir r u r r r r ,li'r r r s.

tl otrc

SELF-SCHEMA

l( X) | r ' r ' r ' n t. t.n ,ts,r il\{ p L E ' l' ru.r'l 'ns

l' , 1 rs l .i rrp t' o p t)s e sth a t, w i th i n the sel f-sl stt' rrr,scl r,' rrras(w hi ch
I r r ' , . r llr " l ro s trrl a te s " )a re a rra n g e d in a hi erarchy. l ,,rrvcr' -< l rdr
sel fs r ' lr , ' r r r ;rs
i rrt' l rrc l es p e c i fi c m i n o r fa cts: " I am a go()(l l ,.rrrri spl ayer,"
" l' r ' r 1r l. s i ry th e y l i k e m y p i a n o -pl ayi ng."
A l ri ul r,.r-.rcl er sel fs , ' lr . r r rrrrrri g h t b e " I a m a g o o d a thl ete," or " P t' < l pfr.krrow I am a
11, , , ' t lr n rrs i c i a n ." A m u c h h i g h e r-order sel f-scl rt.rrr:r;rl ong these
lir r t . s r rri g h t b e , " I a m w o rth w h i l e ."
Low e r-o rd e r s c h e m a s u s u a l l y can be chal l r.rrgcrl l ry events
r v it hou t mu c h th re a t to s e l f-e s te e m : If one l oses l l t.rrrri sgame or
r loes no t g e t a c o m p l i m e n t fo r p l a y i ng pi ano, n{)t rrrrrt' l ri s at stake.
tlut if a higher-order schema is challenged, the stirkt's ure high.
Dean, no doubt, was facing a great challenge to his s(.nsc of worth
in t es t i fy i n g b e fo re th e S e n a te , a s w as D arsee i rr < l cl cndi ng hi s
lalsifications.
Unloving parents, hostile siblings, unfriencllv I)('clrs can all
lower self-esteem; happy experiences with these 1lt'ople in one's
life can raise it. Says Epstein: rl
People with high self-esteem, in effect, carry within them
a loving parent who is proud of their successesund tolerant of their failures. Such pqoopletend to have an optimistic
view about life, and to be -able to tolerate stress without
becoming excessively anxious. Although capable of being
disappointed and depressed by specific experiences, people with high sel{-esteem recover quickly, as do children
who are secure in their mother's love.
In contrast, people with low self-esteem carry the psychological burden of a harsh, disapproving parent. They are prone to
oversensitivity to failure, are all too ready to feel rejected, and take
a long while to get over disappointment. Their view of life is pessimistic, much like a child insecure in his parent's love.
When a threat to the self-concept looms, anxiety can be warded
off by a healthy self-schema through an artful maneuver or two.
Events can be selectively remembered, reinterpreted, slanted.
When the objective facts don't support the self-system, a more subjective recounting can: If I see myself as honest and good, ancl
events don't support that view, then I can preserve self-esteem by
skewing my rendering of them.
As we have seen, the wherewithal to do this is entirely otrtsick'
awareness. The self-system can sanitize its portrayal o{' evr:nts
through the filtering that goes on prior to awareness. I neerl (.onf r ont on l y a fi n i s h e d , p o l i s h e d v i e w of mysel fl the di rtv w ork so(,s
on behi n d th e s c e n e s . So me re s e a rch strggeststl ri rt rl t' 1)r' (.ss(.tl
pr,ople ar e l e s s s e l f-s e rv i n g th a n th e norrtl t' l l rcssr' < 1,
u,l r() s(.(, l i l i .i rr

wHo

c o N Tl t ()l . s

I l t l . , I ' } A S T (l ()N ' l l t ()l . s TH E

I ' t r' l ' (rl t Fl

101

l crns of an "illusor r ' 11lor v"of p<lsit ivit r '.Sr r t 'lrst 'lllst 'r ving r eint er l rrctati ons o f r ealit t 'g, r or r lor m ost ol't t s s( ) nr ( 'ol't lr t 't it ne, but we
,,r' crarel y found or r l. r \ lit . r all, t he clisscr r r lr linrrl t ( ) ( 'sot r t liscr eet ly,
l rt' hi nd the scr ecr r ol't lr t . r r nconsci<t t t s;w( 'lu'( ' ot t lv ils I 't 'c'illiet t t s,
t.
i rrnocent se lf - dect 'ivt 't . s.A convenient er r r it t t gt 't t t t<'t

T H E S E L F-S Y S ' I ' I ' , 1 \ I : (; (X )D -ME ,

THE SELF.SYSTEM:
COOD.ME,BAD-ME,
AND NOT-ME

a
Ul"h"^as
change continually through life, as do images of the self. Past self-images leave their trace: no one
has just
one^fully integrated self-image, a single harmonious version
of the
self. various points_and stages in liie accrue overlapping
selves,
some congruent, others not. A new self-image emerges
and be_
comes dominant: A gangly, isolated adolescent can
become a
svelte, gregarious thirty-year oldi6but the svelte self does
not completely eradicate traces of the gangly one.
Trauma in later life can activate an earlier self-image.
says
M ar di Ho ro w i tz :1 2
I f a p e rs o n h a s a n a c c i d e n t w i t h subsequent l oss of hi s
slm, or if he is fired from his work, therd may b"
."pia
shift from a competentself-imageiu
"
ry
but previously dormant one as worthless"t."oav-"*i;iilg
and defective.
. . . suppose, that a person has a dominant self-im"g" u,
competent that is relatively stable and usually ,".rr"", u,
the primary organ izer of mental processes. suppose also
that this person has a dormant, inactive r"lf-iriiJ";;;"
incom_petent.. . . 'when that person sustains a lois or insult, the event will be match-ed against t*o ,"lf-i-ag"r,
competent and incompetent. For i time the incompet"ent
self-image may dominite thought, leading to a temporary
reaction of increased vulnerability
working from an interpersonal view, the psychiatrist Harry
stack sullivan
to a parallel notion, one that presents a simple,
"-am_e
plausible model
of how we learn to trade off diminished atterntiorr
for lessened anxiety.t3 Sullivan traces the root of this proc()sste
tlrt.
infant learning to pilot his way through the worl,l ,,,i ir <.orrrsr.lrt.t ween t en d e r re w a rd s fo r b e i n g g o o cl an< l purri sl rnrcrrtsl 6r. l rt.i rru
bad. W hen th e " m o th e ri n g o n e ' ; (a s S rrl l i vrrrirt,l r.r.str tl rr. k,.\, ,.,rrr.

t02

B A D -ME , A N D N O T-ME

103

r,.rrt.r)shows disapylr . r val,t he inf ant f eels anxiet y at t he lt lss r ll'

t,.rrrl ernes s.As in t lr <'gr ult eof get t ing hot t er or colder , he lear ns t <l
.r.l i n w ays t hat will ir r cr ease t ender ness and avoid disappr oval.
Along the wa,v tlrt' infant inevitably has some heavy going in,
l ' r' eX & rnp le,dist ir r gr r ishing cr ucial boundar ies bet ween cleanli,,,'ss and feces, or firod and those things that cannot go in the
rrrorrth.An infant wlro is suddenly the object of his mother's anxdir t y! "- i5 apt , in Sullivan's wor ds, t o be
r()usor ang r y yell- "No,
"from
a condition of moderate euphoria to one of
',rrrldenly cast
\(' ry sever e anxiet y, " a bit like a sudden blow on t he head. The
r:ulge of the mother's disapproving acts, from mild reprimand to
rrtter anger, produces a matching, graduated range of anxiety in the
,.lrild. This anxiety gradient more or less directs the course of how
tl re chi l d d evelops.
The child's history of praise or censure comes to define his
cxperience of himself. Three sorts of experience are key to identity.
Srrllivan writes, "With rewards, with the anxiety gradient, and with
practically obliterative sudden severe anxiety there comes an initial personification of three phases of what presently will be me."
lle calls these three personifications "good-me," "bad-me," and
" not-me. "
In the "good-me," satisfactions have been enhanced by a rervard of tenderness. The good-me emerges as the sense of self we
{rrrner from all those times we have felt happy at being a "good"
little girl or boy, at being loved; it propels much of behavior
Itll through life. "As it ultimately develops," says Sullivan, the
g<lod-me "is the ordinary topic of discussion about 'I'." The goodrne is who we like to think we are.
"Bad-me," o. the other hand, entails experiences in which
varying degrees of disapproval have generated like levels of anxit'ty in the child. The bad-me is the sense of self connected with the
:rnxiety, guilt, and shame of being naughty. Anxiety of this sort is
irrterpersonal; the naughty child feels love withdrawn, which in
ttrrn generates anxiety. The bad-me arises in the mind in tandem
with those things we do or have done about which we feel regrets
()r renlorse. For example, a sardonic writer recalls an incident
rvlrich typifies the bad-me: ta
. . . One of the f'ew insufficiently repressed memories of
rny pathetic grammar-school days involves one Emily
Jghrr.stll atrcl some Betty turning dtrring a math test and
"lc'k! "
l {i ggl ing. "Now lt e's lt ickir r g his nr lse, " Em ily saicl.
w 1s llt 't t y's r t 'jt t it t <lt t r . I lo<t kt 't l it l'ot t lt <1,lr <lllir r g t lr t 'y
\\,(,r' (. r rt'tr r lkir r gllr or r t r r r r ',lr r r t r r o. l"r 'r u't 't 'llllt t 't 't lolr liviot lsttcss ir t t t t v lr 'lt r liot t s \ r 'illr lll( '( ) l) lr osilc s( '\ .

l O.l ] r' r' r' n L

l rr,tss,tN rt,r,E.rR U .l ' us
' l' lr t ' " rro t-rn e " b e a rs o n a re a l m
of experi enc' t' r,l rr cl i fferent
, , r r lt ' r ' .A l tl ro u g h th e b a d -m e a ro u s e sanxi ety, i ts corrtt.rrrs-the spet ' ilit ' s ol' w h a t a ro u s e th a t a n x i e ty -remai n i n aw i u' (,n(.ss.N ot so
u' it lr t he n o t-me . T h e n o t-me e v o l ves from expt' r' i t.rr,' ,' sof w hat
S r r lliv an c a l l s " u n c a n n y e mo ti o n " -feel i ngs of terror rrrr<rll read so
powerful that they disrupt the ability to compreht'rr<l w'lrrrtis huppening. U n c a n n y e mo ti o n o v e rp o wers the mi nrl , l rl rrsti rrgw hat
c aus ed it o u t o f a w a re n e s s .As Su l l i v an descri bes i t, tl rr. r.vt:ntsthat
s hape t he n o t-m e re s u l t fro m " s u c h intense anxi ety, i urtl rrrrxi etyso
s uddenly p re c i p i ta te d , th a t i t w a s i mpossi bl e for thc tl r< .rr-r' trdi mentary person to make any sense of, to develop any tnrt, gr':tspon, the
particular circumstances which dictated the experit.rrr.t'."
Because such intense anxiety shatters the ability to comprehend wh a t i s h a p p e n i n g , i t re g i s te rs as i nchoate c:orrl i rsi on.The
schemas that encode the not-me remain out of awar'(.nt:ss:something overwhelming happened, but the person can't firrcl words to
say just what it was. Such moments, says Sullivan, arc filled with a
non-specific dread, loathing, and horror. With no content to make
sense of these powerful feelings, they can best be <lescribed as
" unc anny ."
These experiences of anxietjl alter that organizing principle in
awareness, the sel{-system. To efficiency in organizing infbrmation
Sullivan adds another principle shaping the self-systenr: the need
to evade anxiety. The self-system, he wrote,tt "is organized because of the extrernely unpalatable, extremely uncornfbrtable experience of anxiety; and it is organized in such away as to avoid or
minimize existent or foreseen anxiety."
The self-system is both early-warning radar against anxiety and
the force that marshals the ef'forts to ward it off. It is constantly
vigilant, noticing, as Sullivan put it, "what one is not going to
notice." The self-system per{orms its mission by operating on experience itself.
It is driven to this strategem, Sullivan suggests, because the
world does not always allow the source of anxiety to vanish by
virtue of how one acts-an observation identical to Richard Lazarus's about options for coping with stress. If the locus of anxiety in
the world is immovable, then that leaves room for change only in
how one perceioes the world. The infant, for example, has the very
early experience of frustration when he can't always get what hc
wants: "The infant's discovery of the unobtainable, his discovery
of situations in which he is powerless" are both inevitable untl
anxiety-provoking.
T he i n fa n t l e a rn s to ma n a g e th i s s< l rt< l f arrxi t' ty tl rrorrgl r w l rrrl
S ulliv an c a l l s " s e c ttri ty t)p c ' ri rti o rrs,"turrrl l t.r' i rrgw i tl r l ri s ()\4,r1

T H E S E L F-S Y S ' 1 ' I . , I \ I : (; ()()t )-1 \ n , . , f l A D -ME ,

A N D N O T-N { E

105

.r\\' rrrenes st o soot lr r . lr ir r r sr 'lf ."Even bef or e t he end of inf ancy, "
' ,i r\/sS ul l i v an, "it is , , lr scr vuble t hat t hese unat t ainable object s
.rf n to be treaterl tt,sil tlrt:y did not exist." If I can't have it, says
tl rc i nfant i n ef f ect , I r vill cleny it .
S ul l i va n, t heor izir r g in t he 1940s,spelled out how secur it y op,' r' rrti onspr ot ect t hc st 'lf 'f r om anxiet y. ( Sullivan, a neo- Fr eudian,
"security operations" on what Freud called defense
',rodeled
as wc shall see. ) Taking his cue f r om Fr eud, he ob' rrcchani sms,
t,'rved that these operrationsgo on "quite exterior to anything prop,' r' l y cal l ed t he cont ent of consciousness,or awar eness. "
But for Sullivan, as for Freud, theory was inferred from clinical
l,lrenomena. Such evidence from the clinic is taken lightly in rer,'rrrch circles, since data corroborating the clinician's theory-as
r ltta on the "totalitarian self" show-may be due to bias in the
,'linician rather than the facts as they are.* Sullivan and Freud, in
tlris view, were better as theorizers than as testers of theory. It
rt'rnained for contemporary information-processing theory to provicle the framework, and experimental research to provide the cru,'iirl data. That framework and data show, in modern terms, how the
rclf-system protects us against anxiety by skewing attention.
' lndeed, the entire experimental enterprise in science is geared to counteract just
'rrch bi as.

N()'I'ICING WHAT Nor ro NO'l'l(lu l

NOTICINC
WHAT NOT TO NOTICE

II
I
I s c h e m a i m p l i c i tl y s e l ects w hat w i l l l rc noted and
what will not. By directing attention to one pattern ol'rneaning, it
ignor es ot h e rs . In th i s s e n s e , e v e n th e most i nn< l crr< nrsschema
filters experience on the basis of relevancy. This filter of'perception
becomes a censor when it suppresses available informittion on the
ground that it is not jtrst irrelevant, put forbidden.
I once had the opportunity to
Ulri" Neisser whether there
"3k not attend to that." 16"Yes,"
might be schemrr,sthat tell you "Do
said he, "I'm srrre thcre arre,at several levels. Often they're not
very subtle or interesting. It probably starts from cases like the
woman with the trnrlrrellu who was unnoticed while people
watched the basketball ga.mevideo. They don't shift their attention
from the task at hand. But the mechanism would be much the same
when you have a pretty goocl suspicion of what's over there if you
were to look, and you'd rather not deal with it. And you don't look;
you don't shift your attention. Yotr have a diversionary schema that
k eeps y ou lo o k i n g a t s o me th i n g e l s e i n stead."
Lester Luborsky showed this mechanism at work in a series of
studies in the 1960s.r7He used a special camera to track the target
of people's eye movements while they looked at pictures. The camera monitors a small spot of light reflected from the cornea of the
eye to peg the person's exact point of regard; it is relatively unobtrusive and does not interfere with the person's line of sight.
Luborsky had his subjects look at a series of ten pictures rrnrl
rate which they liked and which they disliked. Three of the lrictures were sexual in content. One, for example, shows the rnrtlirrt'
of a wom an' s b re a s t, b e y o n d w h i c h s i ts a man readi ng a n(' w sl )i rl )(' r' .
Cer t ain p e o p l e g a v e a re ma rk a b le perf< l rnrant' r' .' l .l rcv' \v(' r' (.
able t o av oi d l e tti n g th e i r g ' < tz setra y o v (' n on(' (' to l l rt' nr()r' ('l orrtl crl
par t < lf t ht : s e x v p i c trtrt' s . W l rc rr tl rc y \ \,(' r' (.rrsk,' rls,,nr,' ,l ,rr' r l :rl r.r

107

s'lr1t the pictures w('r'(', they remembered little tlr ltlthing suggesti ve aboui them . Sor t t t 't 'or r ld not r ecall seeing t hem at all'
In order to avoi<l looking, so'meelement of the mirr<l trlttst have
krrtlwn first what tlr<' llicture contained, so that it ktrttw what to
,rvoi d. The mind sor r r t 'how gr asps what is going on ancl r t r shes a
grr<ltectivefilter intg plrtce, thus steering awareness away fr<lm what
tl rreatens.
Al,leusYorker t'itrtoon depicts the same effect. A prim, elderlv
\vornan is standing irr a museum before a huge and graphic painting
,rf'the Rape of the Sal>ineWomen. Her gaze is studiously fixed on
the artist's signatttre itr the lower corner.
Neisser calls these programs not to notice "diversionary sche"metaschenlas." They are a special sort of schema, what I call
In
schemas'*
of
other
operations
the
nrAS": schemas that dictate
regto
not
attention
direct
schemas
this instance, the diversionary
ister the forbidden object in awareness.
Our language, unfortunately, does not offer a more congenial
talking about than "diversionary schema"'
term for what *"
"r"a borrowed one will have to do: I will use the
'l'hat being the case,
tcrm "1a".,-,rra,"from the Latin fOr gap or hole, to refer to the sort of
rrrental apparatus that diversionary schemas represent. A lacuna is,
t[en, the attentional mechanism that creates a defensive gap in
irwareness.Lacunas, in short, create blind spots'
Lacunas are psychological analogues of the opioids and their
:rrrtiattention effects. Lacunas ale black holes of the mind, diverting
certain
;rttention from select bits of subjective reality-specifically,
a malike
attention
on
operate
They
Itnxiety-evoking information.
here
over
while
there,
over
look
to
his
audience
rician misdirecting
sight.
of
,r key prop slips out
A-lacuna was at work, it would seem' in the subjects in Luborsky's experiment whose eyes studiously avoided the breast in the
picture. Donald Spence, a psychologist, notes that their gaze syst,,rrratically skirted the forbidden area of the breast without once
strirying into it. "We are tempted to conclude," Spence comments,
"tfiat the avoidance is not random but highly efficient-the person
krrrrw si ust wher e not t o look. "
Spence, in trying to figure out just how such a trick might be
system that
1,,,ssilrle,strggeststhere must be some part of the visual
. 'l l rr.rt.rrrc ol l rt.r s < l rtsof rrreti rs c hel rnasl i;l r ex ampl e, the l i ngui s ti c nrl es that grri de
,,,,r ,rrrtl ('rstrrrr rl i rrgi rurl rrs e ol ' l angrrage. Metas c hei ttat ,r." di ffi c ul t to detc t:t tl i rt' t' tl y '
ol ' tl r:rt
\ l rrrgrri st..,rrri rrl i .r tl r< .rrrl < ' s .,1' ,rl ,rngr,,tgci tl i t' r tttrtt' l t s trr< l y 'l,l ttt-i t s P t' rtk t' r
l os s to r.x l l l l ri rr l r.rrv l tt' l trtl s w or' < l strl gc tl tt' r i tt i l s t' ttl t' ttt' t'
l rl l r t.or11gy l 1,1.'
I,rrr11rr;rgr.rs
l r. l rr.rrrs .l ,i rrgrrrs ti . rrr' l l rs r' l r.rrrrsrl o i l l i rr Iri rrr, i rl r' l ri .r' l rl rl y
,,, ,'.,,,,,'l ',,,.l r, ,rrrl ,..,.1,,,t
,,rrl ol .r\\';rt('l u ' \\.

lo E

I r ' lla l

L lF ts, sl\t,r ,c r RUTl rs

N( ) 'r 'r cr N(
;
wHAT
Nor r o Nor r cE I I 0g

e1}Q#rBF(;;;
-curu)

(n*'.t)
r4't\ tx )\r
BY

l@@--l

+l ,-p iil
l @, : , 1

.WHAT

DID YOU SEE

IN THAT PICTUNE?-

,,r l roki ng at things. Ar r olr vi<luscase is when you go t o t he nr ovies

rrrrl;uu' s11
your eyes ir t t lr t 'scenes of bloody violence. Br r t t he sr r m e
rl ,rr{ goes on cognit ir , 't 'lv',in t er m s of what we t ur n our r t r inr lst o,,,,I Irrm thern away li'or r r .
" W e al l d o t hat . 'l'lr t 'r e r nay be som e painf ul
exper iences in
l
i
l
e
w
hi
c
h,
whcr
r
vor
r
st
ar
t
t
o
you
t
hink
about
,
sir nply clecicle
' ,,,rr
rt ' ,()nl el evel not t <l l) r lr sue. You'r e not going t o be awar e of t hat
g' ' ,rrrl ttlevent. So yor r avoid using your usual r ecall st r at egies.Yor r
,,,,rl rl probabl y get pr et t y skilled at it - at not r em em ber ing what 's
1' .rtttfi tl ."
What is painlirl varies fiom person to person. Most people, for
, r,,rrrpl e,fi nd it easy t o r ecall posit ive m em or ies, har der t o br ing
1,,r,' kptri nful o nes. For depr essed people, t hough, posit ive m elnorr.r com to r nind less easily t han negat ive ones. The self : syst em
r,, irr part, a topographical chart of these painful areas. Where
.,' l l -r' steem i s low, wher e t he self - syst em f eels vulner able, such
1,,,i rrtsof pai n ar e st r ong. Wher e t hese pain nodes lie, I pr opose,
1.r,1111i1c
perform their protective duty, guarding the self-system
l r,,rrri tnxi ety.
Research by o pair of Russian investigators shows this el'f'ect.r8
l ' ' R trssi anssublim inally f lashed a list of wor ds and asked t heir
rrl ri t' ctsto gue ss what t hey wer e. Som e of t he wor ds select ed had
'.1rccialemotional potency; a man accused of thievery, fbr examll,', rvas presented with the word "rob." The Russians fbund evi,1,' rr(' cof somet hing like a lact r na at wor k: t he subject s {bund it
, ,1,r'r'ially difficult to report what the loaded words might have
l r.r' n, w hi l e at t he sam e t im e br ain m easur es r evealed a m ar kedly
' .l rrrr.{rbrai n r esponse t o t hose wor ds. Howar d Shevr in, wor king
' r rl l r pati ents at t he Univer sit y of M ichigan psychology clinic, has
,'l
' l rri rredsi mi lar r esult s. , o
'l'hese evasions are orchestrated by diversionary
schemas. Ver,' ,,rr l l arni l ton of {'er san analysis of how one such m ight oper at e. 2o
l ,rl ' r' someone who agr ees wit h t he st at em ent "I pr ef er being on
,,,r .,w l t" on a per sonalit y quest ionnair e. The st at em ent is a post uLrl r' ;rl rotrtoneself a schem a wit hin t he self - syst em .I t m ight subrrr(' st' verul int er linked schem as, which Ham ilt on exem plif ies
' r rl l r l ,' i grrrr:14 .
' l ' l rt' st' sch r : r nusr ef lect a per son who is insecur e
and scor n{ul
,l .r'ou,tls, likt's to <Lryclre:rrnin peace, and feels socially in{'erior
,rrr,ltrttl ttvt' < 1. 'l'lt tsit
' nr er r t t er r ur cein anot her per son could bet oken
,turl . rt < l i l l i ' r't 'r t t<lr r t look:sclr t 'r t r : t st hat st r gger stsel{- conf idence,ir r , l ,' 1rcrrtl crrcr.i r,r r <lir r '<'lllct cr . <lr r t cnt t '<lr r t 'ss.
l l rvr' (' ()u lt l r r r r r llr t l) ( 'r 's( , r r 's
sr 'll- sr 'lr cr r r r slur
,
<lir r gir r lr . r l t lr osr .
tl r,rl l l rrr' :rl r' n\( 'll cslr '( 'r n or ollr cr u'is( . ( . \ 'okr . lr r r xir , lr ',\ \ , ( . \ \ , or r lr ll, r '

yhen someone
|<,<,
ks at thepicture
ff;ff ,tln"T:f l,-1*_il i]::"111,,
b:: entireIy, somethir,; i;k; il ""f" ij; ; #".?,lll
*:^ :*
:;,-":i;'of,Y*'|:",*,i','ti,,,Ji;l:i:""::;,T::.
"'

;ffXl:i"ly*"-*::1:k:t;l1
F +# !'.""i;il:.,::i:iil::,1;'"';:H:

*#
Il:^.r".n'g
:l:,*:ll:
t".
orti,T.i,#fi T,T,
o

('.1l"",,i;l
i,l:,JJ.:,
,,[:1.
:1,.
3r $ ",j,Fr,*;,,;d;&','i
::?
J"'iiil,
i ii i.i,'
:HJ,"ii
9
:Tl,n
:""'.l,
*1
X*,ry;1
*.:::.'"9,"
",
ness.
"r ,.. u;;.;d*;;;#:'#J""Jfi:il,1i:"_iwarerheresponse:
3l:;.",.'l^rl !"!"

glimpses.
the nakedbreastin peripheralv t s l o n ,

ft;,#;'?:;.
to the

cofo
o-o^..
'r'L^
safe
areas.
Th e ---rwh olt e operati
o; ;

t;.f:::"jl:i:l

J;;;:

this effect,";;;;;;
which wa;;;;;

r::

caued..percep_

u,lv ;;"r'.;"Ii in3"."#,

I*no".H::
:'^*l:l l1.l":,, u,,,"
;';;;JJ',H#i,l?

i|n,Ji
w;;';""J,i]#i:ilru'I
li,"::':::s::,1:':
[:1
".."ra
'u,
decidewhether
to open
the
portal
of p"r"";,ur;;;'i:f i
l.j,:"i""r
threa te n i ncr

r r nlaco

*L,^.,

^^- - r

-r

.. ..

ln !-

B r uner ' s q u e s ti o n i s a n s w e ra b l e
i n t erms of our model of mi nd;
s uc h a m ane u v e r i s e a s i l y a c c o m p l i s h e d,
as Fi gure 13 show s.
An apparent case of anoth".
,.rch'l;;;;"
is hypnotically in_
duced negative halrucinations.
The hfpnoair,, ro, example, gives
the instruction not to see a chair.
when conversation
-t,"
shifts to th.
chair, the hypnotic subject
blanks orri,
reports his thorrghts
madly wander elsewherl, h" can't
seem to-focus on it, he hus rr.
perception or memory of it.
when a hypnotic subject is <rir.r.tt.rr
t,
f or get what h a p p e n e d d u ri n g
th e s e s si on, posthyyr' .ti t, rrrrrrrt,si rr
seems to work in the ;^arnwav.
" I t hink th e re ' s a l o t< l f' th i s
k i rr< lo { ' r' r.p' r,ssi .rri rr r.r.r.r' rl r^.l i l i .,.'
s ay s Nei' s s e r, " l t)t' s < l l ' l i l rri ts :trrtl
,,,' ,,i ,1:rr,' r.rr rl l rrrkrrrg:rl r.rrl

I l0

| vr r a l
.I

L m s. stM p L E TR U TH S

N() r rcrN(;wHATNor ro NoTICEI I I I

PRET.' ERBF]IN( ;o N IIY OW N ."

(. RO\4',DS

DAYDREA

l N At) l l Qr r Ar r ,,

INTRUSIV

NPLEASA

Frcunn 14. Schernas implied by "I prefer being on Iny owr) : These are
schemas which nright be activated by that thought in :rrr insecure, apprehe nsiv e per s on.

able to spot redclened ridges*where lacunas most likely occur. In

the schemas in Figure 14, for instance, those under "Crowds"
might be shaded in rnild pink, those under "Daydream" a neutral
white. But those under "Worry" would be a hot red.
should circumstances trigger these disturbing "worry" schemas, one way the mind can deal with the threat of anxiety is via a
diversionary schema. Thus, if the thought of "being on my own"
leads to thoughts of feeling ignored and unloved, the mind could
override these upsetting thoughts by substituting the association
"peaceful, my own pace," and "intrusive, irritating crowds." The
result is the conscious thought "I like being on my own-it's
peaceful, and I can go at my own pace. Besides, crowds are intrusive and irritating." The thought "when I'm alone I feel ignored
and unloved" meanwhile remains outside awareness, even though
it triggered these substitutes.
Hamilton suggests a similar dynamic for the workings of a Iacuna. He gives the hypothetical example of a person who is highly
anxious about taking tests and fears failure. If that person is presented with the word "failure" on a tachistoscope so that he regi.sters it out of awareness, and then has to guess what the word was,
the following process might unfold.
Fi rs t, " fa i l u re " re g i s te rs i n s e nsory storage.Thcrt, i t i s st.i rrrrrt.rl
lly t he re l e v i tn t s c h e ma h e l tl i n l < l ng-t(l nnnr(.nl ory, w l ri t.l r rrt.ti r,,rrl t.
" l " l ri l rrrr' ' ' i s l rl ockr.rl .l i l l cl r.tl orrl .
il I ) r og ri tl rrl o r s t' l t' < ' ti v t' i tttt' trti rtrt.

l rrstci td, cognit iolr s sr r r 'lrir s "com m on wor dr " "has an 'f , "' ( : n( ls
rr tl l t " ure , " ar e pass( 'r lor r t <lr t war eness.M eanwhile, such schenr as
.r. " l am af r aid, " "l) ir ss ( 'xilr ns, " "m ust be quick now, " and <lt her
' ,' l rrted-a nd wr lr r is1l1v11'- f 14insof associat ion ar e act ivat ed in
l ,rrrg-trr nm em or y. Wlr ir t r eaches awar eness is: "f . . . ur e. " What
l l rt' l terson guesses is "f i'at r lr e. "
The m or e Anxior r s a per son, says Ham ilt on, t he gr eat er t he
of his sclr cnr as t hat encode a sense of t hr eat , danger , or
' ,,rrnber
,,rt' rsi ven ess. The n) or e widespr ead and well elabor at ed t hey ar e
rrr his cognitive net, the more likely they are to be activated by
lrlt"s events. And the more such fearful schemas activate, the more
,r l)erson will corne to rely on evasive maneuvers to avoid the anxi,' l v they evoke. His at t ent ion will be lacunose, pockm ar ked wit h
ri;rl)s.The greater and more intense the strategies that are used to
,l
rt('ny:
cttv- the
or e qamage
dam
ase trney
hev do
o Awar
enes. s.Lacr
r nas ttaKe
ake a ftoll:
oll:
rne m
more
they
damage
co tto
awareness.
Lacunas
take
tlrt'v make for a deficit in attention as great as that caused by the
,rrrxi etythey pr ot ect against .
The mind has use of many diversionary schemas. The most
llrorough mapping of their operations is in the work of Freud. Simrlrrrly, the most elegant method fbr detecting and correcting these
.,,' f-dece
l
pt ions is psychoanalysis.

jru.;'r's
wE KEErFRoMounsrlvns I l13
sr,,(

SECRETSWE KEEP
F'ROMOURSELVES

Notes from Underground, 1"v<ttlor l)ostoyevsky

l"
"
Ev
e
ry
wr ot e:
ma n h a s re m i n i s c e nces w hi ch l rt' w orrl cl not tel l to
everyone but only to his friends. He has other rrruttcrs in his mind
which he would not reveal even to his friends, lrtrt only to himself,
and that in secret. But there are other things which a rnan is afraid
to tell even to himself, and eve{y decent man has a ntrmber of such
things stored away in his mind."
Dostoyevsky's observation raises a knotty question: in which
category did John Dean's "secret," his distorted reporting of the
events of September I5, L972, belong? Was it of the sort that he
would admit only to friends? only to himself ? not everl to himself ?
Each type represents a greater remove from conscious control.
If Dean's secret was of the first or second sort, then his telling
of the "fbcts" was a purposeful maneuver. What ended up in the
Congressional Record, in that case, was a biased report, a lie of
sorts. But if it was of the third kind, his report was the best version
of truth he was capable of recounting. The skew was in his memory, not in his report of it. It was a secret he kept from himself.
Secrets from oneself are retrievable only under extraordinary
circumstances. One technique designed to retrieve such secrets is
psychoanalysis; the keeping of those secrets is what Freud callecl
" r epr es s i o n ." R e p re s s i o n (i n th e broad sense of defenses i n general) was {br Freud the key to his science, "the foundation-stont'
on which the whole structure of psychoanalysis rests."
I n h i s e s s a y " R e p re s s i o n ," Freud gave hi s basi c defi ni ti orr:
" t he e s s e n c e o f re p re s s i o n l i e s s i mpl y i n the functi on of' rc:j ec:ti rrg
and k e e p i n g s o me th i n g o u t o f c o nsci ousness." 2rW hi l t' thi s < k' fi rri s ri ti rrg i s to srtvc tl tc
t ion do e s n o t s a y s o , th e p u rp o s e of Frerrr< l ' w
"
re
p
re
s
s
i
o
n
"
ol ' rr si rrgl c t' l rrss
orrt
ol
'
l
t\ryru'
(' n(' ss
fo r th e k e e l ti n g
t er m
'
l
'
l
r,'
c
v
o
k
r'
of it er n s -th o s t' th i rt
1r;ti u(' l n l rc ol
l l s v r' l r ol ogi t' l rll xri rr.

rr:l ny var iet ies: t r ir r nr r : r ,"int oler able ideas, " unbear able f eelings,
.rrrxi ety,g uilt , shar r r r ',r ur <lso on. Repr ession is t he quint essent ial
l ,rcrrna;i t lessens nr cr r lr r lpuin by at t enuat ing awar eness,as does it s
r l oscousin, denial.
The concept ol'r't'lrression underwent many permutations in
l"rt'ud's writing anrl lrirs lleen further refined by successive gener.rtions of his followt,rs.:r This conceptual evolution culminates in
t lrr
of' <lef'ense,"the most detailed map to date of the
"'mechanisms
\\;rys in which attention and anxiety interplay in mental life.* The
,lcfense mechanisnls, as we shall see, are recipes for the ways we
k.t:p secrets from ourselves. The defenses are diversionary, acti,;rted in tandem with painful information; their function is to buffer
tlrirt pain by skewing attention.
Repression plays a central role in the drama of psychoanalysis.
l'rrinful moments or dangerous urges are repressed in order to ease
llrt' burden of mental anguish. But the tactic is only half successful:
llrt'pains so defended against skew attention and exert a warp on
pt'rsonolity. The task of psychoanalysis is to surmont those del crrses,fi l l in t he gaps.
The analytic patient resists the assault. His resistance takes
nnrny forms, including the inability to free-associatewith full freer lrrlr. Whenever his thoughts tend toward a zone of awareness
l',rrrnded by defenses, a diversionary schema activates and his as'.ociations twist away. For this reason, Freud observed, free asso,'irrtions are not truly free. They are governed by both types of
l)ostoyevskian secrets: some known to the patient but kept from
t lrt' analyst, others kept even from the patient himself.
Freud conceived of these forbidden zones as having at their
('('r)tera key memory, usually of a traumatic moment in childhood.
l'lre memories are grouped in "themes," a particularly rich set of
',,'lremas, like a file of documents. Each theme is arranged like
l:rv't'rsof an onion around the core of forbidden information. The
n('trer to that core one probes, the stronger is the resistance. The
r lct'1rest schemas encode the most painful memories, and are thc
lr;rr<lt:stto activate. "The most peripheral strata," wrote Fretrcl,2'l
'corrtain
the memories [or files] which are easily rememberecl an<l
l ,;rr' ' r' al waysbeen clear ly conscious. The deeper we go t he r r t or c
,l i l l i t' rrl t it becom es f br t he em er ging m em or ies t o be r ecognizt 't l,
trl l rrt' i rr t he nr r cleus we conle upon m em or ies which t hc pir t icr r t
,l rs:rl ,r)wscvon ir t r c: pr ot hr cingt henl. "
' l ' l rt. sr r lr t lt ' r r r cr ur ( : t 'ol'n: lr lcssior ris t lt t ' silt 'r t ct ' wit h r vlr it 'lr it
' l " r r .r r r l r r s , , rl l l rr. rro l i o rr o l rl r' l i ' rrs , ' rrrc c l r; rrri s rrrs g l ri rrr: t t i l v i rr l c t t t t s o l rr' : rrrl rrr; 1 , rl l
t rrrg rrt l s l s I rrrrr r' , i l t . rrrl t rrg l l rr t t o l t o t r ro t t t c rt l r, t l l o
r r ( r ) n\( r ( r r s s r. t rl rl , rt l ro s l i l l
r r ,, l r r ,l r ' .r r r rt rl t 1 rt , , r' , rl * t t t g t t rl o t t t t , t l l ()n t n g c t rl t . t l

I I I I r'r-r'nrLtlrs,srMpLETRUTHS
( ) ( ' ( ' r r r s .' l ' l r(' l )ri s s i nogf p a i n o u t o f aw areness sends orrl rro w arni ng
s is r nt ls : th e s o u n d o f re p re s s i o n is a thought eval l ot' rrl i rtg.Freud
c or r lt l fi n d i t o n l y i n re tro s p e c t, b y reconstructi ng w l r;rl rrtttsthave
gon( ' o n w i th h i s p a ti e n ts a t s o me m oment i n the pi rst.
S t r c h d e fe n s e s o p e ra te a s th o ugh behi nd vei l s i rr .rl reri ence;
we ar e o b l i v i o u s to th e m. R . D . L a i ng observes:2a
T h e o p e ra ti o r-tso n e x p e ri e n c e w e are di scussi rrg;u(' c' omm o n l y n o t e x p e ri e n c e d th e msel ves. S o sel dorrr < l ot' sone
eve r c a tc h o n e s e l f i n th e a ct. that I w oul < l l utvt' l teen
t ern p te d to re g a rd th e m a s th e msel ves essenti ul l ryrrot el er ne n ts o f e x p e ri e n c e , h a d I n o t occasi onal l y l l t' t' rr i rl rl e to
c a tc h a g l i m p s e o f th e m i n acti on mysel f, arr< l l rt< l not
others reported the same to me. It is comparativt'ly t'etsyto
catch someone else in the act.
T h i s p o i n t l e a d s L a i n g to p ro p ose somethi ng very l i ke a l acuna,
a rnental device "that operates on our experien,ceo.l'operations"
so as to cancel ther-n frorn experience. This goes on in such a way
that we have no rrwareness either of the operations that extinguish
as pec ts o f' < l trre x p e ri e n c e o r o f th e secondary operati ons that shut
out t he fi rs t. T h e w h o l e g o e s 8 n b ehi nd a mental screen, hushed
whis pe rs o f' th o rrg h ts c l i s a p p e a ri n gi nto si l ence. W e can onl y noti ce
t his ga p i n e x p e ri e n c e w h e n s o me l ater event faces us w i th i t.
T h e n o v e l i s t L e s l i e E p s te i n captures the di l emma w el l . H e
spent il year ut the YIVO, an institute for Jewish research, reading
about the Holocatrst {br his lrrxrk, King of the Jeus. With sorne candor,
he later reccluntecl:e5
Some years ago I wrote a brief account of this period of
research and called it a "heart-stopping experience." What
rubbish! The most {rightening aspect about the year was
the way my heart pumped merrily along, essentially undeflected by these stories of endless woe. I think I must
have sensed soon after I arrived at the library that if I were
to get through such material at all, to say nothing of being
able to think about it and shape it, I would have to draw a
psychic shutter, thick as iron, between myself and these
accounts of the fate of the Jews. Thus I sat through the
winter, wrapped in my overcoat-it's not just noisy at
Y IVO, i t' s c h i l l y to o -c a l m l y and cal l ousl y readi ng.
E p s te i n c o n fb s s e s h i s s e c re t, that he w as untouchecl by tht' sc
t ales o f w o e . H o w c o u l d h e h a v e come to hi s castral c:tl l orrsrrt' ss?
He m u s t h trv e s e n s e d th e n e e c l , h e dechrces,trt < l ri tw l r I)r' ot< ' t' ti r,' r'
ps y c hi c s h u tte r. T h e re i s n < l re l r< l rtof' thr' r)ronr(' nt tl rrrt i rorr sl rrrl l cr.
v rcn' i s !r() r(' r' rrl lol ' l l rr'
f ell. no ru ,c rl n l < l { ' i tsc l a n k . Mo s l <' r' r' l rti rrl tl

st,r(;tu...fs
wE KEEeFRoMounsnlvrs I I t5
rrroment it f ell. f - lr r . r r t 't of 'r epr ession, it seem s, is r epr essed : r long
rvi th w hat it r epr essr . s.
But Epstein's rt'llrt:ssion was at best a half-successful strategy,
l',pstein felt guilty lirr his lack of guilty feelings. As he sat reading
,' al l ousl y, he t hot r glr t . "I 'm going t o be punished f or t his. I 'm going
t, have nightmares." Btrt they did not come. Instead there was a
crrrious twist of f'eeling. One sign was that his book about the Ho,
krcaust flowed fiorn his pen in such jaunty tones that it enraged
some readers. Another was a muting of feelings in general:r,'
What I noticed first was a lack of responsiveness not so
much to the horrors of the past but to those occurring
around me. John Lennon murdered, a Pope and a President wounded: I shrugged it off with at best a flicker of
interest in social pathology. The earth quaked, mountains
blew up, hostages were taken, and, worse, friends and colleagues suffered the knocks, the vicissitudes, of life. What
I did-like
the cursed Trigorin in Chekh ov's The Sea Gull
-was take a series of notes. The world was stale, flat . . .
it was not only the calamities of the day that rolled off my
duck's back like water, it was all manner of pleasures as
w el l .
Epstein realizes that he has played what he calls "an ironical
trick" on himself: "It was as if I'd made a pact with my emotions
rrot to feel, not to respond, but had forgotten to set a date at which
the arrangement would end." But the unfelt emotions nevertheless
insinuated themselves into his writing and were displaced into his
other novel. This second manuscript, he realized one day, was full
r[ pain and death, amputations and torture. The horror he had
irrsulated himself against and kept from his book on the Holocaust
lrad moved to a novel set in California. "Instantly I realized,"
writes Epstein,2T "that all the horror I had kept from the pages of
rny Holocaust novel was now returning as if in a reflex of revenge.
' fhe
thousands of m issing cor pses wer e pr essing r ound. . . . one
thinks of a compact gone awry, a bargain whose deepest meaning
is never grasped by the bargainer, a version of 'The Sorcerer''s
,\pprentice' in which the very powers sought for-to animilte, to
i rrurgi ne ,t o cont r ol- becom e t he sour ce, t hr ough sheer r cpct it ior r ,
ol ' one' s <lwn dest r uct ion. "
" Tht' com pact gone awr y" is an apt phr ase f or r epr t 'ssir lr r .'l'lr t .
tri rtl t' -< l ll'iso{'u <lim inished at t ent ion in exchnnge f or lt 'sst . r r t . tir
l r r xi ctv-i rr t lr is ( 'ilst : ,t t t t t t t 't l t 't not ior r sir ll<lwit casr r ir l<'or r t r . r r r lr lir t ior
olr
l rol ' l ' i l rl t'I t t 't s. 'l'lr t 'r t 'is lt 1lt 'i<'t t',lt or r glr ,lir r st r ikir r g sr r clrr r lr : r r r r r r ir r .
W l ui t s ttt ot 't ',il r locst r 'l wolk so r vr 'll: t lr r 'r ( 'l) r '( 'sscrli.
l r r r r r r r r llor r llr
rrrg l crrk, , t r t it r r lisgr r isr ',I r lcr r t islr ir r gir r r r ocr . r rIllr or r t {lr ls.

I l( i

I r ' r ' r ' n r . L IES, stM p L E T RUTH S

llou ' < l i < l F J l ts te i nl e a rn s o w e l l to mute emoti orr/ l )i rl repress ior r lir s l t' o rn e to h i m i n th e c o l d , noi sy hal l s of Y IV ()i N ot i f w e
r r r r ' 1, , lr r,l i < :v eE p s te i n ' s o w n i n n e r detecti ve w ork:.rn " ' l ' l re emot ior r : r l t ' r ' rrs < l rs h i pI p ra c ti c e d a t Y IVO coul d not by i tst.l l uccount
lir r t lr is l i trg e -s c a l ere tu rn o f w h a t I b el i eve i s cal l erl tl rr.rt' pressed.
wlr c r r , a t w h a t o th e r ti m e , h a d I p u rposeful l y turnt' tl rrrv l rack on
r r r v lt : eli n g s ? . . . Wh e n my fa th e r d i ed, thi rty years ag(),rrrv brother
r r r r < Il did n o t g o to th e fu n e ra l ." In s tead, E pstei n trr< l l ri s brother
w('re taken to see The Laoender HilI Mob and the,rrlo :r nruseum
with a full replica of the Spirit of St. Louis. Fun covcrr.<l over the
ll< ly s ' m i s e ry .
According to Freud, the penalty for repressiorr is rt.petition.
P ain{ ul e x p e ri e n c e s n o t d e a l t w i th are, unconsci orrsl y,,repeated.
We do not quite realize that we are repeating ourst,lvt,s, ltecause
tl-re very diversionary schemas we are repeating kt't'p the fact of
their repetition from awareness. On the one hancl, wt' filrget we
have done this before and, on the other, do not quite reulize what
we are doing again. The self-deception is complete.

FORCE'I'-['INCAND
FORCtr-f'f INC WE HAVE FORCOTTEN

pstein's reflections suggest the insights of the anal rti t' sessi on. I ndeed, his r epr ession and it s handily unlocked se' r('ts can stand as a model of a lacuna. The traumatic center is the
,l,rr he went to the movies instead of his father's funeral. At some
r.nrovs from that, but still in the same mental "fiIe" (to use Freud's
l ,l rri rse),i s t he light hear t ed novelist ic t r eat m ent of t he Holocaust .
I lrt' cocoon that binds these sources of hurt-and probably others
l r,rrrrsi mi l ar m om ent s in his lif e- is t he r epr ession of f eeling, t he
,' ,,' rrtalcaut er izing of pain.
The cauterization, though, is self-defeating. The pain leaks
,,rrl .the repression is t oo m assive. He loses em pat hy wit h t he lives
.rrrund hi m and t he capacit y t o f eel f ully his own em ot ions. His
' r('rrtive side tells him that the pain, though absent from awareness,
l rrrks i n concealm ent : his Calif or nia novel r eads like a Holocaust
I rot tk.

Notice that Epstein's mental maneuver is not simply to repress

., prrin{irl memory. He remembers the details, a funeral missed and
l l r. rrroV i es een. What is r epr essed is t he pain of it ; he t akes in t he
l,r.ls, btrt not the feelings that go with them. He brings the same
,l rrrtt' gemto his r eadings about t he m ur der ed Jews of t he Holo,.urS t,w hom , he not es elsewher e in his wr it ing, he associat eswit h
l ,r' tl t' ad fi rt her . He im m er ses him self in t he det ails of t heir agony,
I' rrt l i ti l s to take in t he agony him self .
l'illstein's attentional tactic is but one of many varieties <lf
r,' l )r' (' ssi on.As Fr er r d's not ion of r epr essiclnwent t hr ough r ef inerrr.rrl , l rc sl lt 'llt : <l<xr tsever al <lt herways t he m ind can ker eppainf ir l
l l r,rrrgl rtsl rrr r lr r r t 'nr or icsli'or r rr : ons<: ir t r r sr l( r A
ss.sinr lr lr ',lr llr r t kt 't lor 'yr' l l i rl t{ \\/l s ( ) n( ' ol'r r t nn( 'r 'ot t st wist s ol't t t ir r t l wlr it 'lt t 'ot r l<lscr vr '.
A s l " rcu r l r r r r r llr is t 'ix'lt 'gr r llr clcr l nr ( ) r '( 'r r urtl r t , r l t 'lir r ir '; r lr l: r l; r
Irrrrrr1,sr' ,' lr ( ) ; ur illvsis,
lr c r lcscrilllr l in( 'r ( ': r singlr t t t t t lr cr sol sr r r 'lrl; r

I l,!

| r.'r-r.nl Ltr..s, srN{pLE TRUTHS

( ' lllr , ils l.l i s < ' l t.sdei s c u s s i o n s re v o l v ed i n part arounrl rrrrntvel i ng
the
ir r lrit ' r r t' i c so l ' th e s e m a n e u v e rs . F o r exampl e, i n tw o r,:rst,hi stori es,
llr r ' " lt r r t N l trn " a n d " D r. S c h re b e r," Freud toucht,s ()n rrrrl rethan a
r l, r z . r r , tl ro .g h n o t a l w a y s u s i n g t he names by rvl ri t.l r they l ater
( ' iun( .( o l re re c o g n i z e d .2 e
llis g e n e ra l te rm fo r th e s e m e ntal maneuvers \\,.s " defense,"
I t lt lr or rg l -rh e a l s o u s e d a s a s y n o n ym " repressi orr i rr tl rg broadest
s ( ' ns ( " ' b e c a u s e a l l d e fe n s i v e te c hni ques, i n Frt' rrrl ' s vi ew , entai l
s ot r r cde g re e o f re p re s s i o n . W h a te ver the speci fi r,sol ' tl rt.cl e{' enses,
t lr t ' y s h a re w i th re p re s s i o n a s i n g le means and 1rur.t)()s():
they are
r r ll c ogn i ti v e d e v i c e s fo r ta mp e ri n g w i th real i ty to rrvoi < lpai n.
E ps te i n ' s re p re s s i o n i s u n i q u e onl y i n hi s al ri l i ty te report i t.
As Freud points out:30 "This effortless and regrrlrrr ur,oidur,"" . . .
of'anything that had once been distressing affords rrs tlie prototype
. . . of r e p re s s i o n .It i s a fa mi l i a r fa ct that much of' tl ri s avoi dance of
what is distressing-this ostrich policy-is still to lre seen in the
normal mental life of adults."
The defense mechanisms are, in essence, attentional tricks we
play on ourselves to avoid pain. They are the wherewithal for implementing the ostrich policy. These self-deceits are not unique
to
the psychoanalytic session. Frerld's point is well taken: *"
.rr"
"jl
t hem .
The way a given defense creates its blind spot can be analyzed
using the model of mind described in part Two. Each defensive
strategy works in a slightly different way, and taken as a whole they
suggest how ingeniously the normal mechanics of mind can be
subverted in the service of avoiding anxiety. As Erdelyi points out,
this kind of perceptual bias can occur virtually a'y*hlre
in the
mind's flow, from the very first millisecond brush with a stimulus,
to the recall of a distant rnemory.3r
There is a potentially endless assortment of specific tactics firr
creating the bias of perception that leads to a blind spot. As Erdelyi
puts it, "bias begins at the beginning and ends only at the very en<l
of information processing," and thus "may be distorted in countle"-s
ways for the purpose of defense."
Here follow thumbnail sketches of some of the most comnrorl
defenses described in psychoanalytic literature, and a tent4tivr.
analysis of how, interpreted by our model of mind, each r'islrt
work.

I,'oR GETTIN c A N r) rf()l r(;r,;-r"r' rNwcE H A V E FoR GorrE N

IlrpnnssloN: I'r,rr<;r,:'l-r-rruc
exn roncnruNc

I f f9

oNn nes pon-

(;OTTE N .

F-reud reservr:cl the term "repression" in its narrow sense for

tl r,' si mpl e de f ense of 'dir ect ly keeping a t hought , im pulse, or m em ,,r\ from aw ar eness. Repr ession has com e t o m ean t he def ense
''lrt'rein one forgets, then forgets one has forgotten. Since all del.rrseS begin with the essential twist on reality that such a blank,,rrlprovi des, r epr ession is t he building block of t he ot her def enses.
l( l). Laing tells a tale about himself which exemplifies repression
rrr l rcti on:32
When I was thirteen, I had a very embarrassing experience. I shall not embarrass you by recounting it. About
two minutes after it happened, I caught myself in the pro9eg! gf putting it out of my mind. I had already more than
half forgotten it. To be more precise, I was in the process
of sealing off the whole operation by forgetting thit I had
fbrgotten it. How many times I had done thls before I
cannot say. . . . I am sure this was not the first time I had
done that trick, and not the last, but most of these occasions, so I believe, are still so effectively repressed, that I
have still forgotten that I have forgotten them.
Ripe candidates for repression include unacceptable sexual
rr rshes (such as the wish to have sex with one's parent), aggressive

+
------+
_____-__<>

.WHAT

DID YOU
SEE IN THAT
PICTURE?"

-----------+

' l ' l rt' i l rl i rrrni rti orr rr,l rrt,s s t' < l r.l rrrrrot
l "l (.t'l tl '; 15. Arrrrtontt' ol ' tr' pl c s s i orr:
llc
,,'. rtl l ,'rl f t,rttt nrr' nrr,r' \' . r' \' r' rr l l rorrgl r l l rr.ori gi l rl rl l l ' rrj tr' l or' \,,rl ' tl rc i rrl i rnrrrr
Irrrl r uri l Y orrcr. l l rv r. Iri l \\r.,I tl rrorrgl r ;r\\,i ur.n(.s \.

1 2 0 | vr r e l

L IES, sII\{ PL ET RU TH s

ur t { ( . s( s rrt.l ru s th e re l a te d w i s h to k i l l a parent or si l rl i rrg),shameful

lr r r r t r r s i t,sa n d d re a d fu l fe e l i n g s , a n d, most especi rrl l r' ,tl i sturbi ng
r r r t , r r r o ri t' sT. h e s i g n s o f re p re s s i o n i ncl ude, of cottt' sr' .l l re paradox
t f r r r t i{ ' w e d o re p re s s s u c h i te ms l r om the mi nd, tl tcrc rvi l l be no
t r ir t ' t ' t h trtw e h a v e d o n e s o . T h e th o ughts have seer)ri rrgl vperi shed.
Llsing our model of mind as a template, repress('(l infbrmation
c . anbe s e e n to h a v e p a s s e d i n to l o ng-term memory. ' l ' l ri s passage
rrruy have been through awareness. But repressiorr lrlockades its
srrbsequent path of access to awareness. Although tlr<' schemas for
thut information remain in memory, they cannot lrt' rccalled (or
cannot be under ordinary circum5fsnsss-psychoirrritlysis, among
other tactics, may break the blockade). What's rrror'(', once repressed, the fact that information has been repress('tl is forgotten,
and so there is no impetus to trg to remember it.
DnNtel eNo Rrvnnser-: Wue:r ts so rs Not run t;nsn; trtn
OPPOSITE IS THE CASE.

Denial is the refusal to accept things as they are. While the

entire case is not blotted from awareness, as is done in repression,
the facts are realigned to obsdure the actual case. "I hate you"
becomes "I do not hate you." Denial is the common first reaction
to devastating loss; patients who are told they have only a few
months to live often deny that fact. For the patient with a lifethreatening illness the denial typically passes,followed by another
reaction such as rage. For the neurotic, though, denial can become
a fixture of consciousness. a favored defense.
Reversal carries denial one step further. The fact is denied,
then transformed into its opposite: "I hate you" becomes "I love
you"; "I am sad" changes to "I am happy." Reversal (sometimes
called "reaction formation") is a handy way to sanitize unruly impulses. The urge to be messy is transformed into excessive cleanliness; anger surfaces as smothering nurturance.
In our framework, denial is accomplished by information entering into unconscious memory without first passing into awareness. Once in the unconscious, the denied information undergoes
reversal and passes into awareness.
PnoJncrroN: Wuer rs rusrog rs cesr oursror.
If one's feelings are too much to bear, the mincl carr lrarrtllt'
t hem a t a d i s ta n c e . On e w a y to d i s tance feel i ng i s to rrcti rs i l ' i t w t' t' t'
not on e ' s o w n . T h e fo rmu l a fo r proj ecti ort o{' ()n(' :i l i ' r' l i ngs ()nto
l " i.t' sl ,
s om eo n e e l s e i n c l u d e s tw o p a rts : < l t,rri i tlrtrrtl rl i sgrl rr,' (' n1(' rrl
1,1,,,'
ki r,l ctl
rl
,'
ttt,'
,1,
i
s
or
i
rttprtl
s,'
i
tk
.l
t
,
fe
re
l
i
n
g
,
an anxi e ty -p ro v o k i n g

r.'oRGETTING
wE HAvEFoRGorrENI t2l
ANr)r,'()rr(;u'r'rING
l rorn aw areness.'l'lr cr r t he per son displaces t hose f eelings out war d,
' rnto someon e elst . ' nr y anger t owar d him evapor at es,t o be m yst er rrrrsl / repl aced lr y lr is anger t owar d m e. O nce cast out ont o som e,,rrt' el S ,the pr <r . icct edpar t of t he self is encount er ed as t hough it
rr cr a complete stranger-though one that bears an uncanny simrl;rrity to the {irrgotten original. As with reversal, projection transl,r'rils data denied and passed into the unconscious. Once altered,
rt r.eachesawareness.
lsolarroN:

EVENTSwITHour FEELINGS.

Isolation is a partial blanking out of experience, a semi-denial.

\rr unpleasant event is not repressed, but the feelings it evokes
,rrc. In that way the details can remain in awareness, but cleansed
,,1their aversive tone. Attention fixes on the facts, while blanking
,,rrtthe related feelings. The result is a bland version of experience,
,rr which the facts remain the same but there are no feelings to go
rr ith them. This was the tactic Epstein applied in insulating him',,'lf'from the impact of his father's death, presumably, and accounts
l,,r his apparent indifference to the Holocaust.
ReuoxelrzATroN:

I crvn MysELF A covER sroRy.

One of the more commonplace strategies, rationalization, all,rvs the denial of one's true motives by covering over unpleasant
,' ,rptrl sesw i t h a cloak of r easonableness.I n a ploy sim ilar t o isolaIrorr, attntion stays with the facts at hand, but blockades the true
behind them, replacing it with a counterfeit. Rationaliza''rrptrlse
IronSare lies so slick we can get away with telling them not only to
',urselves, but even to others, without flinching. "It's for your own
,,,,,,)(1"
and "This hurts me more than it hurts you" signal rationalrz;rtir)nat work, a favored defense among intellectuals, whose psy, lrological talents include inventing convincing excuses and alibis.
SuslrN4R'rroN:Rnplacn rHE THREATENTNG
wrrH THE sAFE.
'l'hr<lugh sublimation, one satisfies an unacceptable impulse
by taking an approved object. The formula: a socially
'rrlirr:ctly
,,l ,j ct' ti onuble im pulse is r et ained, but t akes as it s object a socially
,1,' si rrrl rl eer r d. I n displacem ent , a r elat ed m aneuver , t he im pulse
l .rkcs urrv o t her <lllject , zr ccept ableor not . Sublim at ion allows in' ,l rrrt' tsto l r c r 'lr t r r ncle<l r at hcr t han r epr essed, ns t hey ar e in t lr c
rr.r' (' rrt' rn' olit '<lcli'r r scs.Ur gcs ar '<'ir <'kr r owl<'<lgt 'r
alllcit
l,
ir r ir t t t o<lt ir r r krl i ,' tl l i rl rrr.'l'lr c ir t r pr r lsr 'lo slcr r l is lt 'in( 'r r 'r r it t cr rl t sit ( 'r u'( 'r 'r 'irlr
rrrl i ; l l r,' st' r'( 'r un nr : ls( lu( 'r 'll( lcs: t ss( ) nq: llr c ur g( 'lo t 'lr lt c r l, r t t s llr t '

l l:

w E H A V E FoR GorrE N
ToR cETTIN G A N r) r,()rrc r,:' r-r' rN (;

I r ' l' r ' n l t tu s, sIM PL E T RUT HS

as the
< lis gr r is r .ol < ' o trrts h i p ;th e c o m p u l s i o n to mai m rt' srrr{i tc:es
s 1r ' g( . ( ) 1s rrrti s try .S u b l i m a ti o n , F re u d argued, i s tht' rrtt' l t ci vi l i zer,
t lr t , lir lt ' t ' w l ri c h k e e p s ma n k i n d m a n ageabl e antl tttrtkcs human
l) r ' )( gr ' ( ' s sll0 s s i b l e .
'l'lr1 irttentional dynamic that underlies projet'tiorr o1>eratesas
n, r , ll ir r t lr t:s e o th e r d e fe n s e s -i s o l a ti o n , rati onal i zi tti orr.rtnd subl i r r lr t ier r . [ 1 e a c h , a n a c tu a l s ta te o f a ffai rs i s deni etl -i t l l ttssesi nto
t lr t . r r r r c on s c i o u sb e fo re i t re a c h e s a w a reness. Onc' t' i l r tl -reuncons t , ior r s t, he i n fo rma ti o n c a n b e c o s m e tici zed i n a vi tri t' ty of w ays. In
isolirtion the negative feelings recede from atterrtiorr, while the
t.vt:rrt itself enters awareness. In rationalization it is ottc's true motives that are split off and more acceptable ones split't'<l in in their
steacl. And in sublimation it is the nature of the irrryltrlseand its
tlre object that are sanitized. From an attentional 1lt'rspective, all
these defenses share a common procedure with projection. Step
<lne is denial; step two, transformation occurs in the trnconscious;
step three, the transformed version enters awareness.
As we have seen, Frettd's notion that the mind guards against
anxiety by deflecting attention is not unique in psychology' nor are
the defenses he notes the only r"tft attentional tricks fbr allaying
tension. While defense mechanisms censor memory' security operations distort attention to the present moment. To the list of
Freudian defenses, we can add some security operations from Sullivan. Two of them point to yet another way attention can be distorted to defend against anxietY.
Sglnct'tvn INnt.rnxrrox:

I oox't sgr wHel I ooN't ltxr.

Selective inattention edits from experience those elements

that might be unsettling were one to notice them. This is a broacl'
beamed operation, warding off everyday anxiety-the bill one just
happened to misplace, the unpleasant duty forgotten. Selective in'
attention is an all-purpose response to everyday agonies; it is clost'
to what Neisser described as the simplest instance of a tli"olr('
versionary schema. Through this mini-denial, says Sullivan,
simply doesn't happen to notice almost an infinite series of mort'or-less meaningful details of one's living." The utter simplicity ol
its ubiquity in everyday life-tltrtrli[it's
selective inattention-and
perhaps
the most common.
generic
defense,
it as a
AurouerlSll:

I DoN'T NoTICEwHAT I u<1.

As we saw in Part Two, nlttch tll' w l ri rt

c ally , o. , t o f i l w a re n e s s . (l c l ' ti ti rr o l ' tl rcsc

rvt' tl ,r i s rl r)tl (' ;ttrl otttl tl i rtttl ottt;tl tzcrl

I1.,

rrr'l i vi l i cs
n|rrl ,l f l ;tl rl r'

| 123

rl * ' r' ful l y real i z er l ( ) ur ' r r r ot ivesor object ives. Aut om at ism allows
r rrl i ru sequences ol'sr r clr lr ehavior t o go on wit hout our having t o
rr,l i 1' sei ther tha t t lr t 'r ' lut plr ened or t he t r oubling ur ges t hey m ight
,rr1ri fy.S ul l i van3 'rcit cs : r s an exam ple his walking down t he st r eet
rr \Ianhattan an d r r ot icir r g t hat "quit e a num ber of m en look at
lr;rtis called the flv ol'1,1r.rr
pants, and look away hastily. . . . Many
'r
,,1l l rem rai se the ir ( 'y( 's t o your s- appar ent ly . . . t o see if t hey have
lr.r'n noticed. Btrt the point is that some of them, if they encounter
r rrrn'g&Z, are as nrrmb and indifferent as if nothing has occurred.
liven if it were brought emphatically to the attention of the
lr.rSon who manifested it, his natural inclination would always be
t,| (lclny that it had occurred."
In both selective inattention and automatism. the rnain locus
,'l rlc{ense is at the filter. In selective inattention a portion of what
r', pcrceived is deleted prior to reaching awareness. In automatism,
tlrl inattention extends to the response one makes as well.
While defenses operate beneath the surface of awareness, in
r.tr'<rspctwe can sometimes realize we have used one, as Ep',l.ir.r'srecollections testify. Indeed, when Matthew Erdelyi polled
., ,'lass of psychology students, he found that virtually all of them
,,,rrl they had at some time used intentional repression to keep
1,,,rrrfirlthoughts or memories from awareness.3a(The sole excepIr,n WitS one student who, presumably, had repressed having re1,rtssed.)
"Most people," reports Erdelyi, "can recall materials they had
l ,r,' r' i ousl y excl uded f r om consciousnessin or der t o avoid psychic
r' ,,nr and can, mor eover , r ecall t he specif ic t echniques of def ense
l,r rvhich the rejection from consciousness was achieved." In his
rrrl rrrn)&pol
l l , 72 per cent r ecalled using pr oject ion, 46 per cent r e,l rzcrl they had used r ever sal, 86 per cent displacem ent , and 96
t,,' rt' t' ntrati onal izat ion. Each t im e t hese def enses wer e em ployed,
llr. rrct went on out of awareness, although in retrospect the stu,l ,' rrtss< l meti me scould see t hey had used t hem .
'l'lre: clefenses-our bastions against painful information-op' r.rt(' i rr a shado w wor ld of consciousness,beyond t he f r inges of
,\\;u' (' n(' ss.Most o{t en we ar e oblivious t o t heir oper at ion and r errr,rrrrtl rt. rrrrkn<lwingr ecipient of t he ver sion of r ealit y t hey adm it
rrrl rr rrrrr kcrr. ' f hc cr ir {t of t easing out and capt ur ing def enses in aiuo
r' .,r l ri t' kv t' rrrl t'avor .Whilc people ct r n, per haps, r ealize t hey have
,rl ()rr(' l i rrrt' or l ur ot lr t 'r n, lit '<l on a t lr : f i: nse,wit hot r t speciar lc<lncliIr,n\ ol n' s(' l l -tl t 'r 'r 'llt ior r slr r t ' lir r gr 'ly inr lr t 'r t t 't r ir lllc'it r t <lt t t t r r ot ict 't l.
Il r,' r)n(' nrr' l l ror l t r r ilr ) r '- nr : r ( lt 'lor 'l) ur sr r irr l<'li'r
r scsir t ollt 'r ir lior r is,
tr
,,1, ol l r\(' , l rsvr' lr ( ) : lnillr
sis.

'r 'nE'lHERApr sr
-s
DTLEM
MIA 125
l ook the f act t lr r r l t lr csc t hings have occur r ed at all; t hesc
thi ngs just ar t . r r 'l r t 'r r r t 'r r r ber ed,
even t hough t he per son has
had them m ost r ur lr lt 'usir nt lyim pr essed on him .

THE THERAPIST'S DILEMMA

\I/

Y Vn"t can't be seen is hard to change. Both Freud

and Sullivan, working from not so very different vantage points, hit
on the identical formulation: the person prevails against anxiety by
sacrificing his range of attention. This failure to see our self-deceits
protects them; Sullivan is struck by "how suavely we simply ignore
great bodies of experience, any clearly analyzed instance of which
might present us with a very leal necessity for change."
The dance-away lover seems doomed to an endless cycle of
romances with starry-eyed beginnings and tearful endings. The
abrasive manager somehow keeps rubbing up against recalcitrant
employees. The compulsive workaholic just can't seem to get his
wife to understand his pressing need to bring work home at night.
Our defenses insulate us from the vital lie at the heart of otrr
m is e ry .
Sullivan marveled at the "means by which we do not profit
from experience which falls within our particular handicap." Freu<l
noted the strange "repetition compulsion" which kept people rt'liv ing th e i r w o rs t c ri s e s . N o t l e arni ng the l essons of personal hi story, we seem doomed to repeat them. Sullivan summed up tlrt'
dilemma neatly, in terms Freud would most likely have appret'iat ed :3 s
We don't haae the experience from which we might profit
-that is, although it occurs, we never notice what it mrrst
mean: in fact we never notice that a good deal of it hirs
occurred at all. This is what is really troublesotttt' in l)syc h o th e ra p y , I s u p p o s e -th e w onderful l y bl i rrr< l w rtv i rr
w h i c h p e o p l e o v e rl o o k th e most gl uri ng i rrrl l l i t' rrl i orrsol '
ol ' tl rci rs l o
c e rta i n a c ts o f th e i r o w n , o r o{' certi ri rrrcrr< ' l i orrs
o th e r p e o p l e ' s a c ts -th a t i s , w l ti tt l l rcv l tt' (' :tpl l o tt' 1tot' lrts
o th e r p e o p l e ' s a c ts . Mrr< ' l rr ttor' ('trtgi t' :rl l r' , l l rrv nr;r\'()\' r' l

One psych<liur r r lr str r ot es t hat because t hese def enses begin

r,' r' y earl y in lif l'<'r r r r sr '<l
lr y "of t en well- m eaning par ent s, " t he inl crnal pro hibit ior r s r r git instseeing what has been done ar e t ied up
just how "loving" one's par ent s wer e- a
rvi th having t o r u. r lt . f ir r e
slr<lnginternal trilroo. As a result, in later life the individual cannot
rqt' tto the r oot s of 't l- r is r epr ession wit hout help. I t is as t hough
someone had stamped on his back a mark he will never be able to
rt'e without a mirror. One of the functions of psychotherapy is to
1rrovi deth e m ir r or . "
It fell to Anna Freud to formulate the classic statement of the
tl rerapi st'sjudo in disabling t he def ense. Her book The Ego and
tlrc Mechanism of Defense has been in print continuously since
1936, and remains the touchstone for understanding the defenses
:rt work-and what therapy can do to remedy them.
The ego, writes Miss Freud, operates in a delicate balance
lrctween pressures from the id-a cauldron of desire and impulse
-and the superego-the quality of conscience that inhibits desire.
\Vhile external dangers are sources of objective anxiety, the id and
rls impulses spawn subjectiae anxiety, a threat from within. The
r'{r) ?.nd superego must cap impulse; the defenses are attentional
rnirneuvers for that task.
In tracing the anatomy of defenses, the analyst must do a good
,lt'al of detective work. "All the defensive measures of the ego
irqilinst the id," writes Anna Freud, "are carried out silently and
rrrvisibly. The most that we can ever do is to reconstruct them in
rctrospect: we can never really witness them in operation. . . . The
.so knows nothing of it; we are aware of it only subsequently,
w ' l ren i t becom es appar ent t hat som et hing is m issi. t g. "
For example, Miss Freud tells of a young girl who came to be
,,r,:rlyzed bectruse of acute anxiety attacks which kept her from
rloing to school. The girl was "friendly and frank" with Miss Freud,
r,rvr: fi rr o ne except ion: she never m ent ioned her sym pt om , t he
.rrrxi cty at t acks. Whenever M iss Fr eud would br oach t he sulr ject ,
l l rt' gi rl wot r lcl clr op her f r iendliness and launch a volley of conl crrrptrr< lr sand r n<lcking r em ar ks. M iss Fr eud udm it s t o f ir r r lir r g
l rcrst' l l ' at : r l<lssin t he f ir ce <lft he gir l's r idict r le- at leust f ir r : r wlr ilt '.
l ,' rrrt lr t 'rt r r alysis, t hor r gh, r eve: r lcclt o M iss F- r er r <lt he r r r issir r g
(' ()rnl )orrcr r tt,lr t ' <l<'{i'r r stir' t w<t r k. 'l'I 'r t 'gir l's or r t lr r r r st s,slt vs lVliss
l " rcrrrl , l rr<l lit t lc t o r lo r t 'it lr t lr t 'lr ur lysis, lr r r t nr t lr t 'r 'w( 'r '( 't r igut 'r 't 'r l
" rvl r,' n(' \'( 'r (' 'nr ot ior r sol'lct r r lct 't r css,lor r t I ir r t I(. ) r ', iur xir 'lr\' \ '( 'r '(lr
' lr or r l
l . r' nr(' rtI ( . ''ir r lr cr lcclinus. 'l'lr r ' nr ( ) r ( ' l) ( ) \ \ '( 'rlr r l llr , ' 1, 'r 'lir r gs,llx'

l:( i

I r ' r ' r ' n l L IES, sIMPLE TR U TH S

s tro rrg r.r' tl rt' ri tl i c u l e . As the gi rl ' s anal yst, Mi ss Frt' trtl w as at the
rt.t' t,i v i rrr{t,rrc l o f' th e o u t bursts because of her el l i rrts to bri ng
tl rt' i rrrx i t' tv i n to th e o p e n .
' l ' l ri s n re n ti tl o p e ra ti o n Mi ss Freud refbrs to as " rl t' f' ense by
n t(.i u rso l ' ri c l i c u l e a n d s c o rn." It began, she deduct' s l i ' ortrfurther
rrru rl v ' s i sw
, i th th e g i rl ' s i denti fi cati on w i th her dei rtl l rtther, w ho
"rrst'rl to try to train the girl in self-control by nrakirrg mocking
rt' n ri rrk sw h e n s h e g a v e w a y to some emoti onal outl l rrrst."
'I'his single case neatly encapsulates the psychorrrrirlyticattack
on cgo defenses. One clue to the shape of defenses is itn odd blind
spot-in this instance, the girl's glossing over the fac'tol'her anxiety
attacks. That sensitive topic triggers a strong reactitltt, irirned at the
anirlyst: the girl lashes out at Miss Freud. The analyst itssumes that
such reactions are transference, reenactments of early crucial relationships, rather than simple feelings about the therupist. Reading
these reactions as further clues, the analyst deduces the structure
of the de{'ense: here, a denial of anxiety which is covered over by
ridicule.
As Anna Freud puts it, the necessary technique "was to begin
with the analysis of the patient's defense against her affects and to
go on to the elucidatioriof her resistance in the transference. Then,
and then only, was it possible to proceed to the analysis of her
anxiety itself and of its antecedents." In therapy, the analyst
watches for responses out of keeping with the business at hand,
ones where the analyst is herself the target. These reactions she
reads as resistance, clues to ego defenses, with the assumption that
she is an innocent bystander to an ancient, childhood drama.
During psychoanalysis the silhouette of defenses stands out in
sharpest relief during free association. The patient is invited to
speak whatever comes to mind, without censorship-a promise the
analyst knows the patient can never keep. The defenses are there
to censor whenever threatening material approaches awareness.
When such a threat emerges-s?y, the memory of a childhood mothe ego bestirs itlestation, long hidden in a mental attic-"then
self," in Anna Freud's words, and "by means of one or another ol'
its customary defense mechanisms intervenes in the flow of ass<lc i a ti o n s ."
The ego stands most exposed when strong feelings are in tht'
air-or about to surface. The ego might ward off, for variotts rettsons, such basic sentiments as "love, longing, jealotrsy, m<lrtificittion, pain, and mOurning," as well as "hatred, anger, ittl<l rltgt'," ttr
n a me th e fe e l i n g s M i s s F reud l i sts as acconrpi trryi rrg,r(' sl x' < ' ti vr' l y,
s e x u a l w i s h e s a n d a g g re ssi ve i mprrl ses.Tl rc cgo, i tt ,' l t,' r' ki rrgsttt' l t
ol l i ' r' l fe e l i n g s , c h a n g e s th e m i n s< l rncw i l v. S rrr' l rtr' :rnsl i rt.ttti tl i rttts
i n g rtre a h tl l rrti rrk o { ' tl rt' t l t' l i ' l rscs i tt l tr' l i ort.

THE THERAprsr's DTLEMMA |

127

The chain ol' t lr or r ght s der ails as t he t hr eat eninq r r r ut t , r . ir r l

r ,rt ) S near t o m ir r t l. 'l'lr c r esult is a sudden silence,
or char r gg ol
l ,1ric, or r ush of li't 'lir r g. all of which ar e suspect r esponses.
Er r t , lr
i l r it s own way sigr r ir ls ar lacuna at wor k, t he nat ur e of whiclr
is
l rrrr t ed by t he pit r t icr t lar veer t aken. These det our s ar e what
t lr c
.rr[r lystr ecognizes as "r esist ance. " The r esist anceis, in
one sels( , ,
t' r t he f undam ent al r ule of f r ee associat ion- t o cease all censor slr ill
,,rrt lspeak one's m ind f r eely. I n anot her sense, t he r esist ance is
t <r
tlrt' material that the defenses guard against.
At this juncture, the analyst's attention switches frorn the pirIt.rlt 's t r ain of t hought t o t he r esist ance it self - f r om t he cont ent
ol
rr lttrt is said to the process bf what is n<tt said. At that moment,
stvs
\rr'a Fr eud, "t he analyst has an oppor t unit y f or wit nessing, t ht , r r
,,' rtl t her e, t he put t ing int o oper at ion. . . of one of t hose deie. r iu, ,
rrr('t lsur es. Such
"
analyt ic det ect ive wor k is of necessit y cir cuit <lr r s,
'r rrtental analogue of archeological reconstruction. But it is crtrciul.
llV studying the shape and flow of the patient's associations
arrrl
tl rt' eddies and cr osscur r ent s t hat lacunas cause, t he analvst
car r
, l i sc over - like sensing a r ock hidden in a r ushing st r eam - t he
sgr t
,,1rlef ense t he ego has r elied upon.
To tease out the defenses is a piece of what analysts call ..t,g.
,,rrrt lvsis. "I t is a cr ucial st ep. The next t ask will b" "in undo w'r r t
l r,rsbeen done by t he def ense, i. e. , t o f ind out and r est or e t ,
it s
l ,l rr ce t hat which has been om it t ed t hr ough r epr ession, t o r ect ilv
' l rslllacem ent s,and t o br ing t hat which has been isolat ed back ir r t <r
rts tr ue cont ext . " The def enses having been pier ced, t he unall, st
' ;ttt t hen t ur n t o t he discover y of uhich im pulses necessit at eclr - : r isrrrr{these mental barriers in the first place.
I n keeping it s secr et s, t he ego r eveals t o t he analyst / r or r r it
l .t' 1 ) s t hose secr et s: By t he ver y act of r esist ance t o t her apy, t lr t .
( q() bar es it self . The essence of analysis, t hen,
is r est or ipg, , *, , , - , , rr.ss of what we fail to notice-and fail to notice that we
liril to
rrotice.
ln sum , t he ego's t ask is t o cont r ol t he f low of ir r f ilr r r r at ior rir r
r rrtl t 'r 't o def lect anxiet y; t he ar chit ect ur e of 'sel{'is shapt : cl,
ir r lr r r . ur .
' l .l fl'oe, lly t he set of lacunas it f , r vor st o censor ancl gr , i, l, , ir r lir r - r r r : r
l r' rtt Ht lw' As we will see in t he next Par t , cle{i: nst , sr r r ol<lpt , r - sor r : r l
rl r: t lt e Tt ur t ic: ulurwaU we use at t ent i<lnt <ldisur r n ir r r xit 't vir r t lr . lilr lr
who r t , lir '. sor r t lt , r r ilr lr ir r t l r . r , pr , , s
" ' ,tt'ks t t s. F<lr ext t nt ple, s^( ) il1( - 'one
' ' r' rr r will 1) t 't 'ct r ivtitt nt l ir c't t lif lt 'r t . nt lv f i'or r r
sonr ( , on( .\ \ , lr o l; r r , r rr
r(' \' ('l'slrltl r r t l Pr <r . icc't iotl'llt
u lir i/ t o r . \ l) ( , rI
t . c'lrr . l, illr . r 1r <'r 'ir , n( , ( , - rt <l
r 111'1'- ( 111'
wor lt l <lilli'r '<'lr t lr ',: r r r <lu'ill r r r r r r lt llt 't lr r cr r ulr lr , r r r lr lr . r l
r' \ r' n ls r r ur kir r gt lil'li'r cr r l sor . lsol'u, lr vr . s.

I'ART FOUR

Cognition
CreatesCharacter

NEUROTIC STYLES

(favored defenses become habitual mental maV.rr

n('uvers. What has worked well in key moments, keeping anxiety
,rrrder control with rewarding results, is likely to be tried again.
l',pstein, the novelist, found as a child that isolation fended off the
\orrow of his father's death; that same cutting off of feeling offers
rtsclf years later when he confronts the horrors of Holocaust. Anna
l.'r'eud's patient, whose feelings were damaged by her father's
st'orrr,grows up to be a sarcastic,scornful woman.
Successful defense becomes habit, habit molds style. These
l;trniliar tactics become second nature; when psychic pain conlronts us, we fall back into their soothing arms. What may have
1,,'enat first a serendipitous discovery in the battle against anxiety
.orrs to define our mode of perception and response to the world.
llt:coming adept at such strategies means that we favor some parts
,rl'experience while blocking off others. We set bounds on the
rurge of our thoughts and feelings, limit our freedom of perception
'
,rrrdaction, in order to feel at peace.
F avored tactics of defense become a sort of armor-plating on
,'rperience, a gathering around of preferred bulwarks in the battle
,rgainst unsettling items of information. It was Wilhelm Reich
twhile still a respected member of Freud's circle) who articulated
llrt: notion of defensive armoring most fully.t The phrase Reich
.'oirred was "character armor," the shielding of the self so it can
s,rrr(l off anxieties as it moves through a threatening world. One's
,'lurracter ckrns urmor in the form of habitual defenses. The armor
rs irt part ittterntional,for the dangers the self must deflect are in the
l ot' ttt o{' i rr{i tr nt ut iot r :t hr eut s, clr elads,r r nger , im pulse def er r ed, and
tl rt' l i kr' . " l rr t 'vt 'r y<lir yli{ir , " sar i<lRt 'ic: h,"t he char act er plays ir r olc
ri rrri l rtt' to tl ,t 'ot r c il llllvs ir s lr r csisllr r t 't 'ir r t lr t 't r t nt r r r r . r r t :t lr ir t ol': r
r rls. "
Irsvr' l ri t'rl r' l c r r sr .r r 1l1xr nr

' tu .r ' nts

r r, t,n ' ,ss, tN n ,l ,l' l,,
l :l l I r' r' n
llt r ic h s a w th a t th e s y m p to rn s p ati ents brorrgl rt l . tl rc:rapy,
wlr t ' t her a n o re x i a o r i mp o te n c e , p h o bi a or deprcssi orr, s' t.r' c,i n i l
s ens e, bes i d e th e p o i n t. T h e s a me s y mptom corrl tl 1,,' r1,,' rrk
very
clifferent underlying dynamics of character structrrrr.. ltr.iclr advocated that the therapist first attend to the overall stglr oI tlrr' putient,
to the patterning of resistances due to character, nr)t to llrr. presenting symptom.
Defensive style is character armor. In therapy, it lt'ads to a
typical mode of resistance, which will arise unmistakably rro matter
what the specific symptom. The stamp of the armor is on a person's
whole mode of being. According to Reich, the resistance stemming
from character2
. . . is expressed not in terms of content but . . . in the way
one typically behaves, in the manner in which one speaks,
walks, and gestures; and in one's characteristic habits
(how one smiles or sneers, whether one speaks coherently
or incoherently, how one is polite and how one is aggress iv e) .
It is not what the patient says and does that is indicative of character resistance, but hou he speaks and acts;
not what he reveals in dreamS, but how he censors, distorts, condenses, etc.
Defenses are, in the main, attentional ploys. But attention is
just part of the process. As we have seen, every part of the sequence, from perception through cognition to response, is vulnerable to skews in the service of defense. The person's entire mental
apparatus-his mode of being in the world-is
shaped in part by
his defensive strategy,by his armoring of character.
Character armor is the face the self turns to the world. On it
are etched the twists and turns the defenses demand in their stnrggle to avoid what is unpleasant. By reading character, the defensivt.
structure is revealed, like the skeleton of a cadaver under the anirtomist's dissecting knife. That structure maps the special contorrrs
of one's experience.
"Character armor," writes Ernest Becker,3 "really refers t<l tlrr,
whole life style that a person assumes, in order to live and act witlr
a certain security. We all have some, because we all neecl to org;r
nize our personality. This organization is a process wherel>y sonr(.
t hings hav e to b e v a l u e d mo re th a n others, sonre ucts havt' to l rr.
per m it t ed, o th e rs fo rb i d d e n , s o m e l i nes of' con< l rrt' t hrrvt' l o l rr.
c los ed, s ome k i n d s o f th o u g h t c a n b e ente,rti ri rrt.<otl
1, rcrs :rl r. ti rl rorr
- and s o o n . E a c h p e rs o n l i te ra l l y c l o st' s o{l ' l ri s rvor' l rl ,l i ' rrt' r.sl ri rrrs elf r r r ot r n d , i tr th e o c rtl l )ro (' (' ,r,\o l ' l ti s (,tt)n [!t' ()tt' l l trttttl tttgtttti :.tt
t ion. "

N E U R oTIC s TY LE S I 133

'l'Iose forbidcfu'rrircts and thoughts creute blincl spots. But the

While
t,.rl l .r' l i ng of arnt or ',I lecker under st ands, is cl<t t r ble- eclged'
highpit
r
t
s
ar
e
<lt
hgr
rl ,,.rc rtre zones gr r t lawed f r om at t ent it ln,
bewe
which
in
zollcs
l ,,,l rtt,clThe
.
areas O f am ple awar eness ill'e
ar e
t
lf
'exller
t
ise
r
t
'git
lt
t
s
, ,rr(. parti cul arly adept oper at or s. Thest '
f
ilr
m
et
r
t
ir
ely
r
t
w'it
r
ct
t
ess
,l ,.l i rrei by our lacupas: t hose t hat block
if
t
wist
ing
,r..rrrargi n.s;
thos e t hat allow in som e inf ilr r r ut t iot t - even
,r ,,,,irslo decontaminate threats-give tlrcsc zotles their inner defl
rrrri tt)n.

' fhose al l owable zones ar e f r ee t lf 'r t r r xict ) ',or m ost ly f r ee' We

1,.,,1rrt ease the r e, able t o m ove wit hor r t cot r st r aint .Wit hin t hose
.rl rr(,sw e develop O ur st r engt hs; ilwit l'ellt ss lbcuses in t her n wit h
, ,t' t' S y. These ,oi, . "r , Becker pr oposcs, r eset nt lle a f et ish' "Fet ish,.,.,fi ,rn," B ecke r expiains, in t his sellse "llleans t he or ganizat ion of
a ver y st r iking
1,,' rt,t' pi i onand act ion, by t he per st lnit lit y, ar ound
,,r,I t' ompel l i ng - but nar r ow- 1hgt l1". "
A feiish, ui Be"ker Lrsesthe tem-r, is a special range of experi"ca,.n(.(,that attracts the flow of attention. Freud used the term
elabor
at
es:
a
Becker
tl r,.\i s" to refer t o m uch t he sam e t hing.
If'everybody has some character armor, everyone is also
,,rrl."*-hut oi'a fetishist. If you are obliged to close yourself
to the multiplicity of things, it follows that _you will focus
sgmewhat on a reitrained area of things; and, if you cannot
I'reely value everything, nor lreely weight all things
itgairist all other things, then, you must give dis-proportion,,[L weight to ronr" things uhich 4y not deserae this
rveight. io., artificially iniiate a srnall area of the world,
give- it a higher value in the horizon of your perception
Itrrclaction. And you do this because it represen-tsan area
tlrat you canfirmtu hold ort,to,_that you can skillfullg martigttilute,thai you can use easilg to jttstify,gotrrsell-your
Itr,tigps,yo'r sense of selfl yo.r option in the world.
l,t't trs rectrpitulate. Fron the need to softe' the impact of
tl ,rr.rrtt,rti ngi nf it nnat ion, lacunas ar ise. They oper at e on at t ent ion,
tlrrorr96 it vitriety of tactics, all of which filter the flow of informaI r,rrr. ' l ' l rt,sgstru t egiesf br dealing wit h t he wor ld com e t o def ine t he
,i ' .r1rt.o1'rcsl > t lt lsest ls well as per cept ion. Their out lines becor ne
| 1,,'I r' :rrttt'fi rr t'lr it r it c't t 'r .
on t he st af f at Aust en Riggs
l )rtvi < l S l tit llir o, a 1ls1'c'hologist
I l rrri r.i rr tl rr. llXi0s, u, , r 'ot t , irst 'r it 's of 'llr illiiur t lt aper s culm it r ir t ing
,,r .r l ,,r,rk rl r' l lr ilir r q llr c r . r 'r r t 'illr olt , ol'at t t 'nt ior t it t t ht ' llir t t t 't 't t sol
s1r <, t 'i:ir
r lr siulr t u'r t s ir r slr ou'it t g lt or 'r 'lt slt t '<'iI it '
, l r.rr:rr.l r.r.,S lr : r llilo's
(
'lll(
't
;
ll
t
, ' lt t r t 'r r lil( '\ \ 'llv r t l'l't 'ir r g; t lr lr t is' llr lr l
is
,,r,,,1,' .l :tl l .rrt iir r (
r r ) 1,ntl tol t

s l t;t1l , ' t

5l r .r 1,l l o

, ' l t ; t t ; t r' l r. t

lll,tlll

l l t l t ' t r" ' l

.
rr ' r"

ttr ll"'

" '11""

" t

l r'

. rR U .r.H s
l l i .l I v l .r' n r,
t.rF l ss,rMp t,u
t lr c t lr c ri rPi s t' so ffi c e ; h e c a l l e d h i s portrai ts " netrrrri < . rrr,l es.,,
B ut
wlr ilc th e s e a tte n ti o n a l p a tte rn s s hade i nto the real rr,,,1
1,,,thol ogy,
lir r t ht : m o s tp a rt th e y ty p i fy s ty l e s w i thi n the norrrrrl r:r,,g" .
T" k" ,
firr example, the type I call "The Detective.,'

THE DETECTIVE

rrt
|.tr" note reacl: "The supply of game for London is
uoing steadily up. Head-Keeper Hudson, we believe, has been now
lold to receive all orders for fly-paper and for preservation of your
lrcn-pheasant's life." On reading it, the recipient, a country gentlenr:rn)promptly suffered a stroke, from which he never recovered.
That note was to change the course of literature, for indirectly
rt spawned the genre of mystery novels. It was the beginning of
S l rerl ock H olm es's f ir st case. "The G lor ia Scot t . "6
The note is received by the father of one of Holmes's college
t' l assmates,and Holm es is soon on t he case. Holm es sees at once
tlre letter is a code, which he quickly breaks. Every third word is
l l re real message: "The gam e is up. Hudson has t old all. Fly f or
\' our l i fe."
But Holmes's special genius does not stop there. Whoever
rvrote the code had left some further clues. After the sender wrote
llrc intended message, Holmes reasons, "he had, to fulfill the prearrrnged cipher, to fill in any two words in each space. He would
rurttrrally use the first words which came to his mind, and if there
\v('re so many which referred to sport among them, you may be
tolerably sure that he is either an ardent shot or interested in breedi t tg."

This bit of reasoning points straight to a man who used to go

l rrrrrti ngw i th t he st r oke vict im ever y aut um n. Holm es, as usual, is
rvt' l l < l n hi s way t o a solut ion.
llolntes, though a fictional character, is nevertheless an exempl i rr' of' the at t ent ional t ype we will call "The Det ect ive, " in his
'
Irorror' (l
. < l rr sit lt 'rwhat
we know of Holr nes's super b p<t wer s<lf 'at l crrti orrl ttt<lt lt 't lr r t 't ior r .Wlt t , r t . ot her s sit w r t ot hit r g <lrt r ivia, I lolr r r t 's
sl rottcrl i r,r'r 'inr ir r ir t ir rtg'vir lt 'n( '( '. I lr 'lr l<l ir sllt 'r 'iir lt ir lt 'r r t lor lt 'lr <lir r g
l l rc srrrrrl lcslr lt 'lr r ils ol'r r silt t : t liot r . "lt lr lr s l, r r r q l) ( '( 'n : lr r r r t ir t t r t ol

il
lli(; I r'l'r'nr-[.rEs,srN{pLE
TRUTHS
t t t it t t ' , " s rti rl l te, " th a t th e l i ttl e th i n gs are i nfi ni tel y tht, rrrosti mporllr r r t . "
I lol n re s ' s g e n i u s w a s n o t j u s t in spotti ng the tcl l i rr{ cl etai l . It
r v r r sr r ls c irn k n o w i n g w h a t to ma k e o f i t. For exampl t' , i rr ,\ S tudg i n
s t ' ur let h e s p o ts a fl a k y c i g a r a s h a t the scene of tl rr. rrrrrrder;he
r ec ogniz e s a t o n c e th a t a T ri c h i n opol y ci gar htrcl l rt' t' rr smoked
there. His arcane expertise included bloodstains, lirotprints, tatt oos . No ti n g a m u d s p a tte r, h e c o u l d say w hi ch prrrt .l ' London i t
had come from. He could distinguish and name fbrty-two kinds of
bicycle-tire impressions and seventy-five brands ol' yrerfume. A
notch on a tooth would, for Holmes, identify a wcrrver, while a
certain callus on the left thumb would reveal a typesctte r.
Holmes represents The Detective at his best. what sets him
apart as exemplary for this type is his awareness of the dangers of
bias. "I make a point," Holmes once said, "of never having any
prejudices and of following docilely wherever fact may lead me."
In this regard, Holmes may have been saved by virtue of his
status as a fictional character. In all his cases,by one count, Holmes
made at least two hundred seventeen inferences, all of which he
blithely presents as facts.T He tested his guesses in one way or
another in only twenty-eight of these instances. Yet he turned out
to have been correct in virtually all of them.
Here Holmes-throtrgh Arthur Conan Doyle's design-skirts
the pitfall that awaits The Detective in everyday life: the bending
of facts to fit a theory. Holmes prided himself on never constructing
theories beyond the facts at hand: "Insensibly," he once cautionecl
Watson, "one begins to twist fircts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." To the degree that The Detective twists facts to
accommodate theory, his character is askew. When carried to its
extreme, that bent of mind is diagnosed as paranoia.
The Detective is hyperalert.s The sharp acuity of his attentiorr
makes him occasionally brilliant in his observation, his catching ol'
the telling detail. He scans with a penetrating gaze. He doesn't
simply look; he searches. His attention is unusually acute and t<.tive. Nothing out of the ordinary will escape his attention, nor will
anything remotely related to his preoccupations of the m<lnrt:nt.
Shapiro tells of one such patient in therapy who was apprehernsiv.
that he would be hypnotized. On his first visit to the therapist's
of f ic e he ' j u s t h a p p e n e d to n o ti c e " a book on hypnotht' nr1l v i rrrrl
c om m en te d o n i t. T h e b o o k w a s o n a crow cl erl l rooksl rt:l l , tw r' l vr.
feet away.
T he D e te c ti v e ' s a l e rtn e s s i s r narkt' tl l ,y rr l rvt)(.r' scrrsi l i vi l r' .
" T hes e p e o p l e ," S h a p i ro n o t:s ,'")i u ' (, r.xr.,.r' rl i rrgl \'nr.r
, \,,usl r. sr.rr
s it iv e t o a n y th i n g o trt o f' th t' o n l i ru u ' r' (,r' rnr(' \l )(.r' l r.rli,urv srrr.l ri l r.rn,

THE DETECTIVE I 137

Irow,tlVrtrivial or slight it might seem from the standpoint of the

urr'rlt&l person, will trigger their attention in its full, searching intr.rrsi t/.This hyper aler t ness is . . . not sim ply a f r ight ened r esponse
,'r ir nervous one; it is something more than that. These people
.,r.t,mto want to cover everything, and any new element will also
rrr.t:dto be exam ined accor ding t o t he dim ensions of t heir suspii rorrsi nterest and concer n. "
In other words, The Detective regards anything novel with the
Lrrrclof apprehensive vigilance that a Manhattanite feels on hearing
l,rotstepsfrom behind on a darkened street at two in the morning.
lrr order for something-a new delivery boy, a surprise phone call
Irorn an old friend, an unexpected memo from the boss-to arouse
l rrs scruti ny, it need sim ply be new, sur pr ising, or unexpect ed. I t
rrr.t.dnot, from an everyday viewpoint, be especially suspicious.
f,,,r'The D et ect ive, t hough, it is suspicious because it is unusual.
Take, for example, a moment from Sherlock Holmes, in which
[,,. is discussing with an inspector the disappearance of a race
lrors. Holmes refers to "the curious incident of the dog in the
rrr{l rtti m."
"The dog," said the inspector, "did nothing in the nighttime."
"That," replies Holmes, "was the curious incident."
The Detective's hyperalertness, says Shapiro, serves a special
,.rrtl : to avoid sur pr ise. Since lif e is f ull of sur pr ise, novelt y, and
,l urrrfl e, an d since by it s ver y nat ur e one never knows when a
,rrr.pri sew ill com e, his vigilant st at e is t he necessar y r esult of his
, orrstitilt anticipation. As Shapiro observes, "The suspicious person
r,, r't'udy for anything unexpected and immediately becomes aware
,,1i t. H e m ust . . . br ing it int o t he or bit of his schem e of t hings and,
rrrr.l l ect, sat isf y him self t hat it is not or at least is no I onger sur pr isrrr1I.

IIis purpose is not so much to prove the unexpected innocent

,,1 l ri s sus picions. Not at all. He seeks only t o sat isf y him self t hat
tl rr. srrrpr ise- t he st r ange noise, t he cancelled dat e- has been
is,
,r.nrl i rri ze dand cat egor ized. The ver dict m ay be "guilt y"- t hat
,,rrsgri c.ion
iust if ied. " But t hat is as soot hing t o The Det ect ive as is
rl r,' otl rcr ver r clict .t r or it is not t o f ind his suspicion unwar r ant ed
l l r;rl l rc scar ches so int ent ly; it is sim ply t o r em ove t he t hr eat of
' .rrrgl ri st' .
\Vlrirt [t' firars is the rrnscrutinized novelty, not the existence
,,1 rl :rng(. r '.I lis vt : r y post r r r e t <lwar d t he wor ld is t hat it is f ir ll of '
t t spici<lns,his t lt t ,l ,rrrgr,r.' l 'lr is lr ssr r nr lt t i<lrirrr st if ies his c<lt 't st at rst
.
r r ( 's( 'ns( ',t lr t 'r r ,lr t 'is r ( : llsslt t '( l(lrl v f ir r <lir r glr is
r,,1rg yi gil: r r r <, r ,l1sor
lr r f ir r r lir r gt lt t 'wor 'l<l lir ll ol't lr r t ': t ls, lr c t 'r 'r t lrr.rsl l i .rrls t . on{ir 'nr ( . ( 1.
l i r rrrr l ri s lr r r sicslr t t t t 'r 'it t lili'.

l:ili

I r,r.r.,rt_LrES, sIMpLE TRUTHS

' l ' l rt' D e te c ti v e _ ' s

v i g i l a n c e i s, i n many si tt* rti ,rrs, a real

s t . r ' r rg th . F o r o n e th i n g , i t o fte n show s up
as a sup(.r()r.score on
tCstsof achievement or intelligence. Apart from
doing u,,r,1on tests,
this type thrives in any calling that tenefits
from irrr :rctive and
intensely searching attention, such as intelligence
or. l)rlice work,
or scholarship of the Talmudic sort, where tf,ere
i, ,, i,,.,,r.i.,- o1
searching out clues to hidden meanings.
The weakness of The Detective's attentional stylt,
is related to
its strengths. His search is driven; it is
somethltua.lts
goal is to
for
99n!m a preconceived idea. And herJ he falls pre y t. the danger
sherlock Holmes warned against: "one begins to
twist facts to suit
theories instead of theories to suit facts."-when
his ,rigilance is
pushed toward its extremes, it twists into
a biasecl ,"o."h, a search
that.seeks to prove a notion rather than simply
to investigut" arrd
let the facts yield up a theory.
This driven setrrch letrves a distinctive distortion
in The Detective's percepti'n. He l..ks so keenly that he does
.rot q,rit" ,""; h"
hears so astutely that he firils to listen. In other
words, his deficit is
not in his attenti<lnal l)owers, which are often
brilliantly uit.,rr"d.
His attention is ofl'be,carrseit is guided by a lack
of interest in the
obvious. The strrfrrceof'tlrin$ is-for him'far from
the truth of the
matter; he seeks to piecc throrrgh plain facts
to the hidden reality.
He listens and looks n't t. eoin"i what is
apparent, but what it
signifies.
Looking so hard for the telling cltre to a hidden
meaning is like
peering into a microscope. The Detective
is apt to search so intently that he loses sight of the context that gives
meaning to what
he sees. That, of course, fits well with his basic
stance toward it
anyhow: its seeming context is the merely apparent,
which is frlr
him a false reality. He grasps at a small detaii
tnut ni, his schem.,
while ignoring its actual context. The net effect
is that he loses ir
sense of the fact's real significance, replacing
it with a special irterpretation.
while built upon factual details, such a subjective
world r:1rr
be totally askew in the meaning given those details.
And since lris
conclusions are based on facts, T1e Detective
can agree with y.rr
totally as to the details of a case, while having
*L-lly clillcrt.rrt
sense of their meaning and significance. Such people,
"
irotes ,Slrir:
piro,r' "do not ignore a piece of data; on
the contrary they exirrrirrr,
it quite carefully.
Prt they examine it with an extraorclinary pr.r.jrr,
dic e, d i s mi s s i n g w h a t i s n o t re l e v a nt to thei r supposi ti orrs
i trrrlsr.i z=
ing on a n y th i n g th a t c o n fi rm s t hem. . . . They
.pt.ri rtr, ri ..rrr trrr.
out s et o n th e a s s u m p ti o n th a t:rn y thi ng tl ri rt tl ocs
rrot < .orrfi r.rrr
tl rr.i r.
t : x pec ti l ti < l ni s ' Il l (' r(' i l l )l )(' i rri rrrt' t'." 1' l rrrs,tl rr.\,rvorrl rl
srrr,l l rrrl l l rr.r,

THE DETECTTvE | 139

.rrc interested in penetrating the sham, the pretense, and the su1,,'rficial; they want to get to the heart of the matter, the underlying
Ir rrth." That truth, it turns out, is exactly what they expected in the
l rrstpl ace.
Shapiro tells, for example, of a man who was convinced his
l,,rss"wsnted to make him jump through the hoop." The man gath,'r,'rl much evidence to prove the point, some keenly noted, all
l.r,'tual.The boss insisted that the man do things the boss's w&y,
tlr;rt he be prompt, that he be less removed with customers. The
rrurrrpointed to a certain edge in his boss's voice, a distinctive
,rllitude of reprimand in the way the boss spoke. All this, the man
rr;rSSUr,amounted to convincing evidence that the boss was, in
r,';tlity, trying to lord it over the man, "to make him crawl."
But, as Shapiro points out, "These facts did not add up to a
1,;rrticularlyunusual boss." He may have done all these things, as
rrrostbosses do. They are part of a boss's job. There was work to be
rl,n, and the boss was responsible for it. The patient disregarded
tlrrs context and thus radically altered the significance of these
l .rt'ts.

Shapiro goes on to observe that attention rigidly focused on

',,'lt'ctive evidence can impose its own conclusions virtually anyrrlrt'r. Thus, "the suspicious person can be at the same time ab,,,lrrtely right in his perception and absolutely wrong in his
r,r,l grnent. "
The Detective's interpretive schema often takes the form of a
1,,,litical or economic view, religious dogma, or grand conspiracy
llr,'ory. But it can just as well be the mundane conviction that
1,,' opl ear e against m e, " "m y boss has it in f or m e, " or "pollut ion
r , rrri ni ng m y healt h. " O f cour se, any of t hose pr oposit ions could,
rrr ,r sivD instance, be true. What sets The Detective apart, though,
r, tlrc lack of manifest support for his favored scheme of things.
'l'heodore Millon traces the shaky underpinnings of such a
,, lr,'r)rit:rr "Little difference exists in their mind between what
tl,,'i lrave seen and what they have thought. Momentary impres' r,,rrs urrclhazy memories become fact. Chains of unconnected facts
,,,' litttrcl together. An inexorable course from imagination to sup1r,.,rl i orrto sr r spicion t akes place, and soon a syst em of invalid and
,,' ,' .l rrrkcllllellelief ' has been cr eat ed. "
\Vlrcthcr lris search to confirm the schema is furtive and apprel rr' rr\i vr' < )r 'ir r r ogillr it
t ncl aggr essive,it s t one is one and t he sant o:
.rr' ,1ri < ' i o r rllis
s. sr r sllit 'iousn( 'ssis ir r r pr cssivein it s st r engt lt . Whilc
,rrl nr;t!\' slr slr iciot t s iu'( 'slr ir r k<'t llr v sor t t t . sit r r it t ior r lll1'111. - itr loor '
l ,rrnrrl;rj ;rt ',lr 'l's sr r r '- - 'l'lr r ' l) r 'lcr 'livt ' n( '( '( lsr r o su<'lrcr r r '. llr . cr ur lr r .
,u H .tr;rtrrlt 'lr it lcvt 't 'llr l silr r : r lir ) n,r 'r 'gr r r r llcss
ol'it s r r ppr r r cr r lir r r r r r

I l O I r r r.rr,r,l t..\.
s t,\n ,t.t.,
n r( ' l l rs
c t : n( : ( ' or l ri tn a l i ty . Wl te re n ro s t p c o l rl e w orrl cl r(.(l tnr(' .r,l oor l t.l i
ajar t o en te r th e i r h o me w i th e x tra c auti on, The l )r' l l r l rrc i s 1)l ' t.dis pos ed to th i n k , " W a tc h o u t-th e y di dn' t l eave tl rr, rl ,,,,rrr.j urthi s
time, but they may be in there."
T r y in g to ta l k s u c h a p e rs o n o u t of hi s convi cl i orrs i s pxrrti crrlar ly f r us tra ti n g . R a ti o n a l a rg u me n ts are of no avai l ;' l ' l rr. l )t' tecti vc
will be ab l e to p i c k o u t s o m e d e ta i l th at he takes to corrl i rrrrl ri s ow rr
view. Indeed, the very act of persuasion can become tlrr' olrject <l['
his s us p i c i o n . Wh y , h e w i l l c h a l l e nge, are you so i ntt.rcsted i rr
getting me to change my mind? You, too, then come within thc
pur v iew o f h i s s u s p i c i o n .
The notion that things are not as they seem can lead to a curious complication. If, after searching every nook and cranny, events
fail to confirm his beliefs, The Detective need not let facts upser[
his preconceptions: the failure to confirm suspicions simply proves
how clever and deceitful people can be. Contradictions and disconfirmations are easily dismissed, while trivial or irrelevant data art,
s eiz ed up o n .
The dramrr.ticflavor of this nether world of suspicion and imagined intrigue is capttrred by the spy thriller genre. The works ol'
Robert Ludlurn are particularly apt, as the fbllowing review of ont.
of his boo k s re fl e c ts :1 2
Do you have clearance to read this article? Are you absoIutelg certain no one {bllowed you horne from the newsstand? It's all right; you won't be allowed to finish it
anyway-in the world of Robert Ludlum, no one finishes
even the most innocent activity before a hulking stranger
looms out of the shadows wielding a deadly Graz-Burya
automatic. That woman who just got on the bus-wasn't
she two carts behind you on the supermarket line? There
are conspiracies here so vast that literally euergone is u
part
of them. Secrets so dark that literally no one knoa,s'
'them.if
yo., have to ask what's going on, yn,r already know
too much.
Not that The Detective is caught up in such a f'antasyworlrl ol
deep int ri g u e . Bu t L u d l u m p u s h e s to i ts extreme the bent o{' rrri rrrl
t hat t y pif i e s th i s s o rt o f c o g n i ti o n . In i ts garden vari ety, tht' srrrrrr.
key factors operate: things are not what they seern, tr grraxlt.tl srrs
pic ious ne s s i s a t w o rk , a n d a th e o r y of hi dder) nl (' i uri rrgst' i rrr l rr.
c onf ir m e d i f th e p ro p e r c l u e s a re fb und. The tl rt' orv rrrrrr'l rt, rrttr.r' l v
m undane -th e m a i l m a n i s w i th h o l d i ng nry nri ri l , l rt,,rpl t.:rrt,t:rl ki rrg
about m e b e h i n d my b a c k -b trt th e opt' r' i rti orrsl rv rrl ri t' l r i t i s corr
f ir m ed are i d e n ti c a l to th o s e L rrc l l rrrrr< ' l rr' orri t' l r' ..
T he D e te c ti v e ' s s o rttt' ti tttt' sl l o ri rl vi l rv ol rr' .rl rl r .rr' ,l tl rr,;rl l r.rr

THEDETEcTIVEI l4l
tronirl maneuvers he uses to validate that view are in themselves
tlrr. surface signs of deeper mechanisms at work. These traits belie
., rlistinctive set of self-deceits, a particular pattern of psychic barr rlr.S rected against the dread of certain threats. Those lacunas
r.rrrcThe Detective both his unique talents and his great failings'

THE ANAToMY oF PSYcHrc ARMon

THE ANATOMY
OF PSYCHICARMOR

ml
Ihreats to his feelings of competence trigger The Detective's defenses. For example, in a p"riug" that reads like the
opening of a Franz Kafka short story, shapiro tells of a well-respected and able man who, nevertheless, *", ,rrrr.rre of his competence and defensive about his rank at work. One day he made
a
mistake.
"It was a mistake of no greqt consequence,"
says shapiro,r,l
"easily corrected, and hardly likely to be noticed
by arryorr"
Nevertheless, for- some days afterwards, he was preoccupied "1r".
with
imagining even the most remote possibilities of being discovere4
and the humiliation that would, according to him, folliw from discovery. During that time, when the boss walked by, he 'noticed,arr
irritable glance and imagined the boss to be thinking, 'This man is
'the
the weak link in our organization.'" Shapiro ends
narrativt.
there, but it is easy to imagine a sad tale ensuing, where nonexistent slights and insults concatenate into a grotesque and tragit.
end.
When The Detective perceives such a threat his defenses nrobilize. His attention focuses into a single powerful beam that airrrs
to confirm the suspicion. While he searches the world around hirrr
for clues and confirmations, he meanwhile constricts his rapgs pl'
experience so as to cut himself off from his own feelings and irrrpulses. After all, a command headquarters under siege"canlet
lr1
distracted bv such irrelevant stirrings. He handles theie trnwa'tr.tl
feelings by casting them out-projection.
The formula for projectio" tur two stages. In thr, first, . rlist ur bing f ee l i n g ,
' l l l ri rt,i rr
i d e a , o r i mp u l s e ra i s e s a ti de of i rrst,r.rrri ty.
t ur n, m obi l i z e s d e fe n s e s : a tte n ti o n i s f octrser<orrtw
l
i rr.rltl, i r. i rrl r.r.rri rt
dom ain- pa rti c u l a rl y th e d i s ttrrb i n g a s1-l cct-i s l rl or,krrrl r.tltrr
. tl rr.
s ec ond s t a g e th e p e rs o n s c i tn s w i tl r rr rri rrtcrrs(.susprr,i orrrrrr.ss
rurrl

| 143

,r r,z('son corroborating clues. Those confirmed clues are pieced

t,,r' 1' [[st to paint a pict ur e of t he enem y which bear s an uncanny
r'rilarrity to that original disturbing aspect of the self.
Once cast out, the projected self seems to be a stranger-and a
.rrrster one at that. When he confronts his own projected suspir rr,nSand anger in the image he constructs of his enemy, he is
' ,,,,rl'fhe
rl eto reco gnize any of him self t her ein.
Detective's favored intrapsychic posture, then, is a coml ,rrrtti on of thr ee m aneuver s: denial of his own weakness and ill
', rll, the projection of these aspects of himself onto others, and the
',rnl()ingeffort to confirm the truth of those projections by searching
l,,r tt:lltale clues. His denial is fiercer than the garden variety; he
rr,rtonl1, denies his own inadequacy and hostility, but disowns it
l rr l rrrrl i ng i t out ont o ot her s. He him self is not m alicious, vindictr\ (' . or j eal ous; it is "t hey"- t he
ot her s- who har bor t hese f eelrrrri stow & rd h im . A sim ple r ever sal just if ies his r esent m ent s while
rl ' .,ol vi nghi m .
I)rojection may be mobilized under stress, when the person is
,,rr llre defensive. But it can also be an active ongoing part of the
1r.rs{)r's mental organization. In this milder form it most often
,lr,n's up as peculiar preoccupations with some favorite form of
' rl l rri ny-w el fa r e cheat s, say, or t he m or ally im pur e. I t also can
' { )nr(,to typify a chronic interpersonal problem, the specific players
, l ,.rrrgi ngfrom t im e t o t im e and place t o place.
l)r'ojection makes people "difficult." The lives of such people
,,,' li'ccluently haunted by
long string of resentful lovers, unfair
" People of this sort often find themlr.ss(,S,or callous landlords.
., lrcs in stormy relations, particularly when they feel their auton,rr\ is at stake. This puts them at odds with those in positions of
.,rrtl rori ty as well as t hose whose at t achm ent s t o t hem ( lover s,
'.p.usr.s, family) threaten to restrict their sense of freedom.
lsolittion compounds The Detective's difficulties. Unwilling to
rrrrstothers and conf ide his doubt s and insecur it ies, he is ber ef t of
rl,(. svnrpathetic listener-a listener who might offer another per1r.t' l i r,,r' rnor egr ounded in r ealit y. Wit hout such r ealit y checks, his
,r' .1ri t' i < l rrs
c<lnt inueunr est r ained, gat her ing conf ir m at ion of a cockr r r ' (I l l rt' ory. Wit hout closenessor shar ing, lacking anyone who can
' ,)unl (,r' l ri s rrr r lr r iclleclim aginat ion, he is vulner able t o an incr eas,tl , rrri rl ri l i tyt o sce t hings as ot her s do.
' l ' l rt. r' ogr r it ivc pir t t cr ns t hr r t t ypif y The Det ect ive's psychic : r r rr,nnr( (' l ur l rt ' sr r r r r r r r t 'rrlr lr li'ont it r t ot her r t t r gle, in t t : r t r t s <lf 't hr t st '
r l r.rncrrl sol ' r'r 1l<. r 'icr r t 't 't lr lr tis lr lir r t l spot s lr ir lt 'it r r t l t lr ost 't lr ir t t lr t 'v
l ,rr' l rl i cl rt.' l ' l r , r st . r r spr , t 'ls ol'r 'r pclir r r t 't 'in
lr iglr liglr l loot r t lr r t gr '
,r rl l rrrr ' l ' l rr' l) t 't ct 't ivr s ( '\ lr lt it t t t 'r '. , \ s lllt 'kr 't \ \ 'or r l, l lr r r l r l, 'l'lr r '

I44 | vrrel Lrlrs,srN{r,r,r,r'r'uurHS

D e te c ti v e " fe ti s h i z e s " th c s c r' l t' rrrents,carvi ng out s1> t' t:i al
tal ents
a n d fi n d i n g h i s u n i q u e a l ril i ti t' s w i thi n that real m. H i s attenti onal
b l i n d s p o ts , th o u g h , l c rrv t ' kt' v rrspects of experi enc' c hi dden i n
shadow.
A c o g n i ti v e p ro fi l t' o l ' 'l ' l rc l )etecti ve' s bl i nd spots and hi ghlights:
HrcHrrcnrs

Blrur sPoTS

The telling detail

The obvious

S u rp ri s e s : a n y th i n g rto t,t' 1,ottt

o f th e o rd i n a ry o r u n (' x l l c c t crl

H i d d e n n rt:i rn i rrg s

Strrface
I)()arance
'l'lre context that lends meaning
'l-hc real significance of facts

T h e C l rre : T h c rl t' ti ri l tl rrrtfi ts l ri s

s c h e me

Whirt is irrelevant to his precont' t' i verl schema

A n e n e m y i n h i s o w n i rt rugt' :
angrv, weak, etc.

l l i s ow n hosti l e feel i ngs, w eaknoss(' s, i rnd i mpul ses; how

others {'eel, especially tender
f'eelings

Other people's faults

His clwn firults

T h re a ts rl r th c i r I)o s s i l ri Ii tv

How do such quirks take root in personality? Where does Thc

Detective learn his paranoid stance? In short, how do we take on ir
diversionary schema? For these answers we have to go back to tht:
early encounters a child has with the world, and the patterns ol'
interaction that mold our most basic schemas.
The paranoid style is a useful case in point simply because il
has been so well studied and described in both its benign an<f
extreme forms. But, as we will see, this attentional style exemplifies a universal process of development: We have all learned sorrrr,
ways of alleviating our anxieties by trimming attention, sealing oll'
painful experience.

MICROEVENTS
AT THE OK CORRAL

ichael. nine months old. and his mother are havnr1 t battle, The object of their fight is acardboard leaf, one of the
srrlr'()sof a jigsaw pvzzle. Michael's mother offers him the lea{';
\lrllrael slowly raises it to his mouth. The battle begins.
"No . . . it's not for eating," says Michael's mother, as she takes
leaf away.
Michael yells, quick and loud.
"Don't you yell at your mother," she says in a feisty tone. Brrt
gives him back the piece. She watches as he again raises it trr
rrrouth, then catches his hand with an emphatic "No!"
"Uh- h- h! " M ichael pr ot est s.
She lets go, and Michael chews on the leaf with a contente<l
i l tr n nl ur.

"Taste good? It's only cardboard," says his mother, defeatetl.

'l-his incident is from a videotape recording hours of intc,rat'trorr sbet ween M ichael and his m ot her , m ade by t he r esear ch llsv,l rr:rt r ist Daniel St er n. Dr . St er n has analyzed hundr ecls r t l'
rrrl r. r 'uct ions
like t his, which he calls "m icr oevent s, " bet weer r l) 't iut v
,rtl rr. rr' not her s and t heir inf ant s. St er n calls t his par t icular r t t it 'r or.rr.nt "The Shoot - out at t he O K Cor r al. " He's quit e f ar niliar wit lr
rl r,. ir r t er act ion.Fr om f ilm s of M ichael and his m ot her m it <lt tov( 'r 'it
Irr ,-v oilr per iod, St er n has f ound sixt y- t hr ee sin- r ilarepisot lt , s. r'
St t : r n sees babies and t heir m ot her s as ar "cor r lt lc" o{' sot 'ls,
rrrr1 , , , r ) ing
par t nc: r sin lif e. M ichael ancl his r not ht : r hit ve r t 'lllt vt 't l llr r '
' ,l r,o t - or r tsc( lucnc( :since hc wr t s: t t least lt t t t r t t t t lt t t lr st t lt l, it t t t l lt lolr .,l ,l y lir r 'licr . I t s st ir n<lar <lr or r t it t t : : M it 'lr lur l lr t t t s sot t r t 't lr ir r gir r lr is
rrrolllr . lr is r r r ot lr r . r 't r 'llslr ir r rlo t lkc it ot t l; lt t 'gt 't s: t t r gr y, slr c r r 'lct t ls.
St r . r 'n lr : r s 1lir . t 'r . <lt ogt 'llr cr r r vir lcot r t glc ol't lr csc s( '( lt t ( 't t ( '( 's,
..l r,rr vir r gil t c r , r ur t 'lr , r willr
l
; r r voot lt 't r l, l, x'k, pr t t '1r ll slt , r , 's,pl; t slt l

r
146 | r'r'r',1r.
l,rEs,srMlr.lj'r.ri(r.r.rts

r ings fro m a to y . Mi c h a e l ' s m o th e r i s there each ti rrrt,, tr' l l i rrg S i rrr

no, t ha t i t' s y u c k y . Mi c h a e l ' s a n g er takes several forrrrs:l rr.thr< l w s
things, shouts, knocks things over.
Through the repeated enactment of this shoot-out, Stern llt,.
liev es , M i c h a e l i s l e a rn i n g s o m ethi ng: i f he asserts hi ms' l l '
strongly, he gets what he wants. That schema, says stern, will
lrc
reinforced for Mjchael with progressive variations throughout li{Lr.
It is through just this sort of earry interactiorr, ,uy developmental psychologists, that we learn the habits that shape our
most
basic responses. They encode schemas with far-reaching implic,rtions for how we will register and react to life. Many of tf,esela.ly
patterns have to do with attention; attentional schemas,
as we havt.
seen, shape the deep structure of personality.
Socialization of attention is part of the normal course of growth,
But there are some especially telling cognitive patterns-typically
inculcated outside the awareness of both the chita arrd p.r".rtthat can come to form the attentional armor of the deferrses.
Thc
child psychologist selma Fraiberg describes the beginnings
.1,
such a pattern in the son of a depressed teenaged mothJr.rg
The mother spent much of her time alternating between a
clt,.
pressed sulk and outbursts of rage. whethe. d"plrsed
or angry,
she paid no attention to her son.
Fraiberg made a startling observation. when the son was in
ir
room with strangers, his gaze would rest on their faces but pass
over his mother's without a flicker of recognition. He would
look at her, let alone smile at her. when diitr"rsed, he would '.t
nol
call out to her. He had learned to avoid his moth"r, to ignore
ht.r
presence-a defense that seemed to serve as his bastion
agairrsl
the pain of maternal neglect. He simply visually edited her
fr'rrr
his world. what is remarkable is that tlis happened so early in lili,:
the child was just three months old.
The permutation of that avoidance over the years could easitv
become articulated in adulthood as a lacuna, the blanking out ol'
pain with one or another form of disattention. Observation.s
ol'rrrrother three-month-old infant and her mother offer details of tlrt,
kinds of interaction that would lead an infant so young to sh.w
tlrr,
glimmerings of a defense. The observations were made
by Str.rrr irr
his study of microevents; the baby's name was
Jenny.16
Jenny's mother was an animated woman *h,, ,rr, first rrrt.r.tirig
s t r uc k S te rn a s " i n tru s i v e , c o n tro l l i ng, ancl ovcrsti rrrrrl i rti rrg
l ry rrrosl
s t andar d s ." T h e m o th e r s e e me d to need a hi gl r l 1vr.l 6l ' r' xt.i tr.rrrr.rrl
and " wa n te d th e l e v e l s h e w a n te c l w hr.rr.s/rr rt,rrrrtr' <i t."
l
l fv tl rr.
t im e S te rn o b s e rv e d J e n n y a n d h r,r rrl otl rr.r.,
l l rr.r.l r:rrlrv,rrkr.rtorrlrl
danc e t h a t w e n t s tl n rc tl ri rrg l i k r. tl ri s. W l rr.n(.\,(.rl l rr.rr (.\,(,s l ri rp
penec l t< l rrrt' t' t,tl r< ' rrro tl rr.r' rv o rrl rgo
l i nl o l rrgl ,

M(cRoEvENTS AT THE oK coRRAL

I L47

,,,,,1lroisterousbaby talk. It was too much for ]enny: she would

l " , r k : t W& ! .

ller mother took this as a cue to up the level of her assault. She
,r.rl(l swing around to meet Jenny's averted face head-on, and
lrr r,nr another barrage. Jenny would again turn away, burying her
l,r,r' in the pillow. The mother continued to chase Jenny, moving
, \.'n closer, burbling even louder, and adding tickling. Stern re;r,sts that watching this invasion was "almost physically painful to
' ,rt .rrrd w atc h. I t engender s f eelings of im pot ent r age and. . . a
trpl rl cni ng i n t he gut or a headache. "
f cnny, grimacing, closed her eyes and swung her head to the
,,tlr.r side to evade her mother. Her mother followed Jenny over,
rrrrlr nw volleys of coos and tickles. After several failures to ens,,r;,,'
.fenny, the mother picked her up under her arms and held her
f,r,,' l o-face. Jenny looked, but as soon as she was put down, she
l ,r,rrr' (lher h ead in her pillow. As t he r out ine went on, t he m ot her
sr,t \ isibly frustrated, angry, and confused. It ended with Jenny,
, r\ urt{,bei n g put t o bed.
Stern found it "inconceivable" that Jenny's mother could be
of how obnoxious was her way with Jenny. He suspected
'rr,rn'ar
','nr(' unconscious maternal hostility" at its root. Still, ever the
rr ',r';u'chr,he refrained from interfering.
,\f ter several weeks of observations, the basic pattern between
rrrrv
and her mother was unchanged. But increasingly each
f,
., .'nr('<lto give up a little on the other. Jenny looked at her mother
l , ' ,' , ;rrrdl es s; her m ot her t r ied t o engage her less. "I becam e pr o!.,rr' \\i ' u' elmor
y e concer ned, " com m ent ed St er n, "when a week or
.,, l ;rl cr Jenny's avoidance of eye cont act was alm ost com plet e. . .
l r' r l ;rt,(ral most expr essionless. "
\Jow Stern was positively alarmed. His alarm stemmed from
tlr, krrowledge that avoiding eye contact and face-to-face engagerrr.rrt i n i nfa ncy is one of t he ear liest sym pt om s of childhood auI r' ,rrrW as Je nny on her way t o schizophr enia?
llrrppily, no. A month later, worried by the potential seriousr,( ' ,' \ ol ' w ha t his videot apes showed, St er n m ade a hom e visit . By
tl r.rr, sorne how, t hey had m ade peace. Jenny's m ot her was less
rl,r'.r1('tlirr her ptrrsuit of Jenny's attention. And Jenny now seemed
l r, l q1' ri rl rl e t o t ake- indeed, t o enjoy- her m ot her 's ant ics. The
,trrr\ (l ocs r r ot end t her e, as St er n not es: 17
' \l crrt' lrr r cw yr hit se<lf 'clevelopr nentJenny
and her m <lt her
,
Irrvr, l uul t o r t . lllly' t his lxr sit ' st 't 't t ir r ioof 'ovt : r sht l<lt it t t <l
r,.sol rrlior r . lr r r t wit lr r lilli'r 'r 'r r t st 'ls ol' lr t 'lut vior s lt t t <l r t t
r . r lo not vt 'l kr r t t t l, u'lt : t l
l ri ul rr.r lcvr 'ls ol'( ) r 'g; r r r izr r t iotWc
.,l rcrrgllr slr r r r l ; r ssr 'ls, , t lt , lt ; t t r vt 'lt knlsst s: t t t ( l r l, 'li, 'ils lor
lllr'ltlltttr'!.'rrrt't"

lr.r

r"l

'r"'1"""

l-'''"-

'-

rll

l'

'

148

| vrrel

MICRoEvENTS AT THE oK coRRAL

LrES, srMpLE TRUTHS

em e rg e w i th . . . . T h e l i n e b e tw een an earl y copi rrg mechanism ancl an early defense maneuver is thin.
The nritstcry of defensive maneuvers as protectiorr against tht,
pains o f' l i fi r i s a u n i v e rs a l a s p e c t o f grow i ng up. E vr.r-vchi l d l earns
a variety o1'attentional tactics; healthy children art' {lexible aborrt
whic h i s trs t' c lw h e n . D e n i a l h a s i ts pl ace, as do ci tch of the othgr
def ens c s . A s T l -re o d o reM i l l o n o b serves:18
T h c s t' t' s s c n ti a l l y u n c o n s c i o u s mechani sms arnel i oratethe
dis c o rrrfo l t e x p e ri e n c e d w h e n chi l dren are trnabl e to res ol v t' tl rc i r p ro b l e ms d i re c tl y .A try of the cl assi caldefense
r r rtc l ri rrri s 1 v 1 s -l s p re s s i o n ,s u bl i mati on, rati onal i zati onwil l s t' r' v t' to re l i e v e th e a n g u i sh; they are useful al so i n
that tlrt'l' t'rrable the person to rnaintain equilibrium until
a ll t' ttt' r' s ,l rrti o r-rc a n b e mu s te red. H eal thy copi ng may be
chtnrctc.iz.r'rl, then, both by retreat and r"if-d"""ptio". . . .
on l y w l rc rr tl rr' p e rs o n p e rs i s t entl y di storts and deni es the
< ll l .j c c ti v t'w o r' l rl rl < l th e s e u n consci ous mechani sn-rsi nterf'eru' . . .
T r < l trl l l c tr' 1 ti c ' i tl l vo c c ' trrsw h e n the chi l d faces some ongoi ng,
r elent le s s , i rn rl rc p t' u tt' < l th re a f: a hosti l e, control l i ng mother, 1rr
abus iv e fa th e r, ttl ri tttc l < tn rn c nTt.h e chi l d comes to expect troul l l r,,
and da re s n o t l e t c l ttw rth i s g u a rl . H e comes more and more to rt.l v
on a favored def'ense, a halrittral nrocle of keeping his feelings corrtrolled and protected in a heartless world. What once may havt,
been an effective, apprclpriute rnuneuver becomes a fixture in lris
mental economy, expands to vun<1uishan entire range of expt.r.i.
ence. In this way, a handy coping tactic becomes neurotic defensr.,
T he p o p u l a r b e l i e f i s th a t d e {' ensesand neuroses ari se as tl rr,
result of a single, powerful trauma. Clinical wisdom instead has rt
that a defensive style is gradually learned, the result of repeatt,rl,
protracted encounters over a long while. The attentional pattt.r'rrr
learned in childhood become self-perpetuarting: once a certain (.li.
pectation of threat is learned, the person becomes predisposcrl ln
look {br and find it-or look away to avoid it.
W h e n ro u ti n e s tra te g i e sfo r h a ndl i ng di ffi cul t ti mes fai l u t.l ri l rl ,
s ay s M i l l o n , h e w i l l re s o rt to i n creasi ngl y more di storti rrg rrrrrl
deny ing ma n e u v e rs . T h e ru l e o f thumb i n copi ng, renl .,rrrl rcr' rr
,
t hat wh e n o n e c a n ' t d o a n y th i n g to change the si ttrati on, tl rt,otl i t.r
r ec our s e i s to c h a n g e h o w o n e p e rcei aes i t. Tl tat rl t' {i ' rrsi vt,trt,i sl ol
at t ent io n i s th e j o b o f a d i v e rs i o n ary scht:nur. Il ' tl ri s l r,orks rrs rl
t em por a ry ta c ti c fo rth e c h i l d , w e l l rrnrl goorl ; rr l rrrl rrrrr,r,ils.sl .,rr.rl
and he c a n re s u me An e v e l t k c e l . Il rrt i l tl rc tl rrcrrl i s l or,l )(.r\rsl r.rrl ,
to o ttn renr it t ing,

t oo s t ' v t ' r ' t ' . t lr c r . lr i l r l . l r r r , . s r r o l l r . l r l , r r r r r

l i rt;ttrl

| 141)

ln such cases, when exposure to threat and frustratiort is cottIrrrrnrl,the child meets life with the expectation that danger is nigh'
l lrc attentional armor he adopted for the moment becomes part of'
lrr,. ongoing stance; even when no objective discomfort exists, he
l,r.r,1rshis defenses up to ward off a danger that might come. "De,,,i,i,,d initially to protect against recurrences of the painful past,"
,.,rs Mi l l on, his def ensive st ance "no\ y' dist r act s and m isguides"
rl ,,' c,hi l d. A s a child st ar t s coping wit h non exist ent - but ant icis,,rl r.cl -peri l s,his cognit ive wor ld becom es inf lexible: his def ense
',t.rvSprominent, his self-deceptions fixed.

How ro RAISE A PAIIAN()It) |

HOW TO RAISE
A PARANOID

rn
I1,,, I)etective s paranoia has roots similar to thost,
describecl by I)r. Sterrn.An adult's fully articulated patterns of attention trace back to childhood. In the repetition ol microevents
the child learns the partir:trlar set of schemar-and defensive mirneuvers-on which he will
to rely when anxiety threatens.
"utrl"
The case in point is paranoia.
one of the most famous partnoids in the annals o{'psychiatry is Daniel Schreber, a Germlrr
judge who went mad at the age of forty-two, and whose
case wirs
subsequently used by Freud as the basis for his theory of paranoi..
Freud's elaborate intrapsychic model of the inner forces tliat spawrr
the pathology seems, though, to miss some compelling evije..,,,
that the relationship between schreber and his father was the <lirect cause of his later paranoia. So immediate was the cause arrrl
effect, some suggest, that Freud's elaborate theory of paranoia rrriry
be superfluous as an explanation.
The senior Schreber was a sort of nineteenth-century | )r,
Spock who wrote a series of books on child-rearing so popular tlurl
some went through forty printings and were translatedl"io sevt.r.rrl
languages. The method of child-rearing these books advocate n.ir<ls
like a recipe for inducing the twists of mind and spirit tfirrt r.igrlrr
into paranoia' They seem to have had that result, at any ratLr,irr tlrt.
c as e of h i s s o n .
M orto n Sc h a tz ma n , i n a b o o k cal l ed S oul Murcl er, cl ocrrrrrr,i rtr
in det ai l th e m e th o d b y w h i c h th e seni or S chrerb(,rs(,t tl rc rrrr.nti rl
s t age of h i s s o n ' s l a te r p s y c h o s i s . teThese i rrcl rr< l r.rt rri gl rtrrpl i sl r
as s or t me n to f d e v i c e s fo r p h y s i c a l r estrai rrt,ostr.rrsi Ir| \,rl r.si grrr.rI
l 1r
s uc h pu rp o s e s a s i n c u l c a ti n g ttrt t ' rt.< ' tl rostrrrr.,u,l ri r' l r tl rr.sr.rrrnl
S c hr eb e r i n fl i c te d < l n h i s t' h i l rl rc rr. W ' l rcrrS t.l rrr.l rr.r\\.(.rrlrrr;rrlr,.,rrr

l,-rI

Lrt.r' .echoe s of t hese cont r apt ions wer e evident in his psyclt ot ir '
, l , l rrsi ons.*
l'arallel to the physical restrictions the senior Schreber inl l r, tt' d on hi s son wer e m ent al ones. He just if ied t his r eign of m ent.rl tvranny under the rubric of training the child in self-control, in
rt' ,r' l l ' al auda ble cause. Ther e is not hing wr ong wit h a par ent set trrrril i mi ts a nd disciplining a child; t o do so is quit e nat ur al. But
tl r. rrronnerin which t he senior Schr eber went about t his t ask had
,,nr(' trnfortunate repercussions in his son's mental condition. For
,,,rrrpl e, S chr eber 's f at her wr ot e: 20
l,lilch forbidden desire-whether or not it is to the child's
rlisadvantage-must be consistently and unfailingly opposed by an unconditional refusal. The refusal of a desire
,rfone i s not enough t hough; one- has t o see t o it t hat t he
clfiId receiaes thi,s refusal calmlg, and, if necessary, one
Itus to make this calm acceptance a firm habit by using a
stern word or threat. Never make an exception from this.
. . This is the only way to make it easy for the child to
;rttain the salutary and indispensable habit of subordination and control of his will. [emphasis added]
'l'he net effect of such a regime is a double restriction: the child
rrrrr' ,tsomeh ow keep him self f r om f r eely expr essing his nat ur al im g,rrl .,r' and
s
needs, and m ust also over com e his r eact ion t o t heir
lrr nr( thwarted. He cannot cry, sulk, or be angry, because the de,,,,,r(l i s to a ccept his f r ust r at ion calm ly. A r esigned silence is t he
, ,, I r rl)pl'oved response. And all this is asked of a child not yet two.
ll there is no avenue to express the hurt such a regime must
, r,k(', then another way to tneet these demands is to repress that
l rrrrt to stam p out t hese f eelings f r om one's exper ience. This is
tl ,, l i rst step in cult ivat ing a par anoid: t r ain him t o deny t o him self
l ,r , l r' .' l i ngs of r age and hur t t owar d his par ent .
'I'lrcre
rrre many twists of attention that might result from the
,l ,,rrl ,l crl i ctt r m t o hide one's f eelings and hide t he f act t hat one has
l ,,,l ,l ,,rrtl rcn r . The par anoid def ensive st yle of f er s one easy solutr,,, S trrrtwit h ir par ent who dem ands a child suppr esshis anger at
child can neit her let t he anger show nor let cln
.
I' rrr' rrt:rlrrl )us( . The
tl r,rttl rr. l l i rr t . r r tlr a<la hancl in ur ousing it . To shield his par ent s, t hc
, l ,rl ,l rrrrrstsor r r t . lr owkccp f i'<lnrblar ning t hem f or t he f - eelingst hey
1,,,r,'(' ;urs(. t 1.At t t 'r r t i<lr r irtl ir t 't ic'swor k well t o hide t his esscnt ial
l rrrl l r

\\' l rrrt l rr . t t r 'r 'w: r vlo lr it lt 'it t lur n lo <lt 't r vit t o lr ir r r st 'l{i f r r st t o lr t '
l o S c l r; rl / n r; u r. l " rc rrrl \ (' (' l n \ l o l t . rr, ' 1 , , ' , ' t t , rl rl rv t o t rs l o l l r, ' t , rl r' l l rrs
rrr. r\ l t , t r, ' 1 t l , rt , ' , 1 rrr l rrrl g , ' S , l t r, ' l t , ' r" , l t ' , \ , l t , t s t s

!'r n r' r

I52

| vrrel

How ro RArsEA PARANoTD

I 153

LrES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

sure, l-row ubout displacing it, too? The anger does not evaporate,
brrt it can be rnade to seem to, or to have other causes and objects.
I f it won ' t g o a w a y e n ti re l y , th e n a di sgui se w i l l hel p. One possi bility is to trrrn it against oneself: that way lies a lifelong conviction
of wor t hl e s s n e s s .An o th e r ro u te i s to ai m i t el sew here, to fi nd some
other targct thiln one's parents. Denial and dispLtcement-either
solutiorr is arr act of love and devotion: the parents come off blameless, an<l chilclhood can be remembered as the happiest of days.
Contrast this child's anxiety-attention trade-off with a child
wh<l has rrot had to deceive himself, who can keep in experienco
his angcr f ronr the pain, wrongs, and ordinary constraints of chilclhoocl. Not having had to twist awareness away from these feelings,
he kn<lws therir natural terrain. He can be openly angry when
wounclt:cl irs arr acltrlt. He will not carry with him a burden of rage
held btrck lry ir <larrrin awareness.
On the otl'rr:rl-rund,people who have had to hold in such anger
harbor a fbur at what might happen should the dam burst. Then tho
world wotrlcl ttrrn wilclly trnpredictable-rage can kill. So they find
ways to disguise their rage. Often, they hold back other feelings
too; all spontaneity cornes to thregten an eruption of feeling beyond
control.2r
A report of children in Denver who were in therapy becausc
they had been abused by their parents portrays just this picture of
childhood vanquished.22One of the striking features of these children was their somberness. Some never laughed at all; when tht'y
played games with the therapist they did so dutifully, without errjoyment. Most saw themselves as "bad" or "stupid" and were ht'sitant to try anything new lest they do poorly.
Their sense of right and wrong-an obvious legacy from thcir
parents-was extremely rigid and punitive. Their rules for wlrll
was good and bad were ironclad. When other children oversteppr.rl
these bounds, they became furious. But they were unable to <lisplay any anger whatever toward adults. The paranoid process, it
seems, was at work: they had learned to deny the anger they li,lt
toward their parents (or, as an extension, other adults), and wt'r'r,
all too ready to displace it on more amenable targets-otherr r'lrildren.
Although they could express no anger toward grown-ups, tlrt:y
wer e s e e th i n g w i th i t. T h e i r s to ri e s and games w ere fi rl l ol ' l rrrrl ul
aggression:23
Doll s w e re c o n s ta n tl y b e i n g treatcrr, torrrrt' rrl r.< 1,
rrrrtl
k ille d . Ma n y c h i l d re n re p e a te rl thci r ow rr :rl rrrsci rr l l rci r
play . On e c h i l d , w h o s e s k trl l l ritrl l ri ' r' rr l rl okcrr l l rr.r' l i rrrcs
as t l n i rrfi tn t, i tl w i tv s ttu t< l crrl t stori cs:rl )or1ll rr' ,r;rl l or;rrri

rnother had attempted to drown her when she was a baby,

lregan the play therapy by drowning a doll baby in the
lrathtub. . . . The children were almost never able to ext)ress their anxieties verbally, yet they harbored intense
Ii:elings of rage and a strong desire for revenge, which,
lrowever, were accompanied by great fear of what might
lrappen if these impulses should "erupt.
In these tragic children denial and displacement-key mech,ru\nrs of the paranoid style-are already in place. These paranoid
1,r,' rl i sposi ti onsneed not com e f r om such explosive event s as
,rl rust' ;the same t endencies can be im pr int ed on t he m ind by less
',1,rious forms of tyranny. Violence can come in subtler forms-as
,l r' ,,r1r1)rovi ng
l o oks, silent r ebuf f s, hum iliat ion, or love wit hdr awn.
llr. rrt effect can be the same, provided the implicit injunction is
rrr' ,l i l l ed:that the par ent is blam eless f or t he f eelings of hur t and
,,rr' (' r'that the c hild f eels.
,\ child who expects rejection from his parents may become
l r r 1,r'ralertto signs of it in his playmates. Such a child is likely to
'l r ,tort innocuous comments, seeing them as hostile. In anticipation
,tl ',rrc:hhostility, the child prepares to counter it by meeting his
I' l .rrrrratesw i th a cold, r igid st ar e and som e aggr essivewor ds. This
rrr lrrrn evokes the very response it was meant to anticipate-the
,l ,rl rl l recomes t he t ar get of his playm at es'r eal, r at her t han im ag,,,, ,1, hosti l i ty. His suspiciousness has cr eat ed what it pr edict ed.
l l ,,' t:hi l d has found his playm at es r eject him , just as his par ent s
, lr,I , 11,l1ish
justifies his becoming even more suspicious and hostile.
\ r rt'ious cycle is begun, which will end as the full-blown suspi' r,,rrsncssw e sa w in The Det ect ive.
'l'lre basic recipe for shaping attention into this paranoid patl r r rr, i rr summar yt zl
l. 'fo be hurt as a small child without anyone acknowledging
tl rr .;i trrati onas such;
l. 'Io fail to react to the resulting suffering with anger, denying
,r(' \ ow n t' eelingst o oneself ;
:]. 'fo show gratitude to one's parents for what are supposed to
| ,, I l rt,i r goocl i n t ent ions;
l . ' l ' o l i rrge t ever yt hing;
5 ' l ' o rl i sl t lace t he st or ed- up anger onto others in adulthood
,," ,1l ;ri l to rroti cc t hir t what seem s to be their anger is one's own.
'l 'l r r 'p r r r t 'r r t

w l r o l r a s sr r fk:r t,<l u c:h i l cl h o <l clw h i ch h a s h a r n m e r e cl

l r r ', . r l l c t r l i o r r i t l l l l r ttt'r r r i r r l o l l r l r t o l 'l r i r r i r r r <l i r ri s tl r r i tr ' l i kt'l y t<l r t.l l t.l r t
l l r , '', , t t l r ( '( 'l ', '1 . 'w i tl r
l r i s r ) w n ( 'l r i l tl r cr r .'l 'l t<'l r l r ttl t'o r r <'t'l o sl
rrs rr
, I r r l , l l ' l l r r ' l r ; rr sl r p svt'l r o l o ;i i t'r r l r r ';l i r tr c o l l r i s p r r l cr r l s ( 'i l r r l r r . r r '

l5 l

I r r r u , l,tr ,:s,ri l \n,t,t,:,l .l rU .t.us

' l ' l rt' r' r'

i rl ' (' (' o tl l l tl e s s vari ati ons on thi s process.
W e are ,' rost
l ;rrrri l i rt'w i th th o s e th a t e n d i n an
attenti onal extreme l i ke parar.i 6
s i rrrp l y b e c a u s e c l i n i c a r research
has focur" J o' them. The nrrst
widely known description of an inculcated
style of pathologir,rrl
perception is what Gregory Bateson
and his associates descrilrt,d
in the early fifties as the ;'doubre bind,,ia
puii"r' of communicati.R
betwe-en parent and child which
ir, ,"hirophrenia.x
of a doublebind".,lmi'ai",
i, t*o-Ldg"d
*iin *f,u
obvious
"
^"..,,11:_:111""
meaning contradicted by
-"rr-ug",
o.r"-.rrrhe
ovlri rr,"rrngu
is in tandem with a lacuna that" shields
"o,r"ra
the contradiction f*rm
awareness. The result is befuddlement:
it is impossible to comllly
with both messages at once, but one
cannot say why that is so, o,
even that it is so. The covert message
commonly is sent Do'v(llr
bally, by posture, tone of voice, gesture,
muscular tightening, arrd
so on. R. D. Laing gives the follo*i.rg
example, ru

A mother visits her son, who has been recovering

from a
mental breakdown. As tre goes toward her
a) she opens her arms fo. f,i* t"
her, and/or
b) to
"-u"""e
him.
"*btu""
he gets nearer she freezesand stiff.ens.
",1 $r
d)
He stopsirresohdely.
e) .Shes-qy:,"Qon't jrou
to kiss your mummy?,,-3p61
as he still standsirresolutely
-"rrt
f) sh,esays,"But, dear, you mustn't be
afraid of your feerings."
He respondsto her invitation to kiss her,
but her posture, freezing, and tension simurtan";;Jy
teil him not t..
That she is frightened of a
r"tuti""rnip *rtr. h;;, ,,,
"tor"
fior some othei reason does
not want him actuaily to ci'
what she invites him to do,
bg one"ry admitted by
the mother, and remains unsaid
"urlojb; h;i
and the son. Ht.
respondsto,the,."unsaid," the *prr.ln
message,..Arthough I am holding my arms out fo-r'yo,i
to
and kiss
me I am reallv frighienld of
"o-e
but
vour;;;;;",
can,tadnrit
this.tomvself orto vou, so f
be too.iil,t. <l<r
so." she conveys,in effect, F;;;;ffiti
bo[h 'D;;;;
embracenre, or.
I will punish yor," and,"rf yo" ao ;;;;'so,
I wiil prrrisrr
you."
The double-bind,theoryproposesthat the
repcatrr<r
t:.rpt.r.ir,
rrr,r,
of messagessuch as "Do ..oi ,.rirnit t.
,lrrlt,r.,,-tlrirt is. rrrr.r
-,
x

o r so d o u b le - b in d th e o r y cla im e d.
schi z,phr.rri rr rr.sr.:l r.r,ll r;rs
r
l ,.l r tl ,,rl ,l ,. l r'rrl
t h e o r y b e h in d , b y a n d tr ti" . ilr i"iii ng
i rrrl i ,t.t l *s l r.r.rr i rr r(.\(.;r(.1'rrr,l rl r,,rrr'1,
co m in u n ica ti" gxrtt<'r'rrs.
srrr.l r;rs l );rrrrr.lsrr.rrr'r ,,1,.,,.rr,rrt,,'r
: F*," fi*n - tfa m ily' s

How ro RArsEA PARANoTD

| 155
,,,r',r's
which are impossible to comply with-creates a warp in the
rr r'1;1ign['shabitual mode of perceiving. In this instance, the theory
l ,,,l rl s ,t he r esult is t he disor der ed t hinking of schizophr enia. The
,l,,rrlrle-bind theory has inspired the more general view that a famrlr r r:ommunication patterns instill in the growing child a charactr r rsti c skew in per cept ion.
'l'he pattern of the paranoid is but one of many attentional
' ,tr,rl t'giest o allay anxiet y. The specif ics of what in a child's ear ly
' \t)('rience inculcates a given lifelong attentional style are largely
,'r'Lrrown. Researchers have only begun to work out the general
t,.r,ruleters of that process for a few extremes-the schizophrenic,
tl,(' l)uranoid, the compulsive. But the varieties of attentional style
' r\(' r' a m uch gr eat er r ange t han t hose f ew t hat ar e m ar ked as
g' ,rt l rological.
t X'the attentional strategies within the natural range we know
r, rr little; of the specific experiences that shape them we know
, \(' n l ess. For now, we can only point t o t he gener al f or ces wit hin
r l.unily that make it a unique shaper of attentional habits and thus
, ,l I rr.r'sonalr ealit ies.
'l'l-roseforces we will explore in the next part. As we shall see,
rl',' l:rrnily stands as the first model we meet in life of how to attend
t,,,1 s!1; 11'sd
r ealit y- and how t o keep anxiet y at bay t hr ough t r icks
,,1 .rl tc nt ion. I n lear ning t o join in t his collect ive exper ience, we
r ,',rnnewhatever twists that particular attentional pattern contains:
, ll tlr:ceptions operate omong us as well as within us.
\Ve are about to switch gears. Up to this point the topic htrs
lr.r'n lrow the attention-anxiety trade-off creates lacunas of variclus
,,rts i rr t he individual m ind. Fr om her e on we will consider how it
r. tl utt such self - decept ions can com e t o be shar ed. To m ake t his
tr.rrr\it ion r equir es only t hat we allow t he possibilit v t hat peoplt '
r.,r sonr ehow synchr onize t heir schem as t o som e degr ee- t hat
,' . (' () nlc t o shar e a com m on under st anding of h<lw t <l const nr t '
r r r .l tl S.

'l 'lr a t i s n o t su ch a fa r fe tch e d

a ssu m p ti o n . In a se n se , a l l ( 'o r ) r r r r r n r i t'r r ti o n i s a n a tte m p t a t su ch a n o r ch e str a ti o n . T<l sh a r e 'i t r l l l l t r r . r l o r r tl o o k, to h a ve tw <l m i n d s "m n n i n g
o n th e sr tr r t( 'tn tc'k,"
r r r ', r r r s tl u tt, to so n r e cl e g r e e , th e i r sch e r n a s a r e r r tt l r :r tst s<l r tr t'r vl r l r t
. rru l : rr r r r r tl o l r cn ttc l tt<l r e <l r l e ss i n ta u r l e r n r .
'
( l o r r vt'r 'sl r ti o r r i s.j r r st sr r t'l r l t c'r tl i l r n tti o r r . At Jo l r r r St't'l v l f t'o r .l 'r r .
I r , r l l r il i vr 'g l svt'l r <l l o u i st,
g l r r t i t to ttt<': "Wl r <'n w t'tl r l k, I'r r r sl o s'l v
. r , l ; r r s l i r r tI r 'r ) r u 'l n ( 'r r l r r l r r r o <l cl o l 'r ttt',:r tr tl vo tr r '( 'i t( l j r r sti n { n r v ttt,r r l r 'l
, , 1 \ o r r. \\'l r ( 'n \'( ) l r l sk l r ,l r csl i <l r r , l l r ( 'r ( ' \ l t cl u u tt'r ' l o ( '{) tr '( 'r 'l so tttr
'. r r l , l l r n r i r r '( ) n r n r r r r r i t':r l i o r r s l l r ;r skttr g , \ ( ) n l n r l r l i cr tl \ r r '\ r r '\\' \ tf n r

156

| vr r e l

How ro RArsE A IARANOTD | 157

L IES, sr M p L E TR U TH S

understanding of all kinds of things. That gives mc ir t.hance to

diagnose the cause of your misunderstanding and fix it. (lommunication is basically a repair process."
What is being "repaired" is the schemas at hand. When wr:
reach an understanding, I grasp your schemas, you grasp mine. Thc
match may not be perfect, but it's closer than before. In a long-ternr
relationship, schemas can become exquisitely calibrated, so that a
single word, gesture, or emphasis can evoke in one's partner a fully
understood statement. The more schemas we share, the less neerl
be said.
It is in our ongoing intimate relationships-spouse, lover,
friend, colleague-that we most readily come to share defensivc
schemas in common. Because of the crucial psychological import
to us of intimate relationships, there is more opportunity for anxieties, such as the fear of loss, than in casual ties. And where therc
are such fears, lacunas more readily arise to offer solace.
Thus when both partners in the relationship sense the sam(,
touchy areas, they can handle the danger by silently agreeing to
veer attention away from these trouble spots. When that attentiontl
skew is mutual and synchronized, a shared lacuna is created. Irr
this way, every relationshipf to some degree, is susceptible to u
characteristic array ofjoint delusions. Such efforts, I believe, conr(,
automatically to us by virtue of the same sort of microevents thtt
Dr. Stern documented between parent and child.
Lacunas in relationships need not be shared, of course. Erncst
Schachtel, a psychoanalyst, describes in one of his patients onr,
such lacuna. The woman, says Dr. Schachtel, complained in tht'r,=
apy that she had "never really looked at her boy friend." Althotrglr
she could gaze at him, she had the distinct sense that she nev(,r
really saw him.t7
In the course of therapy, it developed that the woman's attitude toward her lover was one of trying to please him, and of clirrging to him out of fear that she would do something wrong, anrl srr
lose him. When she was with him, she was in continual fear thut il
she looked at him she would see an expression of disapprovul orr
his face. Thus when she did look at him, her attention was lriglrlv
selective: she saw not his face as it was, but instead sca.nnt'tl lor
signs of approval or disapproval, love or anger. I'his lirctrnu crt.irtr.tl
it s bl i n d s p o t: a l th o u g h s h e h a d seen hi s face many ti nres, sl rr; l r.l t
it remained unknown to her.
A n x i e ti e s s u c h a s th i s w o man f-el t cru l rt' sl urrr.< 1,
or' l l cr' l rrps
m at c h e d , b y d i ffe re n t b u t e q u a l l y strorrg fi .i rrs-i rrrrl l rl i rr< lspots
in on e ' s p a rtn e r. T o s o me e rx te rtt,ol rst' r' r,t' stl rc sot' i ol ogi st l ,)rvi rrg
G of f m a n , th e b < l n c l s< l l ' u rt' l i rti otrsi ri p :rrc sl rcrrgl l rr.rrr.rll rr l i rcrl

l ' l rrrrl spot s. "Thus in well- adjust ed m ar r iages, " he not es, "we ex1',,'l that each partner may keep from the other secrets having to
,l,r lf iffi financial matters, past experiences, current flirtations, in,l ,rl qcrl cesin 'bad or expensive habit s, per sonal aspir at ions and
rr,n' i c)s,a ct ions of childr en, t r ue opinions held about r elat ives or
rrrrrI rrttl friends, et c. " 28
'l'hese strategically
located points of reticence, says Goffman,
i t possible t o m aint ain a desir ed st at us quo. Such pr ot ect ive
" ,,,kt'
rr' trct' nc,of cour se, is all t he m or e secur e if we engage in a sim ple
,,,l l rrsi on : you don't t ell, and I don't ask. And t hat collusion is
only if we bot h know, som ehow, what t o avoid.
1' ,,' ,si l rl e
Indeed, Lilly Pincus and Christopher Dare, both family theraobs er ve t hat as t hey get t o know a couple over t he cour se of
1rr.,l s,
l rr' ,rtrnent ,t hey f ind a sor t of unwr it t en m ar r iage cont r act . This
rl rct' rni lt , t hey say, is bet ween t he unconscious of each, and has
r,, rl , w i th t he par t ner s'm ut ual obligat ions t o f ulf ill cer t ain unspol , r, l ongings and soot he unm ent ioned f 'ear s.I n it s m ost gener al
l ,r rn i t go es som et hing like t his: 2e
" l will attempt to be some of the many important things you
,r.rrrlof' me, even t hough t hey ar e som e of t hem im possible, cont r a,lr, trr-y, and crazy, if yotr will be for me some of the important,
rrrrgr.l ssil) le,
cont r adict or y, and cr azy t hings I want of you. We don't
l ' ,,r,' to l e t each ot her know what t hese t hings ar e, but we will be
' ,,)\\. strl k, becom e depr essed or dif f icult , if we do not keep t o t he
1,.ri l 1;ti n."

S rrchcollusions wor k best when t hey oper at e out of awar eness.

l l rrrs they ar e out - of - bounds f or at t ent ion, m ar ked in awar eness
,,,,1\ l rv a pr ot ect ive blind spot . Because it is pr im al psychological
' ,,,' ,l s that lead t o such blind spot s, t her e is a special ur gency t o
tl ,r' , r' ol l rrsion t o keep f r om at t ent ion what is act ually going on. T<r
1,,' l l l xtck t he veils on at t ent ion is t o lay bar e sensit ive, cleeply
t,,' t,rnrrl r - r eeds.That m ay explain, in par t , why divor ces r lr e so
,,t'l r .

l ', : r t 'l t 1 - l a r tn e r i n a w cl r ki n g ccl u p l e i g n o r e s a r e a s o 1 'sh r r r c<l cxt ', r r ( 'r r t 't ' th :tt w <l tr l cl th r e a te n th e p a r tn e r s' sh a r e cl se n se o f a st'r 'r r r t'.
, ', , , r 1 , , r 't r rl r l t'r cl i r ti o n sh i p . Sh e d o e sn 't co m r n e n t o n th c l o o ks l r c
, 'r \ r '\ \ '( ) u n g ( 'r ' w o n r ( 'r 'l i tt th e l r e a ch ; h e n e ve r n r e n ti <l r r s h i s sr r sl l i , r r r n l l u t t sl r t'l i tkt's o r g i tsr ]) s. Or .'e r ti n r c, tl r e se r l i sc'r 'r 'ti o r r s t'l r r r l r r '' ', n r ( '( '( ) r r vcl tr '<l i ttto l r tt'r r r u ts: tl r t'v <l o r r o t n o ti c't., i r r r <l<l <lr r o t r r o ti <'t.
t l r . r l l l r r . r '< l o r r o t r r o ti ct'.
l l r r t l rt'r r t':tl l r tl r c sr r r 'l :r cc o l 'l l r i s r r n ( 'i r sv l r l l i l r r r <'t' o l 'i r r r r tl cr r l i o r r ,
l l r {'r . l n ; l \ l l c l t t'( 'ssl ) o o l o l :l n .q ( '1 ,r '( 's( 'l r l r r r tr r l , l r r r r 'l - - r r l l r r r r s1 r ,r k,.l r ,
r l r r r r l t t t n to l i t'r 'tl . Sl r ,r r r l r l l l t,',',r r r 1 r l r '\( 'l ) :l r :r l r '. l l r ,',',r l l r r si ,r r r l o p r r .
r t r t ' l l r , ' sl ;tl tr s r l l r o i r l l l r r ' ( '\l ) ( 'n \( ' ( ,1 .,l l cr r l r l l cr r l l o n ( '\ l l l r o r .r l cs,

158 | vrral LrES,sTMPLE

TRUTHS
The ugly feelings emerge in full force once the partners are no
longer invested in their mutual pact to disattend.
The unspoken attentional alliances in such relationships can
be seen as a prototype for the dynamic that characterizes most any
group. My belief is that people in groups by and large come to
share a vast number of schemas, most of which are communicated
without being spoken of directly. Foremost among these shared,
yet unspoken, schemas are those that designate what is worthy of
attention, how it is to be attended to-and what we choose to ig.
nore or deny. When that choice-what to ignore or deny-is madc
in order to damp anxiety, a shared defense is at work.
In the next Part we will explore the means whereby, in learn.
ing to see things the same way, people in groups also learn together
how not to see-how aspects of shared experience can be veiled
by self-deceits held in common.

I,,\IIT F IVE

The
CollectiveSelf

r
THE "WE"

l\/I

I Y Iadness, said Nietzsche, is the exception in indi, r,l rrrrl s,

b ut t he r ule in gr oups. Fr eud agr eed. ln cr oup Psgchologg
," ,' l tl t( Analgsis of t he Ego, Fr eud wr ot e, "A gr oup is im pulsive,
, l r,rrr(r' i r bleand ir r it able. " Wit h no lit t le disdain f or t he ways of t he
' r,,\\(1,Freud saw people in gr oups as r egr essing t o an inf ant ile
t.rt. rrsi r consequence of m em ber ship.
l''r't'ud quotes Le Bon, a French commentator on crowd psy,1,,,1,)rtvt o, t he ef f ect t hat when diver se people get t oget her as a
rtr' ,ul r,the y have "a sor t of collect ive m ind which m akes t hem f eel,
rl rrrrk,l nd act in a m anner quit e dif f er ent "f r om t hat in which t hey
r.' rl rl i rct on t heir own. A gr oup, said Fr eud, "is led alm ost exclu" ,' l \ l ry t he unconscious. "
l " r' t' r r dcont inues, af t er Le Bon: I
\ uloup is extraordinarily credulous and open to influ..('(', it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does
rrrt t' x ist f br it . I t t hinks in im ages, which call one anot her
,r1rl rv associt r t ion. . . and whose agr eem ent wit h r ealit y is
,(' \' (' r ' checked by any r easonable agency. The f eelings of
.r 1{r'oul)ilre ulwtrys very simple and very exaggerated, sO
l l r:rt a gr 'ollt rknows
)
neit her doubt nor uncer t aint y.
l l r " gr t t t t lt " F- r et r t lr neunt sor net hing t hat bor der ed on a nr oll,
l ,rtl .rl s, rtt r v lit r gt 'or gr t r r izir t ionlike t he Chur ch or an ilr nr y, llot h ol'
' , 1' r,l r l tc us( 's it s ( : it s( '( 'xir r nplest o illr r st r at e his t hc<lr y.What st '11rr,rt.i ;l r r r 'oull" {i'or r rt r r t r r <lor rcr
r <lwt l is shit r ur clsclr t , r nit s:s( ) nr ( .
. rt!nnr)nlt t t <lt 't - st lt t t t lilr g,r t ( 'or ) unot rir t t t 'r t 'st ir r it r r oll. jt 'c. tir, silr r illt r '
, tttrtl t,ttut llr i: r s in s( ) r r r t 'sit t ur lion, ir s I , 'r 't . r r tllr
l r t it . 'l'lt t 'r r xlr '<, in
' ' ,trn()tl ;l t r t '( ) u; rslt r t t 't 's,ilnr l so t lr r ' lr iulr r . r 'llr c t lr . gr r . r . ol"'r r r r . r r lr r l
l r' trrtrtt' ('t l( 'r lr ',"llr
" r ' nr ( ) r '(slr
' ikir r g lr r r ' llr r . r r r lr lr ili'sllr t ior rol
s gr ( ) ul)
,t,rrr,l

"

r
162

| r'rr,rl

LIES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

A hallmark of'the person as group member, Freud saw, was

t h e re p l a c e rn c n t o f' h i s s e l f b y a group sel f. The psychol ogy of tl rt,
gro u p , s a i c l F rc rrrl , i n v o l v e s " the dw i ndl i ng of the consci ous i nrl i v i d u a l p e rs o rri rl i tr' ,th e fo c u si ng of thoughts and fbel i ngs i nt< l rr
common clirt'r'tiorr." That translates to the prepotency of shart'rl
s c h e m a o v e r p c rs < l n i rlo n e s .
The grorrp rrrchetype, in Freud's theory, is the "primal hordc,"
a b a n d o f' l rri rrri ti v c " s o n s " m l ed by u strong " father." The parti crrla r s c h e mu s tl ri rt c ' o n s ti tu teth e group mi nd, i n thi s vi ew , w oul d l r
t h o s e d i c ti ttt' < l rl ,th c fh th e r, a chari smati c, strong l eader. The merrrbe rs o f' s rrc h t g ro u l ), s a i d F reud, rel i nqui sh thei r i ntel l ect to tl tl
c h i e f; h c , l ro u ,t' r' (' r' i,s tru to nomous. The group mi nd, then, i s tl rr,
le a d e r' s w ri t l rrrg r' .l rr th e g ro up mi nd " the i ndi vi dual gi ves up hi s
eg < li d e a l a rrtl s rrl rs ti trrte sfo r i t the group i deal as embodi ed i n tl rt,
le a d e r."
For F rt'rrrl a prirtritive family prototype is the model for tll
gr o u p s . Irr tl rt' v i rs t v rrri u ti o n sof w hat consti tutes a group-fl eeti rrg
or l o n g -l a s ti rrg ,l ro rrro g c n e o usand heterogeneous,natural and arti f ic i a l , a rrrl s o ()n -I.' r' t' rrrl s a w the same dynarni c at w ork: to tl ra
ex te n t tl ri rt tf rc l t' i s rr c ' ()n u l rol understandi
l
ng, the members of tl ro
gr o u p s h tru ra rr < l rrtl < l o k -i h e group' s schemas.
Irr h i s l i rrc w o r< l to F -re tr cl ' sbook, the A meri can psychoanal yst
F-ranzAlcxarrrlt:r lrastcrrsto trcldthat what Freud describes is nrort,
trtre of'groups with a single arrthoritarian leader than of "free, clt'rrroc n rti c s < l c i e ti e s ,w h i c h c o n s i st of more i ndependent, sel f-gov(rnl .
in g i n d i v i c l tra l s ." ' Ih i s c u v e a t changes the dynami c i n one cnrt' i i rl
cletail: fbr group memlrers to share a schema, they need not tetkt'otr
those of a single strong leacler. Rather, an abstract ideal or a set ol'
schemas inherent in the workings of the group can play that rolr,,
With or without a clear leader, then, members <lf a group adherrt'lrr
some common understanding.
If a g ro u p c a n s h a re s c h emas,then they can al so hol d l acrrrri rr
in common. Erik Erikson points to that likelihood. He reports lrin'
ing once asked Anna Freud if the defense rnechanisms she r'lrrlro
rated could be shared. The conclusion was that, indeed, tlrt'v rur
" s h a re d . . . [b v ] i n d i v i d u a l s and {' ami l i es as w el l i rs . . . l rrrgr,r
un i ts ." E ri k s o n o b s e rv e s th a t w hat Freud meant by " ego" -l l rc,
German ich-is more properly translated by "I." Erikson i{o('s url
to suggest that when people interact, there can lle creatt'rl ir "\\'r"'
t h a t c a rri e s th e s a m e w e i g h t as the " 1" -i 1r1 rl rgi rrri zt' rol ' sl urrr.rl
ex p e ri e n c e . In a g ro u p , th a t " w e" i s thercol l t' t' ti vc st' l l ' .
A g ro u p c a n b e c a l l e d i n to l l ei ng w i tl r l r.rrurrk:rl rl csl rorrl rrrrl i l \,,
At th e s c e n e < l f a tra ffi c a c c i rl crrt ri trrrl r)nrl )l l ss(' rsl rr' l ,r' r' onr(' i('l ()ol
;rrrl l r,rr
i l r.s, ol l r
d i n a te d b a n d , s o n l (' l rt' l l l i rrg vi < ' ti rrrs,ol l r,' r. ,' ;rl l rrrl q

THE"wE" | 163
, r', ,lirecting traffic, and so on. The assemblage of such a group
,l, pcrtds on their sharing schemas for what to do in such situations.
\l,,rt' exotic emergencies-say, the escape of an elephant from a
.,,),), ()r an unexpected delivery by a pregnant airplane passengerlr.rv not evoke so well coordinated a response. It is the activation
,,1'.lritred schemas that unites the "we"; the more such a common
rrrrtlcrstandingis shared, the more stable the group.
'l'he "shared self" offers
a sense of definition and reality to
tlr,rs. in the group by virtue of their membership in it. Like an
i,',lrvidual's self, the group self entails a set of schemas that define
llr. rvorld as it pertains to the group, that make sense of collective
, r1,r'rience,that define what is pertinent and what not.
We slip so easily into group membership, as Freud saw, be, ,nr\(' we have practiced as children in our families. A group is a
gr',r'rrrl<)f&mily:
the family models the group; its dynamics are at
,r ,,rk in any unified collective, with all the mechanisms of the famrlr s.lf. And the family self, in some ways, recreates the dynamics
,' l l l rt' per sonal self .
As with the individual, the group self is in part retrievable into
,, ',lrrred awareness, and in part consigned to a shared unconscious
., rculm of common experience which is never articulated or
I' r,,rrghtint o t he open, but which nonet heless exer t s it s inf luence
rrrrtl r(rg r oup as a whole.
'l'he group self has been
well described by Wilfred Bion, er
l ,' .rr' l roanalyst ,in t er m s of a "gr oup m ent alit y, " which he sees as
tl r,' sl r: r r edpool of m em ber s' wishes, opinions, t hought s, and em <llr,,r\ Any contribution to the group mentality must conform to the
,,rrl ri l xr t ions m ade by ot her s- it is only t hose schem as t hat a. r e
,l ,.,rr' <lwhich t he gr oup self incor por at es. The m ost cr ucial aspect
,' l tl ri s gr oup m ent alit y, says Bion, is t hose basic assum pt ions abor r t
lr,,rr'lo handle anxiety-evoking information-in our terms, the prcl , rrcrl l it cunas.
,,\rrother expert on groups, Robert Bales, describes the groul)
s ver y sim ilar t er m s. Bales has obser ved h<lw r nt , r r r i rr( ()ttsc'ior r in
l r.rs ol 'it gr ot t p com e t o shar e a unif ied f ant asy lif - e, so t hat wlr ir t
,rrr' l )(' r sol) says has unconscious m eaning f br t he ot her s. I lr t lr lr t
rr.t\ l l rt'r c ciut lle lt t w<l- t ier ed com m t r nicat ion syst eir l) on(
, ) ovcr t
,rr* l i l cr r lir r g wit h t hc ost cnsilr le w<lr k of t he gr oup, t r r r l t ht 'ot lr <. r '
r r \ r 'r l , l tci tr i n g o n th c ttttsl to kt:r r - th <l r r g h co r n n l o n l y r r r r r l t.r sto o r l r r r r r r . l i r .s o l ' tl r c g n l r l l .
r \ l rr r si ttt'ss ( 'o l l sr r l ti r r r l o l l cr s tl r i s cxi r r r r l l l t' o l 'l l r r . g r o r r l ) u n ( '( ) n -

' .rrrus rt l \ . 1'ot 'k: t t nor rtglr c vict 'lr r csir lcnt s ol': r ( '( ) nr l) llr r vwlr iclr lr r r r l
r.r' r' rrl lv'lr r . r 'r r lr r kcr r o\ '( . r 'lr v'r ur ollr r , r f ir r r r . , ''l'lr r . r 'ir . r . l) r ( . sir lr . r r ls
\\(' t(' r,r'ot 'lit 'r l r r llot t t losing llr cil jolr s or lr cir r g r lr . nr , r lr . r l,r r r r t l lr : r , l

164

| vtrel

LIES, sIMPLE TRUTHS

developed a siege mentality, fearing bad news could come any

moment.
As the vice presidents waited for the senior executive to arrive
to start the meeting, one started telling about a recent flight in n
small plane. The plane had gotten in trouble, and he had beett
asked to change seats to shift weight. The point of the story was
how anxious he had been, and how vulnerable people often feel,
Then another vice president joined in, this one with a story of panic
among the passengers on a plane that had caught fire just beforo
takeoff. That story led to another of being caught in sniper fire on s
trip to Beirut.
The conversation continued in a similar vein until the meetirtg
started. As the consultant interpreted it, the whole conversatittn
had been tacitly understood to refer to the fragility of the vice
presidents' own situation and the apprehension they all felt tlurt
disaster would strike. That sort of tacit understanding is made pos.
sible by the shared schemas of the group self.
In a collective, as with the self, schemas shape the flow rll'
information. In any group the relevant schemas are those that tre
shared by members, the subsgt of schemas that are the "\rye."
The "we," I will arg.t",oi, as vulnerable as the self to st'll''
deceptions. The motivating force behind the forming of shtrt'tl
illusions in a group is identical to that in the self: to mininrize
anxietv.

THE FAMILY SELF

I
\ couple has a bitter fight over who should clean up
rl ' ,' < ' l ri l dr en's t oys t hat lit t er t he sidewalk in f r ont of t heir house.
| .r, lr uccuses the other of not caring what the neighbors think of
tl,, nr, ofjeopardizing their relations with neighbors who might trip
rrr.r l l re toys. The ar gum ent it self r eveals t he couple's int ense pr e,,r r ulr:rtion with the importance of showing a good face to their
,r l l rl rl rrl r s,of keeping sm oot h r elat ionships wit h t hem .
'l'lrc
example is offered by David Reiss, a psychiatrist who
trr,l i r.sfi r r nilies. 3He cont ends t hat such m om ent s in a couple's or
l ,rrrrl r' s l i f 'e allow a car ef ul obser ver t o det ect unspoken shar ed
,l r.rrrts which def ine t he way t hey view t hem selves and t heir
,' , rrlr I -what can be called a "family self."
l'lris fight, says Reiss, may spring from an underlying shared
, .urrrpti on such as, "People in t his neighbor hood get ver y angr y
rl ,,,rrlt' l ri lclr en's t oys on t he sidewalk, " or "People in t his neighl ,,,rl rr' ,,t1
i r r e st r ict and exact ing. " The com plem ent t o t hat concept
, ,{)rrrt' tlr inglike "We ar e ver y sensit ive t o t he opinion of ot her s. "
\ l l ,r,' st' lr cnlusat t he hear t of t he f am ily self .
l " rrrrrilvsr , lvescan be classed along any nur nber of dim ensions.
t , rr . r,rrrr gllr t',he sociologist Rober t M er t on dist inguished bet ween
I l orvr r r '( 'si<ler r twho
s
wer e "locals" and t hose who wer e "cos" ' .,11
I

t , , , , r ) ( , l i l : r rr s."r '['h c <l i ch o t<l r n y i s e a si l y e xte n d e d to fa m i l i e s. A

, , ' , r r ( , 1 , , , li tl r n l i tr r r i l y, l i ke a co sm o p o l i te , l cl o ks to w tr r d p e o p l e ,
r , l r r r l r c s , r .r r <l i r r tt'r t:sts th a t r i r r l g e fi r r l l e yo n cl th e co n fi n e s <l f'th e r i r
r , ! n 'l r l , , r t l r,r o r l o l to r l ,n . 'l 'l r t'i r fi 'i t,r r <l s,j o l l s, i tr ttl sch <l o l s a r t: sc:i r tl , r , r l l l r c y n r i l v n r ( ) \'( 'l i 't'r 1 r r <'r r tl vl i r r r vo l k o r o tl tt'r r 'e a so n s.
l , , r 'l l s , o tr l l r t' o l l r cr 'l r :tr r <1 , i u '( ' r '( ) o tr '<1'l. 'l r t'i r l i r r n i l v l r i sto l v i r r
l l , , ', , u n r ';l l r t,'t'n r :r \'tl o
l r tt'k g cr r cl r tl i o r r s.'l 'l r ci r 'l i 'i cr r <l s.
st'l r o o l s.
, , r r l ; 1 'l , s ;u ( ' n ( ':r r ;r l l r ;r r r ,l ( ) l l l r r l l r l i r r vo r k l i l i ' i s r r o l o n l v r r r .:r r
l r , r n r l l r r t l ;tl r ,r r l ,'l ) ( 'n ( l ctr l o tt ;t l ,r cl tl tr r 'l \\'o r k ,l l i l ( '( l l t;ti tr l :tr r ccs. l ,o

166 | vrrer, LrES,sTMPLE

TRUTHS
cals develop specific, traditional routines and routes for shopping,
visiting, recreation. Cosmopolitan families have less well-fixed,
more exploratory habits.
The corresponding realities of these families vis-A-vis their surroundings reflect these differences. For locals, the immediate vicinity is sharply defined by ample schemas that encode a rich
history: a local store exists for them not only as it is now, but as it
has been over the years. For cosmopolitans, the local vicinity is
known more sketchily, with large uncharted areas, and so gives
rise to fewer schemas. But the map of their world is much larger,
with neighborhoods in other cities known as fully as their present
one. Each pattern, local and cosmopolitan, has its characteristic
blind spots and highlights.
For a decade and a half Reiss and his associateshave studierl
families to determine the nature of their shared outlooks and how
these outlooks operate to regulate and define family life. Their
findings offer a look at the forces that shape schemas within tht,
family.
In Reiss's theory, families share a group self, which in turrr
shapes their lives. Shared family experiences, Reiss says, "g.,i,I.,
and shape the way families fuproach specific problems." This
shared construing is typically in the background, a buried struchrrr,
which guides family life. Shared outlooks play the same role firr
families that schemas do for the person.
The family, when it works as an integrated group, is a sort ol'
consensual mind. In this respect it takes on the same tasks as w(,
have seen in the individual mind: it gathers information, interprt.ts
it, distributes it. In this effort shared schemas act to guide, seler,t.
and censor information to meet the requirements of the group st'll',
Dynamics parallel to those at work in the mind are at play irr
the family. More particularly, there is a trade-off between attentiorr
and anxiety: The family as a group selects and ignores informatiorr
incongruent with its shared self in an effort to protect its integritv
and c oh e s i o n .
Consider, for example, the family Reiss calls the "Bra<lys."
The family came to I)r. Reiss's center for treatment for Frerl, tlrr
27-year-old son, who was suicidally depressed. Fred's father, a srr('.
cessful surgeon, had died twenty years before; Fred's motht'r 'uvrrs
now in her late sixties. Shortly after his death, the father's voung(.l
brother-"a
timid qls1ft"-came to live with thern in thcir irpru'l
m ent . T h e fa th e r' s b e l o n g i n g s w e re l efti n pl ac' t,i tl l tl rc w l ri l t.; tl rr.
t r io s om e ti m e s re fe rre d to h i m i n th e present tcrrst' .' l ' l rt. ovr,r' r' li irrrg
c ons t r u c t w a s th a t i t w a s s ti l l a s rl r g(' orr' sl i rrrri l r' ,rt' i tl r sl ;rl ri l i l v rrrrrl
pr es t ige . " C l e a rl y ," R e i s s rto tc s , " tl rt' r' \v(' r' ('l )r(' s(' rr rrr;i ;rn i nrl )ol
t it nt s ha re < li l l rrs i o rr l rl ro rrttIr(.n rs (.Ir' r.s."

THE FAMTLY sELF | 167

The mother was the family specialist in gathering information.

Slrt: w?s the only one who watched television and read papers;
rr lren home she answered all phone calls. The mother's role was to
,1,.|'cndthe family against "intruders," which was how all outsiders
rrr.re seen. She met callers with firm civility, turning them away
l,'st the two men have to engage the world outside. When the
,l,,orbell or phone rang, it was she who automatically responded.
l'lre mother was, in effect, an attentional border guard. This all,,rved her to perform the crucial function of selecting what was and
rr;rs rrot relevant information and supplying interpretations:5
For example, after many months in the hospital, Fred received a partial discharge, which enabled him to begin his
first job as a technician's helper in a hospital laboratoryHe never did well in the job,'but [the] mother focused
exclusively on the medical aspects and presented the job
to the family and therapist as evidence that Fred might
soon return to college, go to medical school, and become
a doctor. Fred and his uncle acquiesced, quite willingly,
to [the] mother's highly filtered selection and interpretation of signals. It provided them both with a sense of the
f'amily's vigor, prestige, and permanence.
To preserve their sense of self-esteem as a group, the Brady
l.rrrrily has to weed out information to protect the treasured family
,,,.lrt'masof stability and prestige. Doing so requires ignoring or
r,'irrterpreting data that contradicts these schemas. The mother's
rrlc aS information-gatherer simplifies the task; singly she can effir rr.rrtl/ screen out information that might undermine the family
.,,'ll-concept. If all family members were as active as she in collectrrr11
<lata,the risks of disconfirmation would be much greater.
If'a family can be seen as a kind of conglomerate mind, in the
, ,,sr.ot'the Bradys that mind is admittedly deficient. Although the
,,,l rl tl ynamics of a schizophr enic's f am ily ar e har dly t he best basis
l rrr :r n)ore gener al t heor y, Reiss nonet heless uses it as a jum ping,,ll lroi,rt fbr describing the informational world of families in gen,' r;rl . ' l ' he Br adys wer e one of hundr eds of f am ilies who have gone
rl rrorrgl ru car e, f ir llydesigned ser ies of t est s, each of which assesses
.ur :rsl )(' (.of
t 'how t hat I 'am ily r egist er s inf or m at ion. I t is f r om t hese
,l .rtrr.rrsw t : ll as f i'or n case st udies like t hat of t he Br adys, t hat I leiss
,,l l rrs l ri s t lr cor y.
' l ' l rr, lir r r r ilv's ir r lir r r r r ir t ior r - 1lr ot 't 'ssitsit
t g,ys Rciss, f r lllt t ws t lr r t 't '
lit
r
r
r
ilv t 't 't r it 'vt 's lt st r lr st 't ol
t
lr
r
'
lir
st
,
plr
r
r
st
.
s.
t
r
r
llr
t
'
rrrl r.rl or.kr. <l
ir
r <livir lr t t t lst 'lt 't 't ivt 'lr ': r l'
t
t
t
t
t
t
'lr
ls:
lt
r
il,
rrrl ornr:rl ior r r vr r ilr r lr lr 'lo
l r.rrrl s.' l ' l r r . sr . lr . t 'lior r r r r r lir r llr pt r 'l; t liot t ol t lr r r l ir r lir r lt t lt liot t , : l\ \ \ '( '
t . r llr llr r . llr , , , lr 'r r . nr r lr l. r 'l l, , , r ll llr . l, i; r st r r r t llt ; t tl t '. lt . t t , ', 1

r
i

168

| vrrer- LIES, sIMPLE TRUTHS

THE FAMTLY sELF | 169

schema exerts. Finally, the information that has been selectively

retrieved and interpreted is distributed throughout the family as
the shared schemas are mutually affirmed.
Many families, like the Bradys, have one or two informatiott
specialists-typically parents, but not always-whose task is to select and interpret. Alternatively, all or most family members call
gather information, then compare notes and interpret it in ternts
congruent with their shared schemas. Families vary in how well
they manage all three of these information missions; the style irr
which these tasks are done reflects the tone of family life.
To evaluate the shared schemas of more ordinary families,
Reiss and his associatesused PTAs to recruit 82 middle-class Washington, D.C., families for study. Each family came to Dr. Reiss's
center, where they went through a series of tests measuring their
perceptual performance. The test battery tapped major phases ol'
joint information-processing. The experiment offered a laboratoly
failecl t<r
analogue for how the families attended to information-or
-in normal life.
On one test, for example, the family was give\ a plrzzle irr
which there were sequencgs of circles (C), triangles (T), utttl
squares (S). The sequence of these shapes was governed by nrr
underlying pattern, which the entire family tried to guess. A typit'rrl
sequence was CCCTTT; its underlying pattern could be statecllry
the rule: "An uninterrupted sequence of circles followed by irrr
uninterrupted sequence of triangles." That rule is a schema of'
sorts. The experiment allows the observation of how the farrrily
forms such a shared schema.
To guess the underlying pattern, the family was asked to ntitkt'
up another sequence that followed the same rule of thumb. Fllt'lr
family member sat at a specially partitioned table where the otlrt'r's
c ould n o t b e s e e n . Ea c h w ro te hi s or her guess on a sl i p of pi tl )t' 1,
passed it to an experimenter, who rated it right or wrong, ancl tltt'tt
irr
passed it around to all the other members of the family-rtll
silence. When each member had studied the others' guesst:s rttttl
made a second guess at the underlying pattern, he or she tttrttt'tl ott
the "finish" light.
N o t e v e ry fa mi l y c a me to a unani mous deci si on about tl rt' rttt
derlying rule. Whether or not the decision was a grotll) ott<', rttt,l
how the members came to their decisions, were a bar<lmctt'r ol'tlrc'
f am i l y ' s o v e ra l l d y n a mi c . F o r e xampl e, the " Fri etl ki rr" l i rrrri l l ' (i rr
anoth e r s tu d y o f fa m i l i e s w i th a di sturbcrl nrcnrl rcr' )tl rrl rl i t' i rl crli l r
ov era l l p ro b l e m i n i ts p e rfo rrn a nce of' tl ri s si rrrl rl <l'cst.
Mr. F ri e c l k i n , i l s u c c c s s l i rll rrrsi tt< ' sstnl n,s(' r' \' (' srts l rol l r tttol l tt,l

. ' < l fi rth .rtr l ri sfi 't',tt't't*trt' ,,

:l]1li1' :' )1,,,
i::..

,,,],' ,;;:.:

l rr,rl si n t he t est , M r s. Fr iedkin went her own W?y, paying no dis, , rrible regard to either the experimenter's feedback or the
'
' rrt' S S Sof her f am ily; her t hinking was chaot ic and isolat ed. The
trr , r l'-riedkin children in the test never quite grasped the underly"rri lluttern, but finally settled on the same guess.
Mr. Friedkin at one point seemed to have hit on the right
t' .rtl crn, but no one else in t he f am ily agr eed wit h his guess. He
l rr' ;rl l y ignor ed t he evidence suppor t ing his own cor r ect hunch in
l rr.r' of the theory his daughters had developed. In settling for
tl r,' i r gu ess, M r . Fr iedkin f ound a unanim it y wit h his childr en at
tlr. sucrifice of accuracy. The final aggregate schema reached this
rr.rVW z Sa f ault y one, but one which ser ved t o pr eser ve a sense of
1s1s1l 1 '- i1n
exchange com m on t o gr oups of all sor t s, as we shall see.
( llinical observations of the Friedkin family found the patterns
,,' ' ,' ,rl ed by t he t est t ypif ied t heir day- t o- day int er act ions. M r s.
I' rrr' < l k inwas split of f f r om f am ily lif e, a social isolat e in her own
Ir.rrr(' . The f at her and childr en f or m ed an alliance and built a
,l ,,rr.tl wor ld view on t heir own. Their need t o seem unif ied was
,,rr(' ti m es sat isf ied at t he cost of adopt ing schem as t hat did not
r;rrtc fi t a m or e object ive r ealit y.
" lrumilies differ in their shared view of their social
world,"
l (,' rss wr it es. "Som e, f or exam ple, have a per sist ent , t r ust ing, ancl
,,rrrl i rl t 'nt pict ur e of t he wor ld as or der ed and m ast er able; ot her
l .rrrrrl i ( 'ssee t heir social wor ld as capr icious, unpr edict able, an<l
; r,rl r.rrti ally danger ous. "
l"rrmilies' collective outlooks were evident to Reiss in how
tl ,{ \ (' o r }st r uedt he exper im ent it self : 6
( )rrr firmilies seemed to have shared constructs of the labonrtory setting which they had readied before they cnnle
,,r' lirrrned almost instantaneously after they arrived. Somt:
l ;rrrr iliesf elt t he sit uat ion was saf e and m ast er able; ot hcr r s
l r' l t it was over whelm ing and danger ous.M ost f am ilies cli<l
rrot s(:erlr to recogniz.e the subjectivity of their views. On
l l rt' t 'ont nr r y, t hey believed t hat t heir concept was oll. jcc: Ir' t'. f ir ct r r al, bir . sed on evidence. Fr ight enecl f ir nr ilit 's
tl ro r r glr t t lr at we, t he r esear cher s,wer e r eally up t o son) ( .
k rrr t l ol' r nist 'lr icl, : r r r t lcor r f ident lir r nilics t nr st t : <lr r s,t hor r glr
l l rc r lur t l no ir or r t 'lit t l cv'ir lcr r c'tt:hat we wL) r o r r ot . ir r lir r , t .
( on n i v c t' s .

Il rr'lxr t lt 'r 'v ol't t 'st s <list ir r gr r islr r .lir

<l r r r ilit 'sir lont { s( . v( . r 'r <lillr
l
.r
, rrl tl i nt lnsiot t s, r 'r t t 'lrol u, lr ir 'lr : r ss; nsln ilsllt 't 't ol't lr r 'lir r r r ilv l) ; lr : l
, l rri rrr. l "rl r' (' \i l rrrl rl ,' :
ts l l rc rl rl i r,' r'
l o s l ri c l r ;r l ;rrni l y ol rr.r:rl r.s i l s :l
'(.'rrottl i ttttl i tttt
rrr rtl i c rl gr' rt1r. \\' l rr' n (' l r:rl l r' r1l l r' (1. l ri l l l l (' ()()rrl rrr;rl r,rrr l rrrrrrl rr.s

I
170 | vrrer, LIES,sTMPLE
TRUTHS
information. But low-coordination families split apart, share
little information, and fail to cooperate.
. Closure evaluates how open or closed to new information thc
family is. Delayed closure allows a family to gather new data
and consider alternate solutions when faced with a challenge.
Early-closure families shut themselves off from new data, answering a challenge with conclusions imposed hastily without considering other options.
While it is unclear how such family paradigms originate,
Reiss's data show that there is a very high correspondence among
family members.T Although by no means every member of a family
holds to all aspects of the family's attentional style, members of thc
same family resemble each other markedly in how they take in antl
use information. How do families preserve and pass on thestr
s har ed s c h e ma s ?

FAMILY RITUAL AS GROUP MEMORY

FTI
|. tr" sum total of shared schemas, says Reiss, is a "famrlr paradigm." It resides not only in the minds of each member,
l,rrl irlso in the interaction betttseenthem. The family's regular and
r,'r'rrrring patterns are delicately organized to serve as a kind of
rir('up memory. Some interactions-holidays, arguments, outings
rrl which all members participate, are key repositories of the
s,.rr;rtligm.But, in a minor way, so are all the routinized, day-to-duy
rrrl.r'actions of family life. In either event, the family paradigm is
,'rrrlrt'dded in daily activity, an unseen regulator of what goes on.
lleiss calls these paradigm-dictated sequences "pattern regul,rt,r's." In the shared mind of the family they stand as an analogue
I,r rn(' onscious m echanism s in t he individual m ind. The f am ily is
" r{l i rr:rri l y unawar e of t hem , alt hough t hey play a cr ucial par t in
,l r,rl ri rrg the f am ily's awar eness:8
'l'lre repository
of family paradigms might ordinarily be
tl*nrght of as the memory of individual members-that is,
*'lrat each member retains in memory of the family's hisl ,ry, m yt hs, her oes, values, secr et s, and assum pt ions as
llrt'st: are melded together into a coherent paradigm. we
rrright nrore easily regard interaction patterns in families
. :rs cxpre.s.singrather than conserving the nature of the
l ;rrrri l v's lr ar acligm or , in som e sense, car r ying out som e
pl rrrrw h iclr was shaped or t oned by t he f 'am ily par adigm .
l l < rrvt' l't 'r , w( ' ar ( f asser t ing. . . t he behavior it self is t he
l r.rrs, tlr . r nr '<lir r r n,t hc st <lr ageplace of t he par adigm as
rrr' l l l ts r nr ( 'ir nsol'r 'xllr . ssing it anr l car r ying out t he plan
rl sl ur1x. s.
' \ sl l t' t'ilt t t 't t gr ; t llct 'nr ( 'gr t l; t lor ( '( ) r n( , sli'or r r r r slr r r lv ol'r r r ir . r 'or r r' nl s r' ;rplr r r cr lr lr n ing lr r r r r ilyt lr r . r '; r 1lrA'. t r , 1r ir . : rs,l . , 1u( , n( . r . : ',

172

| vrrel

LIES. sTMPLE TRUTHS

scratchedhis ear
rubbed his nose
tapped his left foot
during an argumentwith his wife ,
ask to go to the bathroom
one of the children would
{ slapa sibling
begin to cry
so that the husband-wifedispute was never resolved.
Every time the husband

I
t

Such patterns serve what is felt as a positive purpose. Childrerr

who perceive that their parents are not getting along often fear that
the parents will resolve their fight by divorcing, dissolving thr.
family. To ward off that possibility the children can intervene, as
in this case, to keep the fight from ever reaching its resolution. Irr
this pattern regulator, the children preserve the family by shortcircuiting a parental fight.
Sometimes a family ritual can serve to hide a fear, a part of tht,
family schema that is shared by all but is too threatening to be deult
with openly. Such a covert drama can be seen in the "A" family, ir
troubled New England family of eeven who were observed closely
by therapist Eric Bermann.ro Mr. A suffered from a life-threatenirrg
heart disease and was soon to undergo dangerous surgery with arr
uncertain outcome. The family's ritual for dealing with this firnr
revolved around Roscoe, the fourth of five children.
Roscoe was the family's scapegoat.He was an "accident"; Mrs,
A, after having had three children, was looking forward to sorrrr.
liberation from her duties as mother and housewife, when Roscot.'s
arrival put an end to her hopes. His birth rearoused an earlier arrgcr
in Mrs. A: as a child she had had to organize her life around tlrr.
care of a younger brother because her own mother worked. I)ool
Roscoe bore the brunt of her built-up resentments.
Roscoe, though, did not become the family victim until tlrr.
onset of Mr. A's heart problems. As the family's terror grclw. il
distinctive pattern of interaction emerged, with Roscoe as villrrirr
and his older brother Ricky as accuser. For example: rr
Ricky discovered that Roscoe had found a crab in a nearlr.ucreek. Before the entire family he accused Roscoe of'yrrrtting sand in the bucket of water which housecl the: cralr.
Everyone accepted both the accuracy of Ricky's rcport irn<l
the truth that sand in a bucket cotrld kill t <.ralr. Nlr'. A
or der e d R o s c o e to re tu rn th e c ral l anrl l i tl i crrl t' < l l ri rrr l rr
s ay in g h e " w a s s u p p o s e (l to l rc a ni rtrrrt' l ovr' r.
. S i rrri
lar , b u t n o t i c l e n ti c tl , (' (' r' (' n ro rri l rl s\\/(' r' (' r' ,' qrrl ;rr
l v l )(' r
{ br r n e < l : i t w i rs t' l l ti rrrt' rll l rl rt l l o st' r)(' \\' orrl rl r rrrrr l n\ n(' \\

FAMTLY RrruAL As GRoup MEMoRy

| 173

shoes, that he would break a terrarium, that he taught the

f'amily dog dangerous habits, and so on. Each sequence
had similar components. Roscoe became engaged in something which interested him; someone else-often Ricky,rccused him of damaging it or threatening it; one parent
listened to the accusation and then passedjudgment, often
lirrcing some humiliating surrender on Roscoe's part.
'fhe family paradigm
can have dual levels, one within the coll,', live awareness, the other outside that awareness, though shared
',"rr.theless. Bermann, observing the family, saw this pattern as a
,,.,r lirr the family to deal with the submerged terror of what would
l,.r1r1rcn
to them if Mr. A's surgery went badly. Their attacks on
f (,st'o symbolically were a collective counterattack against a
''r,,rl(l full of murderous, uncontrollable forces. The incident with
tl',' t'rAb, according to this interpretation, is especially telling: a
',rrrrlcr and a victim are identified, the murderer is dealt with and
tlr. r'ictim is saved. For a brief moment the family averts a death
tl,,rl stands for the father's illness, of which they are in terror. The
.r .rpt't{osting of Roscoe offers the family a symbolic relief from a
l , ,rr l l rey dare never openly conf r ont .
Irr sum, the family is a group mind of sorts, with many properrrr., of' the i n dividual m ind. The exper ience of gr owing up in a
l'.rrlrcrrlar family leaves its imprint on the attentional habits of the
,I' rl rl , at ti mes wit h unf or t unat e consequences,as we saw wit h t he
t,,u.rrroiclstyle. But that pattern marks an extreme of a process that
\\, ;rll go through as our families socialize us into their world of
r,,rl rl v'.

'l'lrc fbmily constructs

a reality through the joint schemas memIr' r" r' onl e to shar e. The f am ily's self - im age is one subset of shar ed
., lr,'rrurs;the sum total constitute the family's paradigm. The topogfamily's pr ivat e univer se is im plicit in r out ines and r it u' 1' 111' o{' rr
rl , .rs w cl l a s in how m em ber s t ake in, int er pr et , and shar e ( or
,l ,rrrI sl ri rre)inf or m at ion. Ther e r em ains f or us t o explor e t he ways
rrr tr l ri t' l r tfre f ir m ily r esolves t he t ension bet ween anxiet y and at t enrr,rr;rrr< li ts rt : st r lt ing suscept ibilit y t o shar ed illusions.

l)

THE GAN{EoF HAPPY FAMTLY | 175

THE CAME
OF HAPPY FAMILY

I-

Cronyn, the actor, grew up during the early

t
l.r-"
years of this century in a very wealthy Canadian family.r2 The
household occupied an Edwardian mansion in London, Ontario,
and adhered to the strict proprieties of their station and time. The
father was stricken with cerebral sclerosis, hardening of the brain's
arteries, which in its early stages 4pade him suffer occasional seizures. In that upper-class milieu, ihe seizures simply did not fit
with social conventions, and so were handled by being ignored.
"So long as I live," Cronyn recalls, "I will never forget that
night at the dinner table when my father had a spasm and his hand
was involuntarily slammed down into his steaming hot plate of
golden buck-a dish of egg and cheese. He was rendered unconscious and we all had to keep our places while the butler came
over and righted my father, wiped him off carefully and served him
a fresh plate.
"After a bit, he regained consciousness. He looked around at
all of us, bewildered, and then moved to pick up his silverware as
we resumed the conversation exactly where it had broken off. But
as he went to grasp the fork he stopped, staring at his hand, which
was scalded. He had no idea why."
"I have never come across a family," writes R. D. Laing, "thrtt
does not draw a line somewhere as to nshat maA be put into usorul:;,
and ushat usords it mag be put into." That is, each family has its
signature pattern of what aspects of shared experience can be opctt,
what must be closed and denied. When experience is openlv
shared, the family also has a sanctioned language for whtrt mity lrt'
said about it.
T he pr o c e s s L a i n g d e s c ri b e s i s p nrci st' l v tl rl t of' st' l rcttuts l tl
wor k : t hey c l i re c t:tttc n ti o n l x ,r( a n rl i rwl w ' l i ' orrtl l trt' t' : l l rcl ' r' rrrl rorl y

lrow to construe this and that. We comment on how cheery sister

seems today, but we tiptoe around mother when she is depressed
,tnd drunk, and say she's "a bit under the weather" today. When
litther has a seizure, we pretend it did not happen.
These rules can operate in the family's collective mind with
tlre same subliminal effectiveness they have within the individual
rrri nd.Lai ng gives t he exam ple: 13
A family has a rule that little Johnny should not think filthy
thoughts. Little Johnny is a good boy: he does not have to
be told not to think filthy thoughts. They never have
taught him not to think filthy thoughts. He never has.
So, according to the family, and even little Johnny,
there is no rule against filthy thoughts, because there is no
need to have a rule against what never happens. Moreover,
we do not talk in the family about a rule against filthy
thoughts, because since there are no filthy thoughts, and
no rule against them, there is no need to talk about this
dreary, abstract, irrelevant or even vaguely filthy subject.
Laing codifies the operation of such invisible rules about rules
l l ri s w ay: ra
Rule A:
Rule A. l:
Rule A. 2:

Don't .
Rule A does not exist .
Do not discuss t he exist ence

ili:?ffi:""""

ofRures
A'

The family's lacunas are the result of rules for what cannot be
rroticed, and not noticed that it cannot be noticed. They are for the
riroup what the various defenses are for the individual. While they
.,lrrrpeand limit experience, we do not readily see that they do so,
I' r' t' atrsethey oper at e out side awar eness.
" If you o bey t hese r ules, " says Laing, by way of illust r at ion, r s
(,u
\
will not know that they exist. There is no rule against talking
,rl rorrtputti ng one's f inger int o one's own m out h, one's br ot her 's,
' ,r:tcr' s, nroth er 's, f at her 's, anyone's m out h. . . . But , I m ay say, I
l r,rrt' rrever put m y f inger in a num ber of . . . [ unm ent ionable]
grl .rct' s.
W hr,rtplaces? I can't nt ent ion t hem . Why not ? I can't say. "
'l'lrt' rrltirnate {'amilial lacuna is what Laing calls "The Game of
l l rrl rpl v l i i trrri ly, " u pr <lt ot ype of how gr oups collude t o keep m em l ' ,' r s l i ' r' l i rrg t'<lr r r lir r t alllc.
As Laing descr ibes it : 16
l )t' rri l rl i s <lt 'nur r r <lr '<l
lr v t lr t ' ot lr t 'r 's;it is lr ar t of a t r ir r r spcr s,nurl svst t 'r r r <ll'<'ollr r sior r vlr t 'r 'r 'lr vwt ' r 'or nplv wit lr t lr r .
ol l rcrs, rur r l llr cv t 'or r r plv u'it lr us. l"or ir r sllr n( '( ',( ) n( 'r '( 'rl rri rl s r' ,r llr r sior rlo 1r l: r r "llr r ppr \ ' l"r r r r r ilics. "lr r r livir lr r r r llr

176 | vrrar- LrES,srMpLETRUTHS

I am_unhappy. I deny I am to mgself; I deny I am denying
anything to myself and to others. They must do the same.
I must collude with their denial and collusion and thev
must collude with mine.
So we are a happy family and we have no
secrets from one another.
If we are unhappy
we have to keep it a secret
and we are unhappy that we have to keep it a secret
and unhappy that we have to keep secret
the fact
that we have to keep it a secret
and that we are keeping all that secret.
But since we are a happy family you can see
this difficulty does not arise.
The more horrid the secrets a family harbors, the more likcly
it will resort to a strategem like Happy Family to maintain sorn(.
semblance of stability. Michael weissbe rg, & psychiatrist, advist,s
that one symptom of an incestuous family can be that it seems fpl
happy.tt says weissberg: "some, of the danger signals include tlrc
'perfect' family that always doesneverything together but with tlrp
mother left out because she is depressed, ill, or otherwise emotiorrally unavailable." A parallel sign is the too-perfect daughter. Ofit,rr
she has assumed parental duties at an early age. She does well irt
school, is very polite, and seems eager to please. one victinr ol
incest, Weissberg reports, got straight A's in school and had trt'r.rr
preparing her family's evening meals by the time she was ten.
Such charades allow the overt denial of a terrible truth tlrrrt
everyone tacitly knows. Guilt, shame, and fear are the immerlirrlo
motives for the collusion. The fear of being abandoned by on(,r
mate or parents-no matter how horribly they treat one-lcirtlr
spouses and children to blithely make alibis for the worst tr.r.rrt.
ment, and to skew their perception of blatant cruelty.
Perhaps the saddest secrets are those in families where irlrrrsr.,
incest, or alcoholism go on amid a collusive fog. Such families olir.rr
go through a cycle of denial and guilt. The denial is that tlrr.r.t,ir
anything the matter, or if so, that it was anything more tharr rr rlrrir'lr
that won't happen again. The guilt can take the form of'sel[-lrlrrrrrr.
by t he v i c ti m: a b u s e d w i v e s a n d v i cti ms of i ncest, the l tsy< .l ri rrtrfr,
literature amply documents, frequently feel they rkrscrvc tlrt.il r,r1
timization.
I n t h e s e fa m i l i e s , s tro n g c r> l l e c ti vt'< k' fi ' rrs(,s()l x' r' rrl r'l.\,1rrIti 1rtp
c lues t o w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g i tl l o trrr< 1,
l rrrt rrrc i grrol crl r)r' (,\pl rri rrr.rl
away . A n i n c e s t v i c ti n l , n ()w g r' ()w n,r' (.(' :rl l srurgri l r,," " l 1(.\.(.ri r(,

THE GAME oF HAppy FAMTLv

I lT7

t' r,rl l y' tol d h er what m y f at her was doing,

but m y G od, t he laundr y
' ,,rrl (l have! Ther e wer e bloody pant ies, sem en- st ained pajam as,
,
'rlt'cl sheets. Everything was right there for her to see. nrra .rr"
, l rosc not to . "
'fhe web of
denial can reach beyond the family to friends,
r' l ;rl i ves, ev en police, physicians, and social
*or k". r . Take t he
, .rs<'of "Margaret," the wife of a leading
political figure in a me_
' l rrtttt-si zedm idwest er n cit y who was dist iessed t o lear n t hat her
l ,,rsl randw a s m olest ing t heir f ive- year - old
daught er . r eover a pe' r.' rl r)f years, she went t hr ough a har r owing ser ies of encount er s.
ll''r husband denied that his "playirrg" with"their
a".rgt t", *", i.,
'rr\ \vay unusual. Her sister-in-law assured her that "t]rat was just
llr. rvay it was" in their family, and that
Margaret needn't worry
.rlr'rrt it. Increasingly upset, Margaret was
f,ospitalized for six
,,,' ,' ks for a ner vous br eakdor vn.
Some years later, the couple's fourteen-year-old
son told her
1,,' l r:rd bee n f or cibly r aped by t he f at her while
t hey; ;
on a
' ' rrtrl )i ngtri p. When she t ur ned t o a lawyer , he advisedt hat t he boy
l';t s('.t away to a boarding school. when.Margaret
turned to her
l, rrr lrrnd's aunt and uncle they insisted she was "*overreacting"
and
' l ' ,,rrl <deal
l
wit h t he sit uat ion "like a civilized per son', - t hat is,
do
rr,rl l ri ' g. w hen she asked f or help f r om t he pr incipal
of her chil_
' l r.rr S school, he said t hey did not have
who wer e
I r.rrrr('(l in "that sort of thing." If the children"t r r r r r "lor s
came for counseling,
l r' s;ti (1, they'd do t heir best . The childr en
wer e t oo asham ed t o
,,J..
when Margaret finally went to the police, the
chief was
l rrrrs(1rrc:
hi s succinct advice was "G et your self a gun and LI ow
t he
l ,.r' ,l rrr'rrw
< l ay if he ever com es close t o your
kids alair r . " H" or r "r "a
rr,,,l l rcr hglp. Finally, desper at e, M ar gar et
went t o a m eet ing of
tl r,' rl .i rcons of her f am ily's chur ch. whln
t he f loor *", op"r r ed t o
r" rr.r' i rlc()nc er ns, M ar gar et st ood up and t old
t he st or y. . lsh"
," ' ,* ' r' r' (' (lby o m uf f led cough or t wo, t he sound
- u,
of bodies m oving
r| ' ( ( )rrrfi rrta lllyabout on wooden chair s,
and not hing else. , '
\\'lrilc the story of Margaret is perhaps o.rerdrJ*n,
it points to
r l r'' '.r<'irrlutr"sphere that encourages
a family to play happy. That
' rr(' k.r' p.s t hir r gs com f br t able f or ever yone. w"ir r t "r g, *Lr o ai_
r' ' l \ (' nr(' r' g( 'llc'y
lr sychit r t r icser vices at a univer sit y hor pit al, not es
l l r' rl .l i rri t' i i tr t s slt it r e t lt c sar ne sensibilit ies
as t hose *h; piuv t f r "
r" rrrr(' :" ' l ' l tt' v t lot t 't wit t t t t o f ir t r l sit r r at ionsin t heir pat ient s
t hat ar e
l l r' rt t' i V Irl l rs li'iglr t t 't r ir r g,t 'vil, r r r r t l r lr r t of ' c. 9pt r gl.Cliniciit n. s m *y
' ' tl ' s.ri l rr' l o llr t 'r r r ist r t k<'lrnot ior r t lr ; r t wlur t t lr cy <l<lr r 'tkr r gw,
r l. r r 't
l rr,,l . ;rrrrI r l ,rr'l t li: r gr r r ) s(\.vi I I r r , r lr r r r . rI lr r . r r . " r . r ( l
" ' l ' l rrs i s I t lt ct t r r 'lr
"sin( '( . : r lr r r oslr r l/ llr r .
r r r r lir r lr r r r r lr '. "1r , . : r r lr ls.

f 78 | vrrer. LrES,srMpLETRUTHS
victims and perpetrators of these behaviors give multiple clues that
they are in trouble-as if they want to be found out. For example,
over half of the people who commit suicide visit their medical
doctor in the month before they kill themselves; 80 percent of thost,
who die of an overdose do so with one prescription that they havt,
recently obtained."
He tells of a physician's daughter whose mother brought her
to an orthopedist with a sprained ankle; X rays revealed a fracture.
Seven months later, the daughter went to another doctor with another broken bone. only after a third fracture brought her for medical help was abuse suspected. The mother finally admitterl
throwing her daughter against the wall to "discipline" her. Thr:
family's friends and relatives had known about the injuries, btrt
none had intervened.
A lawyer's wife, similarly, made excuses and invented explanations for bruises and other medical difficulties during her pregnancy. Her obstetrician and her friends, though, overlooked tht.
possibility that her husband was beating her, until she miscarrierl
after he pushed her down the stairs.
Then there was "the precocious thirteen-year-old daughter of'
an army sergeant" who made re$eated visits io the family" doctor
for urinary tract infections. Her father always accompanied her orr
these medical visits. Ironically, the doctor would reassure him thtt
the daughter was not sexually active. In fact, the father had becrr
having intercourse with her for years.
A remarkably high incidence of child abuse goes on despitr.
some contact with an authority-teacher,
therapist, police offict.r.,
case worker-who
should have noticed a clue and done something
about it. Commonly, a parent bringing a child to an emergen(.y
room with bruises and broken bones-the result of a beatingexplains the wounds away as the result of an accident and tlrr.
hospital personnel accept the explanation at face value.
weissberg gives the following examples of what such parerrrts
s ay t o av o i d d i s c o v e ry :2 r

THE GAME oF HAPPY FAMTLY I tZg

I lrad no idea my husband was

, Lri ng these t hings.

I am so frightened of being
alone and I am afraid he will
leave me if I criticize him.

Weissberg observes that these lies and rationalizations are

,,lien believed because of the anxiety that acknowledging the truth
rrright bring. Denial is easier. But "denial short-circuits the anxiety
tl utt accomp anies an obser ver 's r ecognit ion of abuse; . . . [ it ] also
ln otects the observer from deciding what action to take if abuse is
,r,' know l edged. "
The parallel between the family mind and the individual is
,,rrnplete: the trade-off between anxiety and attention is at work
Ir.r, too. Self-deception in its Happy Family guise keeps anxiety
.rt bay. The implications of this parallel for understanding group
lrlc are great, for, as Freud saw, the family stands as aprototype for
tlrc psychology of all groups.

Seys

Mnexs

I never have problems with my

baby.

I had to l eave the house yt.str.r

d"y because I was afrtirl I
would strangle thcr chi l < 1.

I have no idea how these

bruises occurred. . . . Maybe it
was an a c c i d e n t.

I w as s< lrrl l sct . . . I l ri t

THERE,S NoTHING RoTTEN HERE IN DENMARK

THERE'S NOTHING ROTTEN

HERE IN DENMARK

rn
It"
evidence for the collective defenses and sharecl
illusions at work in groups other than families is nowhere
better
stated than in Irving Janis's research on "groupthink."22 Famous
cases of groupthink include major fiascos li[e the Bay of pigs invasion and watergate. In these instances a small, .ory gro.riof
key
decision-makers tacitly conspirgd to ignore crucial information
because it did not fit with the cBllective view. The result of such
biased decisions can be a disaster.
_ Groupthink_is not an argument against groups, but rather ir
danger signal of collective pathology, u "*"'igone
awry. Croulr,
are a sensible antidote to the risks of a single persorr;,
decisions that are skewed by personal bias. A person alone-uking
is vtrlnerable to sways of emotion, or to blind spots arising from socill
prejudices, or to a failure to comprehend the
cons(."oripl""
quenc es o f a s e e mi n g l y s i mp l e d e ci si on. In a group,
i ssues can l l r,
aired, other points of view considered, additional information gartlrered and weighed_.when they work at their best, groups can makt.
better decisions than would any single memb"r."n"i groupthirk
skews group thinking.
consider the sad story of pitcher, oklahoma. In lg50 a l.r.irt
mining engineer warned the people of this small mining towrr t'
flee. An accident_had virtually undermined the town; it might (:irv(.
in any minute. The next day at the Lion's club meeting, tire t.rvrr
leaders joked about the warning. when one arrived *"uri.g il
I)ir.
achute, they laughed and laughed. The message "it can't lr.ppr.rr
here" implicit in their hilarity was sadly contralicteci withirr l li,rv
day s : s o m e o f th e s e s a me me n a n d t hei i farni l i ersw ()r(l ki l l t' < l i rr tl r.
cave-in.
J ani s o ffe rs th e s t< l ryo f' Pi tc ' h r. r' ts an i rrtro< l rrr.ti orr
l o l ri s con
c ept of ' g r< l rrl l th i rtk'.l ' l ri tt i rrtt' rrti o rrr l l r'( )r' u,r' l l i rrrrnrnr(. rl .rr,rl .s l l rr.

sT

,l.terioration of a group's mental efficiency, attention,

and j,,dgrrrt'ntthat results from implicit constraints and pressures.
The subtlety of the mechanics of groupthink makes it hard to
',1rotand counter. As people in a group get cozy and comfortable,
tlrt'ir very feelings of ease with each other can harbor
a corollary
r,'lrrctance to voice opinions that might destroy the sense
of cozin(' ss.A s Janis descr ibes it : 23
. . . The leader does not deliberately try to get the group to
tell him what he wants to hear but -is quite sincere in
asking for honest opinions. The group mlmberc ur"-rrot
transformed into sycophants. They are^not afraid to speak
their minds. Nevertheless, subtle constraints, which the
leader may reinforce inadvertently, prevent a member
from fully exercising_ his critical po*.i,
and from r;;;i),
expressing doubts when most otliers in the group
to have reached consensus.
"pp"u,
Just as with defenses, the impetus for groupthink is to mini,tit,e anxiety and preserve self-esteem. Groupthink describes
the
',t)('rations that the group mind employs to preserve the illusion of
I l rrl l py Family. Janis obser ves:2a
Each individual in the grou.p feels himself to be under an
injunction to avoid making penetrating criticisms that
might bring_ on a clash witlifellow
and destroy
the unity of the group. . . . Each member
-.-L".s avoids i";;i;iing with an emerging consensus by assuring himself that
the opposing arguments he had in mind
rlr that his misgivings are too unimportant
-rrt"b"to "rrorr"o.,,
be worth
nrenti o ning.
The various devices to enhance self-esteem require
*n illusion of unanimity about all important;"dg-i"ir.
without it, the sense of group unity would be iost, g"u*i.g doubts would start to grow,-"o.rfid"trce in th" gil"f;,
lrroblem-solving capacity would shrink, and soon irr" ri,tt
t'rnotional impact of all the stresses_
generated by making a
tl i {fi cul t decision would be ar oused. 'l'ht' v.ry gl'e
that holds a group together can later be its un,l rri rrr{.A l vc r o Yor ker car t oon m akes t he point . A king
in a m edieval
,,rsl l t' si ts s r . 'r oun( led by knight s. He says, "Then iu"'. "
in agr er erttt' ttl .' l ' l rt' r u''sr t <lt lr ingr <lt t enher e in I ) enr nar k. Sor let hing
is r 't t . r r
( \ (.r' \' w l rt' r'rr '. lsr . . "
A rrxi r' l \': t r r r l sr 'll- t 'st t . r 'r rlllir
r v llr c sir nr c r <llc in t I r , w( , lr s ir r
l l rr' " 1" ; l l r( '\ ' ( 'n( '( ) unr r {(t'lr c lr cn<lir r uol'r . r , r r lit rr.r, )
r ) r . ( , s( , r . rlr, tcir
, t lr t . f ; r ; ) . r . ; r r . r r llr r lr .
' ' tt,' tl t' sl t' t' l lt : lt r r llcss, 'lt ct llt t r r ir 'l\ '. l, 'or r , \ ; ur r 1llr ,i1.
tl r;l l l rttl s gt r '; r l ir t t llot f ; t n( 'r '( ) n Llr t ) r r l)lr r r t l\ ', ir r n( , r , lir r u ; r r r r lilr r r r

182

| vrrer- LrES. sTMPLE TRUTHS

cumbent chances for dissent-can be a delicate matter. Arthtrr

Golden, who worked at a Japanese English-language magazint:,
describes a typical meeting there:25
First, an employee who has been charged with looking
into a proposal presents his report. The boss (whose job it
is to approve or reject proposals, not come up with them
himself) nods and harrumphs. Everyone else stares at the
floor. Finally, the boss says, "Well, what do you think?"
No one answers. He then asks each individual in turn.
Keeping the ideal of group unity in mind, they all answer
with something ambiguous like "I think it sounds good."
More silence and more nodding.
At last, someone will sigh, scratch his head or make
some similar sign indicating that, although it is not perhaps a circumstance he would have chosen for himself, a
dissenting opinion has nonetheless presented itself to
him, and he feels the need to express it to the group. . . .
Once an opinion is accepted it becomes the group's opinion and is no longer associated with its originator. This
convention helps keep unity intact by not singling out any
one individual on the fasis of performance or initiative.
Janis came to formulate the notion of groupthink from his rt,search on groups as diverse as infantry platoons and executives irr
leadership training. In all the groups he studied, he detected, to
some degree, a trade-off between preserving a sense of cozy soli.
darity and the willingness to face facts and voice views that chtllenged key shared schemas of the group self. The "we" is pront: to
the same "totalitarian" skews as the self.
For example, Janis recounts sitting in as a counselor on a groul)
of heavy smokers attending a clinic to help them stop. At the sr.t'ond meeting of the group, the two dominant members proclairrrr.rl
that it was almost impossible to stop smoking. Most of the otlrr.r's
agreed, and ganged up against the one member who took issur.
with this opinion.
In the middle of the next meeting the same man who had lrt'r.rr
the lone dissenter announced: "When I joined, I agreed to {irllow
the two main rules required by the clinic-to make a conscie.ntiorrr
effort to stop smoking and to attend every meeting." He wt:rrt orr lo
say that he had learned from the group that you can firllow orrlv
on e o f th o s e ru l e s . S o , s a i d h e , " f have deci ded that I w i l l corrti rrrrr,
to attend every meeting but I have gone back to srrr<lkirrgtwo piu'k:
> r' i urri rrg.l l c u' i rs
a d a y ." At th a t, th e o th e r m e mbers apl rl arr< l r' <l1,
we l c o m e d b a c k i n t< l th e fb l rl . B rrt w ht' rr.frrrri stri t' rl t,,;roi rrl orrl l l rrrl
t he g o a l o f th e g ro l l l ) i ts r' l l ' w its to sl oyl srrroki rrg,l l rc rrr,' rrrl ,,' r\rg

THERE's NorHINc

RorrEN

HERE IN DuNNIAtiK I

lu:]

rror'dhis comments, reiterating that it was impossible t<l stop itrr

.' ,l rl i cti o n like sm oking.
The group was amiable in the extreme; they sought full corrurrence
on every topic, with none of the upsetting bickering that
'
,,' rrl d ruin t he coziness. But t hat com f or t able consensus was br r ilt
," ,,rrnd an illusion: t hat ever yone in t he gr oup had a hopeless acl,lrction to smoking. Yet no one questioned it. The first victim of'
rr,rrrpth ink is cr it ical t hought .
Whether in a therapy group or a meeting of presidential advis,'rs, the dynamics of groupthink are the same. Typically, talk is
lrrrrited to a few courses of action, while the full range of alternaIrr.S is ignored. No attention is paid to the values implicit in this
r,rnge of alternatives, nor does anyone stop to consider the draw1,,r,'ksof these initial choices. The ignored alternatives are never'
l,r,rrrght up, no matter what advantages they might have. No one
,,,nsults expert information that might offer a sound estimate ol'
l,',\cS and gains; facts that challenge the initial choice are brushetl
,r' ,rrl ('The
.
gr oup expect s success,and m akes no cont ingency plans
t,' rl t' al wit h f ailur e.
'l'he forces at work in groupthink are a variety of Happy Famrl r l rrst ead of hiding a secr et or shar ed dist r ess, t he gr oup sim ply
r r.nnt)S its attention and hobbles its information-seeking to pre.( r \ (, Lrcozy unanimity. Loyalty to the group requires that members
11'I ritise embarrassing questions, attack weak arguments, or
' 'l,rrt()r softheaded thinking with hard facts. Only comfortablc,
l ' .rrr' < schem
l
as ar e allowed f ull expr ession. Janis of f er s a law ir r
IrIrrti try:26

'l'lre

more amiable the esprit de corps among the members

,,1'apolicy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that
i rrrlependent cr it ical t hinking will be r eplaced by gr ouptl ri r r k, which is likely t o r esult in ir r at ional . . . act ions.

FoRMULA FoR FrASco

FORMULA FOR FIASCO

It

i, a bizarre twist of history that John F. Kenrrr,rly

worst fiasco-the Bay of Pigs-was the result of a suggesti<lrror

inally made by Richard M. Nixon, his opponent in the presirk'rr
election. Nixon, while vice president to Eisenhower, had propo
that the government train a secret army of Cuban exiles to
Castro. Eisenhower liked the idg:a,and directed the CIA to tlrrltl
Cuban guerrilla army.
By the time Kennedy reached office, the CIA had an elalrr
plan for a military invasion of Cuba in the works and was tririrrl
a clandestine armv. Two days after Kennedy took office. Al

Dulles, head of the CIA, briefed him on the plan. Over tlrc r
eighty days, a small group of presidential advisersconsick'r'r.rl
t
operation. By April the plan went into effect: fourteen lrrrrrr
Cuban exiles made their assault at the Bay of Pigs.
The attack was a disaster from beginning to end. Not orre
four ships with supplies arrived. By the second day, twcrrll' llrr

sandCuban troopshemmed in the assaultbrigade.By the tlrirrl r

all the surviving members of the brigade were in prison crrrrrgrs.
Y
up to the actual invasion, Kennedy and his advisers wer() r'orrlirl
the operation would topple Castro.
W he n th e a tta c k fa i l e d , K e n n edy w as stunned. " l l ou' ,"
asked, "could I have been so stupid to let them go ahearl?"
Janis offers a detailed answer to that question, lrirst'rl orr rl=
c ount s b y me mb e rs o f Ke n n e d y ' s inner ci rcl e recal l i rrg w l rrrt l rn
pened d u ri n g th o s e e i g h ty d a y s o f di scussi on beforc tl rr' l rrl
lr
s et s ail. T h e me e ti n g s w e re a tte n d e d by K ennt' rl y' s l ri rl l l < Lrzr.rr
adv is er s -R u s k , M c N a m a ra , Bu n d y, S chl t' si rtgcr,i rrrrl l i ol rcrl l t
nedy - an d th e th re e mi l i ta ry C h i e f.sof' S trrfl ,yrl rrsA l l < .rrl )rrl l r.r a

RichardBisselfrom therCIA.
it wrrsllissr'lwlro 1)r('s('rrlrrl
llrc irrr';rsr,,rr
At the nlct'tirrgs,
1ll

| 185

l , r,rr,' ,l yhad known him f or year s and r espect ed him highly; be,,,{,' .{ K r:nnedy seem ed so in agr eem ent wit h Bissel, his adviser s
:rl ong. The r esult was a num ber of cr ucial m iscalculat ions
s,l ,,r,' ,1
' , l rr, l ' l .cl to the consensust hat t he invasion was a good idea. Each
,' l tl ,, ' ,' ' rni scalculat ionscould have been pr event ed on t he basis of
i ,l ,,rrrr,rti onavailable t o one or anot her m em ber of t he gr oup, had
rl ,, r ' ,,,rrghti t o r br ought it up. None did; t hey wer e in t he gr ip of
E r, rr| | ,ll ri rrk.
l'.r ()Xilrrlple,the group assumed that the invasion would trigE i r ,r' ,' rr' (lupri s ings by an under gr ound t hr oughout Cuba, which
,i rr,rl rll < ' adto Cast r o's f all. They knew t hat vict or y would depend
r,r .,r,l r rrpri si n gs, since t he invasion f or ce it self was t oo sm all t o
la' l.l, tlrc Cuban army on its own (there were 200,000 Cubans to
I l n(| ,,r' uders) .Bissel and Dulles assur ed t hem t hat such an upr is'
i i r!r rr,rrl rl take place, and t he gr oup went along wit h t heir assur 4llr

l' lrr.t, the cIA had made no such predictions. Nor did anyone
rr' l 111l i ngS ecr et ar y of St at e Dean Rusk- ask t he exper t s at t he
| ,r1,.r,,
,l csk of t he St at e Depar t m ent , who m aint ained a daily sur ,r i l l .rrr.t' o{' C uban polit ical lif e, what t hey t hought . No one
l ,r' ,rrr' l rtrrp the r esult s of a car ef ul poll, done t he year bef or e, showi rrl :tl r,rll l rc vas t m ajor it y of Cubans suppor t ed Cast r o. The poll had
f ,, , rr ,r r,l t' l y ci rculat ed in gover nm ent cir cles, and m ost who saw it
,,,' , l ,r,l ,' rl there was lit t le hope of pr ovoking m uch int er nal r esisr.i * rr t,r (l l rstro . "This evidence, " Janis r epor t s, "was eit her t ot ally
f ' ,11,,,1t.rr
or i gn or ed by t he polit ical exper t s in t he gr oup. "
l l r,' rr there was t he m at t er of t he Escam br ay M ount ains m a,i . ,,\ r r .' \rroth erassum pt ion under lying t he invasion was t hat if
rl ,, l rrr' ,:r(l r' {ailedin it s f ir st bat t les, it could r et r eat t o t he Escam 1,,.,' ,\l rrrrrti ri ns and hold out t her e. I t t ur ned out , t hough, t hat t he
i ,,,,r,,rl .rrrrs
w cre a usef ul f allback posit ion only if an ear lier landing
:i l i
rt l l rci r' {i ro t , was used. The Bay of Pigs, lat er chosen f or t he
1.,,,,Ir
. , , , Itt' si l t' , w it s eight y m iles f r om t he m ount ains, acr oss a t hick
l.rrr1'lr
,,1 s\vl rnr t r ) sand jungles. "This over sight , " Janis not es,
,ltr'lrl
l ,:rvr l rt 't 'n cor r ect ed if som eone in t he advisor y gr oup had
I ' l , rr tl r. trorrl r lt 't o look nt a m ap of Cuba, available in any at las. "
l l ,,rr, tl rr.n, t . or r lr lsr r ch a br ight and well- inf or m ed gr oup have
E :,' ,,,,rl .ru{ u' i tlr a sr r c'lra t er r ibly conceived plan? Janis t r aces t he
* , i * r l . l l rc t'volr r t ior ro{'a nr r r r r llerof illusor y gr oup schem as and
rl ,, r' ,,' , l r;uri sl ns llr c gnr r r ll <lt 'vr 'l<llxr rtl o pnlt ect t hose illusions
ae.tr' ,1,l trr' ,ntl it 't t t ir r ginlir r r r ur t ior rWlr
. ilt . t lr <lseschcr r r uswer e opep
;r: ,rrrgrl t,tts,l l r, ' lir , 'l llr : r l llr cl' w( 'r '( ' illr r sior r swt s r r ot llir r t o{'t lr c
r r s: r t 1x'olr . r . lr . <l
r,' l l r .,,1,,' rtl t'slr ir t lr l : r r t 'lu( 'n( 'r is. 'l'lr r 'r n( '( 'lr lr r r isrllr
lll

rn \\ r'rr. rrol i rr l l rr. 11t()ul ) l t\\,:l l (,t1(,\s :rt

;rl l .

lr
l

it

186

I vrrel

LIES. sTMPLE TRUTHS

Although an individual member might be aware of sorrr,'irrftrF

mation that did not support the assumptions, or of the ways irrluF
mation was kept from shared awareness, the group's t:ollt't'llFA_
a w a re n e s s w a s o b l i v i o u s to these thi ngs. In that sense, 1l 1r z.orrr.rf,
information out of their awareness constituted the group e<lrrivrrlt'[t
of the unconscious mind. It is in the group unconscious that grortp
th i n k o p e ra te s , j u s t a s d i v e rsi onary schemas act i n the i n< l i vi rl rrd
u n c o n s c ro u s .
Tan IvvzLNERABILITv lrtusrox. In studying the forces thtt lt'rl
groupthink in this case, Janis pinpoints several ways Kennt'<lv r
h i s a d v i s e rs w e n t w ro n g . For one, they l abored under an " i l l url r
of invulnerability," the sense that anything they plannt'<l w
b o u n d to s u c c e e d . Ke n n e dy had j ust been el ected, and l rrt' k rt
fate seemed to be on his side. The mood in the White Horrsr', rn
Sc h l e s i n g e r, w a s b u o y a n t: " E veryone around [K ennedy] tl rorr
he had the Midas touch and could not lose. . . . Euphoriu rcigrr
we thought for a moment that the world was plastic and tlrr' lirl
u n l i m i te d ."
The same rosy scttrema,says Janis, occurs in most grorr;lr {
they are first coming tolether as a group. The newly ac(luircrl lr{=
lective self-what Janis calls a "we-feeling"-lends
thenr ir "sFna!
of belonging to a powerful, protective group that in sonr(' r'rrltti
way opens up new potentials for each of them. Ofterrr llrcrr' fl
boundless admiration for the group leader."
This very sense of invulnerability is a grave flaw in tlrc grorrlttl
ability to assessinformation realistically. Members are rt.lrrr'lirrrlt
d o a n y th i n g th a t w o u l d b r eak the feel i ng of euphori a ()r s(' rrrl rf
c o h e s i v e n e s s . Si m p l y c ri ti ci zi ng the ri sks of a group rl et' i si orr ftg
matter how objective the appraisal-is an attack on thc qroul, tolfi
" In g ro u p me e ti n g s ," s a ys Jani s, " thi s groupthi nk terr< l t' rrt' r'
r li
o p e ra te l i k e a l o w -l e v e l n oi se that prevents w arni ng si grrrl s l tnR
b e i n g h e e d e d . Ev e ry o n e b ecomes somew hat bi ase< l i rr tl rc rl trce
ti o n o f s e l e c ti v e l y a tte n d i ng to the messages that l i .t.rl i rrl o tl tr
m e m b e rs ' s h a re d fe e l i n g s of confi dence and opti rni srn, tl i srrgrrrd=
ing those that do not."
T u n U N a N T M IT vl rtu s rc r,t A l ong w i th the sense ol ' i rrvrrl rrrri rl rl l l tf
j , ,' ,,rrrre,ti r
c o m e s th e i l l u s i o n o f u n a ni mi ty. B oth stern fi ' orrrgr' ()rr
On c e th e g ro u p a d o p ts a bel i ef or cl e:ci si orr,i rrtl i vi tl rrrrlrrrcrrrl reff
a re l i k e l y to fe e l i t m u s t be ri ght. A {i cr rrl l , tl rc rrrcrrrl rr' rsrr. rrrch
g re a t p e o p l e -h o w c o trl c ltht' y l rr, w nrrrgP
T h e e a s y a s s trn tp ti o tti s tl ri rt tl rcr' ,' i s con\(' nsu\:rtrrl rrrr;rnl ttl
am ong t hc gr or r ll. ' l' lr is illtt s i o n

is trutirrl;rirrlrl. s;rrr f ;rrrr.. lrllrr

FoRMULA FoR FTASCo | 187

"often become inclined, without quite realizing it, t<r

'',lrt:rs
r.nt latent disagreements from surfacing when they are aborrt
rrr r liat ea r isky cour se of act ion. The gr oup leader and t he m enl| '' \rrpport one another, playing up to areas of convergence in
rr thinking, at the expense of fully exploring divergencies that
,,,rr' lr tl lisr upt " t he at m ospher e of congenialit y.
l,r<lking back, Theodore sorensen remarked, "our meetings
1' ' ,,1;.r lr r cein a cur ious at m ospher e of assum ed consensus. " I n t he
[, r rr r <'et ings,
no st r ong opposit ion was voiced, nor wer e any alt er plans pr esent ed. Yet , he t hinks, "had one senior advisor
' ,rtrr.
,,1' gr, st '(t lhe advent ur e, I believe t hat Kennedy would have
can' ,l ,,l it . No one spoke against it . " By r em aining silent , t hese dis,r rrt. r s t acit ly added t o t he illusion of unanim ous consent .
'rr t'r'tit.,ssED
Pnnsoxa,r Dounrs. why do dissenters keep quiet? onc
rr r.,) il seem s t o be a self - im posed censor ship on t heir m isgivings.
' ,,,111 r \ ( 'n,in a post - m or t em , concluded t hat "doubt s
wer e ent er l ,rrrr.r llr t r t never pr essed, par t ly out of f ear of being labeled 'sof t '
,,r
' rrr , lir 'ing in t he eyes of t heir colleagues. " The at m ospher e ol'
1rl ,r\|r r r rt t t t anim it y dam pens dissent ; t o object is t o st and apar t f nr r r r
tl ' r' r oul) . Schlesinger , f or exam ple, lat er wr ot e: 27
lrr th. months after the Bay of pigs I bitterly reproached
",r st'lf for having kept so silent during those criiical dis, , ssions in t he cabinet Room , t hough m y f eelings of gt r ilt
\\ ('r.('temp_eredby the knowledge that a course of obiectr ( ) r w. 'ld have accom plished lit t le save t o gain m e a
rr. nn( 'r r sa nuisance.
l i. r t lr <'r 't hanbecom e a par iah of sor t s, pot ent ial dissent c: r . st
s uv
i l ' rrl 'l'o slleuk out is t o dest r oy t he consensus.But t hat c<lnsr r r r slr s,
r I l r, t rt ' s( ) ell, is an illusion. Self lcensor ship
by dissent er s nl( : 11s
tl ' rl ' r t li( 'islt ls never ent er t he collect ive awar eness, allowir r g
lr
l ' ,l r r lr r r r '<'<l
t sst r r npt i<lnt o t hr ive, unchallenged.
lltrlr.t
l r {r ) .s.A "r r r i r r tl g tti tr cl " i s so n r e o n e w h o ta ke s i t <l r r h i r r r sr 'l l '
t " 'r r r tl i zc i l tl i r r r ttttti o r r s<l tl ta t i t c<l n fr l r n r s t<l
th e : cr r r r cn t s<,l r cr r u r s.
I l 'r ' lt Pi t':tl l r ti tk<'s tl r t' l <l r r r r o f'1 >r r tti n g s<l ci i tl
I) r ( 'ssl r r ( , o n l r r n ( .1 r l " r r r l r . r r r i u l r t ( '\l ) r '( 'ss l r <l i sst'r r ti r r g vi t,w ; th r . t.l l i .ct
i s t<l ( ,1 s1 r .( ,
t l r r l l l ','1 1 s1 ) ttl ) ( '( ) n s( 'r tstts i s r r o t c'l r l r l l t'r r g cr l .'l 'l r r ,
l l n ,ssr r r c i s o l i cr r
l 'l r l . r r r l si r r r l r l v l t'l l i n g tl r c w ,o r r l <l - l r c r l i ssr .r r tr .r ' to l r r . r l r r i ct
il lris
i , l , r t r ( ,r r ,l ,r r .sr r 'l r r r ;r l <'l rl l r t g <r i r r u <l tr r ..
\ tr tl tr r l q ttl tr r l i s r u r r tl l cr r l i o r r :r l l r ,r r l vu r r :r r r l , sl ;r r r r l i r r g vi r r i l r r r l l o
l r r r r l 'r t tl r l q l ( ) l l l ) 1 t( l l l to tr r l r l r vsi r ';r l :r ss;r r r l t, l r r r l l i r ) 1 r l l 1 :r l l :r r .k l ,r
i r r l , 'r r r r ,r l r 'r r . "A r r r i r r r l l l r :r r ,l ." s;r \'r f :r r r r s. g l r ,l r .r 'l s l l r ,. g r ( ) l r l ) 'l r ,,r r r

188

| vrral

LrES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

thoughts that might damage their confidence in the soundness ol'

the policies to which they are committed."
In the White House circle, the President's brother, Robert,
assumed this role vis-d-vis Schlesinger. Robert Kennedy had hearrl
that Schlesinger had some grave doubts about the invasion plarr.
He took Schlesinger aside at a party and asked what his reservations were. After listening coldly, Kennedy said, "You may be right
or wrong, but the President has made up his mind. Don't push it
any further. Now is the time for everyone to help him all they can."
The "help" the mindguard offers the group is of dubious
value: it preserves the illusion of unanimity at the price of effectivtr
consideration of the data at hand. The mindguard actively colludes
to preserve the fictions at the heart of the group self, an act equiv.
alent to the defense mechanism of repression.
R,a,rro^reLIZATroNS.
N{uch of what group members say to each othcr
to justify a shaky course of action is rationalization, a story line they
pool their efforts to concoct and believe. Rationalizations serve trr
build confidence and reassure the group about the morality, safety,
wisdom, or other validity of their decisions. The Bay of Pigs deci.
sion hinged on a slew of rationtlizations appraising as safe whut
was a foolhardy plan. These rationalizations kept the group frorrr
contemplating some devastating information-such as the fact tlrtt
Castro's army outnumbered the invading force by over 140 to l.
Ernrcer Brmonns. The group's schema includes an unstated belir,l'
in its rightness and morality. This glib assumption allows the mcrrr.
bers to ignore the moral status and consequences of their decisi<lrrs,
This belief flows from the group credo that "we are wise lrrrl
good," an aspect of its self-image of invulnerability. And, after lll.
if we are good, then whatever we do must be good. These ethit'rrl
blinders help the group avoid feeling ashamed or guilty about wlrut
otherwise might be questionable means or goals. Their actior-rsclrr
go on cocooned in a comfortable sense of righteousness. The blrrrrrl
as s um pti o n w a s th a t w h e n th e U .S . Government decrees sonr(,'
t hing is b e s t fo r a p e o p l e , th a t c h o i ce must be " moral ." Thtt i rssumption was at play in the Bay of Pigs fiasco as it has been irr rrrrl'
number of other foreign policy disasters
SrnnnoryPEs. A stereotype is the grossly rhisfocusecl lens tlrrorrglr
whic h o n e g ro u p v i e w s a n o th e r. T he stereotypercrrrrl rt' t' i tl rt.r' ;rorit iv e or n e g a ti v e ; i t i s i n v a ri a b l y i naccrrnrtt.. A sl r.r' r' ot\' 1rr.i sl l
s c hem a th a t, o n c e fi x e d , i s p re s e rvt' < l l rv' i grrori rrg rl i sr' ,rrrl i l rrri rrI
f ac t s an d a mp l i fy i n g a n y tl u rt s < ' r' rrrl o fi t. S l cl col r' pcs;l r' (.s,.l l '

FoRMULA FoR FTASCo

189

,,rnfirming. In the Bay of Pigs decision, the stereotype of Castro as

lrvsterical and inept allowed the White House group to underestirrr:rtehis response to the invasion. Stereotypes are tenacious; meml,r'r'swill stick to them despite all evidence to the contrary. Images
,,1the "enemy" in any group are always stereotypes: the judgment
,'rrlrlied in the term "enemy" is incompatible with our knowing
.rspectsof the others that might make them seem not so very much
rrrrl i keourse lves.
The self-deceit to which groupthink leads can be prevented.
l rrtl eed, P resident Kennedy, sober ed by t he Bay of Pigs, pur posel rrl l y encoura ged cr it ical t hought and open dissent am ong his ad\ rsers i n han dling t he Cuban m issile cr isis. Cr it ical t hinking and
,l rssentare a nt idot es t o shar ed illusions, ensur ing t hat gr oup scherruts will be more in keeping with reality-or, at worst, honest
rrristakesrather than the product of groupthink.

GRoUpTHINK IN THE coRporrA.r.lt rrllr

business-or
therapy.

GROUPTHINK
IN THE CORPORATEFAMILY

roupthink is an especially dangerouspathology for

businesses.In making a marketing or product development decl.
sion, for example, a cozy executive group, falling into the grip of
groupthink, can make costly mistakes. The bottom line, though,
also offers businesspeople a safeguard.Their decisionsare likely
to get a direct judgment from*the marketplace about their sound.
ness.In this respectbusinesseS
benefit from the built-in correctivo
of marketing successand failure, a periodic reality-check that il
hard to ignore with even the most vigorous groupthink. Goverrr.
ment and other policy planners often do not have such a direct arxl
specificmeasureof the wisdom of their decisions.
Even so, business is replete with instances of Happy Fanrily
and groupthink. One H"ppy Family game common in corporatiorrr
is the collusion to deny the incompetence of a longtime employt.r.,
often an alcoholic. He is gently shunted aside into a noncritir:nl
position, his bumbling discreetly ignored. Such collusions li'nquently end when a new management takes over. The newconl(.ri,
who do not share the sense of "family" that built the collusion, :ir,e
simply the incompetence.
Harry Levinson, an organizational psychologist and a keerr olr.
server of corporate life, points out that we bring to the work pliu.e
the understandings about groups we learned in our families: 2h
All organizations recapitulate the basic family structtrrt:.
. . . Our earliest experiences with our parents are repeate<l
in our subsequent relationships with authority. Early fiurrily life determines our assumptions of how power is rlistributed, and as we grow up we form groups on the silnl(.
m o d e l ....If
e v e ry o n e k n o w s w hat the nrl c.s urr., tl ri rrgs
r u n s mo o th l y . Si n c e a l l rrs i n e ssi rrr< rr
l l i rrrri l y sl r:rrr.si rrri l :rr'
lls y c h o tl y tti tttti t' s ,v < l rr [i rrrl tl r c sl un(' sorts ol ' pnrl rl r.rns i rr

any

organizations-that

r.\

you

lf ) |

uncov(:r-

Groupthink, like Happy Family, is a danger inherent in thcr

.l rrrcture of or ganizat ions. The success or f ailur e of an em ployee
rlr'perndSto a large extent on his immediate superior's evaluation.
l l ri s make s t he junior em ployee m or e t han h"ppy t o suppor t t he
' .,' rri r)rone 's opinions, ut ilizing all t he handy devices gr oupt hink
,,ll.r'S.Another structural tendency toward groupthink comes from
tlr('culture of the workplace, where people who work together day
.rl tr.r' dayfor m a t ight in- gr oup.
-fake, for example, the groups, sometimes known
as "quality
, rr< ' l t:S ,'set up am ong em ployees t o cut t hr ough r ed t ape and help
r'',,r'kers themselves initiate changes in the way things are done.
i l r(i uri zati onal psychologist s sat in'on such gr oups in a bat t er y
,',',,'rnblyplant owned by large corporation in the South.2eThese
,' ,,r'k groups were set up "to do such things as prepare an annual
l ,rr,l {et, make job assignm ent s,assessqualit y cont r ol, and evaluat e
1,,1,pcrformance of fellow members. They were also encouraged to
,,,l vt' probl em s as t hey cam e up.
At one meeting of a group in the quality-control laboratory, the
r',',u('was a recent complaint that they were taking too long in their
,r,' ,1rt' cti o ns.
While t he qualit y- cont r ol t eam did t heir t est s f or delr t 15.production lines were shutdown to avoid scrap; the workers
,, l ' ,r l raclto wait wer e indignant .
'l'he quality-control group quickly
came to a consensus: the
,
rrk('
r' Sw ho had com plained "expect us t o dr op ever yt hing, " and
'r
l l r.r' rl on' t under st and how long t he t est s t ake. " G r oup m em ber s
l, lt tlr.y were in the right, that the complaints were unreasonable
,r,l urr.justified.The matter was dropped, without taking the comseri ously or sear ching f or a solut ion.
1,l ,rrrrt
I rr the view of the observing psychologists, that resolution was
,, I t\ (' < li tt tt sing t wo gr oupt hink t act ics: r at ionalizat ion and shar ed
l .tt' otvl l es. The r at ionalizat ion was t hat t her e was not hing wr ong
' ' rtl r tl rt' i r own wor k, negat ive inf r lr m at ion t o t he cont r ar y. The
,l r tt' ott' yl t:wit s t hat "st upid pr odt r ct ion wr lr ker s" c<luld r r <ltbe gxt he int r icacies of '<lualit y- cont r ol wr lr k. 'f ht '
1,r' lrt' ,1 l o u t t <lt 'r st it r r cl
rr' ,nl t: l l rr' <. or r r lllir intwas igr r <lr cr l.
Itr:tttotlt t 't 't t t t 'clir r g,wlr t 'r 'r 't lr t 'nr iur ir l{( 'r 'ht 111>t , r rt to, rllt
l , l) r - ( , s.tl , l l rr' 1rl 'olr lt 'r t t wlt s ir r lr ur lit r 'lr r llst 'ir r lxr t t cr v t . ir sir r gs.At llr s
,trl ' ,t' l tl i st' rt ssiot tw'lt sllnit t t lr lt 'r llur t l ( ) l) ( 'n,u, it lr nr ( . r r r lr t . r sglcr
's
r kir r u
l r,,' l r,' . A l i r't il wlr ilr ', t lr or r glr ,llr r 'nr : lr 1; llt ( ,sPokc
r
ul) , r villr "llr . r r . 's
' , l r,tl I tl rrrtk t 'ot t slt , r t r lt l, l, ) . . ir n( l lo, , L clr ; r r gr ', , 1t lr ( , r '( , r r r ; r ir r <llr
,' l l l rl n1r.( . lir r ; i.( ) r r cr . lr r . look, r vr . t llr r . r r r , 'r r r l) ( . t \\ \ . ( , t ( , r lr r r r . l,lr r r l

I92 | vrrnr- LrES,srMpLETRUTHS

their facial expressions made clear that although they would conli
ply with the manager's advice they did not agree with it.
Here self-censorship led to the illusion of unanimity. Althotrgh
the members covertly did not go along with the manager, no on
spoke up to voice differences. This lack of participation led tlrg
manager to believe that there was a consensus backing him up,
What was essentially his opinion became the "group" decision.
There is some evidence that strong business leaders inadvef.
tently encourage groupthink.3o In a simulation of corporate
sion-making, volunteers role-played executives of "Modern W<

Electronics" discussingwhether to manufacturea microw?.V

oVrlnr
Each group member had valuable information to contribute tlrat
was known to him alone.
The pseudoboss in each group, who led the discussions, wlt|
rated on how much he was motivated by a desire for power. Peolrh
high in this motivation do things for the sake of making an impne{
on others, rather than to meet an inner standard of excellence (the
hallmark of the achievement motive) or to enjoy the company of
others (the affiliation motive). As leaders, those high in power rrxr
tivation enjoy exercising authority solely for the taste of p<lwof,
They have little tolerance for irlterference and bristle at challerrget
to their opinions.
High-power leaders respond well to ingratiating subordinirtt,l,
In a group with such a leader, the axis of cohesiveness shifts townrd
the vertical from the horizontal: rather than feeling close to tlrrlf
fellow members, people in the group tend to form a bond of lovrrlty
to the leader.
In the simulation, the leaders high in power motivation sorr11ltt
fewer facts from other group members and were offered fewer llro.
pos als . On c e th e l e a d e r h a d e x p re ssed hi s vi ew s, members l i .l l l rr
line, deferring to him. It was not so much that the leaders stillod
dissent-many seemed to be democratic in how they ran thirrgs:
but that they subtly reinforced compliance with their own ogrln=
ions. The groupthink that resulted was a matter of degree i sonlts=
what less initiative by members, a notable lack of opposition to llre
leader's views, a compliant falling in line behind him.
A n y o n e i n th e b u s i n e s s w o rl d w i l l be abl e to recogni z(, uur= '
m ent s l i k e th e s e , a n d to a d d a m p l e exampl es of hi s ow n. ()l ' t' ourrrtr
not all groups are victims of groupthink, although fronr tirrrt. to lrlrre
ev en th e h e a l th i e s t ma y e x h i b i t symptoms. The nrort' ol i r.rr l l re
s y m pto ms c ro p u p , th e w o rs e th e resul ti ng i l l l rsi ons, arr< tl
l rt' grr,r,rf
t he de c i s i o n s th a t g ro u p w i l l m n ke. ' fhc l rcrrl tl rv rrl tt.rrurti vr.,rtf
c our s e , i s a g ro u p th a t b ttl a n c e s a s(' rrst'ol ' rrrri l v rt,i l l r :ur ol l crutrrtl
t o all re l e v a n t i n l i l rrrta ti ()n -(' \' (' tr rtl tl rc l i sk,rl l r l r;rr' ;rsl rorrr l i rrrr,ttf
t ir nt ' .

cRouprHrNK

IN THE coRpoRATE FAMILY

| 193

I'lie point is that the group, like the individual, is susceptible

r,r .r trrrd-offbetween anxiety and diminished attention. In a group,
l, , I l srgs of cozy unanimity stand at the opposite end of a continuum
' r rtl r :rnxi ety. I f t hat coziness br eaks down, t hings can becom e ver y
rr q1.,findeed. When a group maintains its coziness by erecting
lr.un('rs against information that might upset it, then a collective
,1,1,' rrsei s at wor k. This pr ocess of guar ding t he gr oup's self - im age
r s,rt'cisely parallel to the ways the personal self skews reality to
,rr' ,l rri rr
i ts se lf - schem a.As wit hin. so wit hout .

l' r \RT SI X

The Construction
of SocialReality

CONSTRUCTINC THE REALITY

PAR EXCELLENCE

ln the movie Starting Ouer, Jill Clayburgh, a teacher,

r', lhe target in a "dunk-the-teacher" booth at a nursery-school car,,rrul . C l aybur gh sit s pr im and pr oper , holding a par asol, light lr,'rrrtedly urging the ball-throwers on. Burt Reynolds, Clayburgh's
l,r'('r (with whom she has had a falling out), comes on the scene.
l{r'r,nolds takes some balls, determinedly attacks the target, and
{ lrryburgh drops into the water tank. Clayburgh stays calm and
,,,l l ccted , unt il t he f our t h dunking at Reynolds's hands. Exasper ,rl .rl , she yells "Will you cut t hat shit out ! "
A pall falls over the assembled parents and children. "She said
'
tl rr' S ' w o r d! " a shocked nur ser y schooler cr ies.
"She did not!" his mother fires back, as she yanks him away to
,,rrot'hercarnival booth.
ln the social realm, a notion similar to that of schemas is Erving
t l,llinan's concept of "frames." I A frame is the shared definition ol'
.r sitrration that organizes and governs social events and our inr,
in them. A frame, for example, is the understanding that
'lvcment
\\ (' iu'e at a play, or that "this is a sales call," or that "we are dating."
| ,rrt' l rof those def init ions of social event s det er m ines what is appnr 1rri :rtc to t he m om ent and what is not ; what is t o be not iced ar r r l
rrl nrt i gn or ecl; what , in shclr t ,t he going r ealit y involves. Wher r t lr t '
l r;rrnt' i s a nur ser y sch<l<llcar nivt r l, t he "S- wor d" is <lf I 'linr it s.
A l i ' a r r r cis t he pt r lr lic sr r r f ir ceof c<lllect ive schenr as.By shar ir r g
l l rc rrrr<lt 'r st t r r t lingol't he cor r cept s"1) lit y, " "sillt :s, " it nr l "r lt t 1. , " wr .
,,rrr.i oi rr ir r t lr t ' ir ct ior r , t 'r r ir t 't ing olr r par t s ir r sr r r oot lrlr ir r nr or r y.A
Irrrrrrr'(' ( ) nr ( 'sir r t o lr cir r g wlt t 'r r it s lllr r t it 'illir r r t st ct ivir t t ' slut r t '<lsr 'lr r . l i rl i t ; il'sonr ( '( ) n( 'r locs r r ot slr ; t t 'rt' lr c g<t ir r gsclr <'r r urllr
, c r csr r lls
" r:rs
( lollir r ir r rgivcs llr is cx; r r r r plr ',li'or r rlr Sr r n l"r . lr r r,rtr l )(' (' nt lxr r t r r ssir r g.
r' r\(' o gossiglt ', , lunnr , ol : t t r t t nslr ; u, 'r llr ; r t r r r ': ''

f98

| vlrel

LrES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

. . . This guy is lying face down on Powell St., with traffic

backed up for blocks. A Little Old Lady climbs down from
a stalled cable car and begins giving him artificial respiration-whereupon
he swivels his head and says: "Look
lady, I don't know what game you're playing, but I'm
trying to fix this cable."
We participate with ease in those social realms for which we
have a frame. The newcomer or novice who has not yet mastered
the schemas for a given frame, such as young children who do not
yet have "good manners," has the same status as a foreign visitor
or someone new to a sport. When they enter the action, everyone
must accommodate to the ways they slow or undermine the business at hand.
Frames can be broken down into "scripts," the sequences of
acts and responses that unfold within each frame. Take for an example the restaurant script:3
Suppose I tell you that I went to a restaurant and ordered
lobster and that I paid the check and left. What did I eat?
Well, I didn't say anything about eating, but it must have
been a lobster. Did thq.management get any money out of
it? Of course, although" I didn't say anything about management. Did the waitress give good service? What waitre s s?
When I talk about restaurants, I bring into your mind
all the knowledge you have about ordering and waitresses
and menus and tipping. A restaurant script. There can be
airline scripts and hotel scripts and classroom scripts.
A script codifies the schemas for a particular event; it directs
attention selectively, pointing to what is relevant and ignoring thc
1s5[-s crucial factor for programming computers.* A computer
program has the capacity to make endless inferences about anrl
responses to a situation, almost all of them absurd. A script allows
those inferences to be channeled along paths that make sense for ir
given event.
Indeed, there are scripts for every frame and a frame for any
and all events in which people interact with some degree of shart.<l
understanding. Those events can range from the simple act of walking past someone coming toward you (Do you pass to the right or
lef t? D o y o u r e y e s m e e t? If s o , for how l ong? D o you speuk?) to rr
procedure as complex as launching the space shtrttle, with c'orrrrl
less ma j o r a n d m i n o r ro u ti n e s .
* l l t' st' ur <' ht' r s itt lr r ti{ iciir l ir r t<' lligt' r r t' r ' , i r r s l r i v i r r g l o c or r t'or 'l c or r r l r r r l c r
l nr ) !1r r nn\ l l r ;r l
w i l l r r llor v r r nutt' lr itr r ' lo r r r ir r tic lr l) ( ' r ' s( ) n, s tr r r l v s l r i pl s i r r gr c r r l r l c l ;r r l .

coNsrRUCTrNG

THE REALrry pAR ExcELLENCE

| 199

Goffman's approach has its roots in William James's often-citcrl

clrapter on "The Perception of Reality," in his Principles of Psut'hology, in which James posed the question "Under what circtrnrstrrncesdo we think things are real?" n In his answer, James pointe cl
lo the crucial role of selective attention in creating subworlds o{'
rcrrlity, each with "its own special and separate style of existence."
"Each world,"
James noted, "ushilst it is attended fo, is real after
its own fashion; only the reality lapses with the attention."
What James meant by "world," Goffman says,was "a particular
person's current world." When that world is shared, a frame is
,'reated. We step into such a world-enter a frame-whenever we
;rrlapt to one or another definition of a situation. Two examples are
qi ven by t he phenom enologist Alf r ed Schut z: 5
. . . the radical change in attitude if, before a painting, we
permit our visual field to be limited by what is within the
frame as the passage into the pictorial world; our quandary, relaxing into laughter, if, in listening to a joke, w
are for a short time ready to accept the fictitious world of
the jest as a reality in relation to which the world of our
daily life takes on the character of foolishness.
The world of our daily life is of course, in some sense as arbilrary a reality as any of the others we can enter into. It is endowe<l
rvith a weighty sense of being the reality par excellence by virtuc
,,1'theaggregate tonnage of our collective schemas.
The notion that social reality is the product of shared schenras
rs new for sociology. But that forn-rulation is not much difl-err:rrt
lrorn those currently in vogue; it simply offers a concept that is
nrore in keeping with the current understanding of how the irrrlir irlrral constructs reality.
This idea is close t o t hat suggest ed by Pet er Ber ger it t r t l
' l ' l rorr r r r sLuckm ann in t heir classic, The Social Const r uc: t ior t ol'
Il t' ul i tg. Ber ger and Luckm ann agr ee wit h William Jar r r c. st lut t
rvl ri l e t her e ar e r nult iple r ealit ies, "t her e is one t hat pr escr r t s it st 'll'
:rs thc r ealit y par excellence: " t he r ealit y of ever yday lilir . 'l'lr t 'r '
u ri tc: ( i
' l 'lr c lar r gllug( 't r sed in ever yr lay I if i: cont inr r or r sly
1lr 'ovi<lcs
rrr t 'wit lr t lr t ' nt : ccssilr y<ll{cct if icat ior r sit r r <lposit s t lr t ' or r lt 'r '
rv it lr ir r r vlr iclr t lr t 'sc r t r it k( 's( 'r t s( 'ir r r t lwit lr ir r wlr iclt cvt 't 'v'.l: r v lili'lut s ur ( 'ir r r ir r glir r t t t <'.I livt 'it t lt llllt <'t 't lr r r tis gcour r r plr it ': r llvr k'sigr ur lct l; I r 'r r r plor 'lools, li'or r r( ': ur ( ) l) ( 'n( 'rs
l o spor 'lst 'r r ls,r vlr it 'lr : r lc r lcsigt r : r lct lir r t lr t 'lct 'lur ir '; r l vo, '; t l,
rrllr v ol r r r \ solir t r ': I lir ', 'r villr r r r ; r s', 'lr ol lr uinint t r 'lr t lt ot t

200 | vrrel LrES,srMpLETRUTHS

s\ips-, from my chess club to the united states of America,

-tr,i,
which are also ordered
of vocau"ru.y. l"
!,y
manner langua-ge marks the -""ns
co-ordinates of my iif" ir, ,ociety and fills that life with meaningful objects.
If Berger and Luckmann were to dig deeper, to explore what
it is that organizes language, the
*o.,ld be, schemas. Lan".rr*".
guages are schemas made audible;
social acts are schemas made
visible. If for "language" and its equivalents in the above passage
the concept of schemas were used lnstead, the meaning would
be
unchanged. The implications, though, would be differelt.
The reality of everyday life, Berger and Luckmann note, is
an
"intersubjective world," that is, one that
can be shared with others.
The medium of that sharing, I suggest, is the mutual activation
of
commonly held schemas-a frame. It offers a reference point,
a
shared perspective for the business of the moment.
Frames-the rules embedded in the structure of a situation_
are often hard to tease out. They are easier to spot when they
are
broken. In this sense, acts of social deviance-itr" psychotic
who
wanders through a department store taking items from'one
section
and depositing thern in anothehir
uncovering rules by shattering
t hem .
Pirandello uses devices in his plays that do the same; he
exploits the frames around a theatrical performance
by pointing t.
them. For example, Tonight we Improuise begins wiih-the
house_
lights going dim, the audience quieting itself for the play to
Legin,
and then nothing happening. Excited voices ar" h"ard i.obacks t age, s e e mi n g l y s o me s o rt o f u p ro ar. The pl ay begi ns:7
A gentleman from the orchestra: lloo ks around. and loudlg
csks] What's happening up therei
Another from the balcony: Sounds like a fight.
A third from a box: Maybe it's all part of thl show.
This dialogue itself, of course, is part of the show, and when
it
was first performed in 1930, the effect was jarring. By now
suclr
self-reflexive frame breaks are old hat.
Joseph H"ll"r uses thenr irr
his play we Bombed in I,leu Haoen, i"""i
in The Blacks. Bo.ks,
too, can use frame breaks. Goedel, Escher, Bach is a selfrreflexiv.
meditation on the theme of self-reflex.
John Barth's Lost in the l;tttt
House has this passage in mid-novel:8

The reader! You dogged unsuitable, print-orient.rl Irastard, it's you I'm addressing,who
fr.r' i.sirlt, tl r i s
"ir",
monstrousfiction.You've read me thi.s
firr.,tlrt,rr?I,lvt.rrtl ri s
far?For what discreditablernotivt.pI I.w is it v,.rr<lrrr' l uo
to rt movie, watch TV, stirr.t.
lrt ir u,rrll. . .

CoNSTRUCTING THE REALITY PAR EXCELLENCE I 2OI

The frame gives the context, telling us how to read what is

uoing on. When lips meet, is it a kiss or mouth-to-mouth resuscitalion? A frame provides an official main focus for attention, in accord
u'ith the business at hand: if the business is artificial resuscitation,
,'rrjoying the feel of skin on skin is out of bounds. The world offers
rr vitst amount more than we might attend to in any given moment.
l'he frame is highly selective; it directs attention away from all the
sirnultaneous activities that are out of frame.
As Neisser's unnoticed woman with the white umbrella in the
l,rrsketball game demonstrates, what is out of frame can easily go
rrrrperceived (at least in awareness-it may be registered in the
rrrrconscious)I.n or der t o hold an int im at e conver sat ion on a busy
rlreet, one must focus sharply on the immediate line of activity and
rr{noreall the bustle, the other sights and sounds around. Any frame
,rt rtll, in fact, defines a narrow focus where the relevant schemas
, lirect attention, and a broad, ignored area of irrelevance.
Goffman makes the point with an extreme case, in this passage
l rorn K ather ine Hulm es's A Nun's St or g: s
The first time she saw a novice faint in the chapel, she
broke every rule and stared. No nun or novice so much as
glanced at the white form that had keeled over from the
knees, though the novice fell sideways into their midst and
her Little Office shot from her hands as if thrown. . . . Then
Gabrielle saw the nun in charge of the health of the comrnunity come down the aisle. The nursing nun plucked the
sleeve of the nearest sister, who arose at once and helped
carry the collapsed novice back down the aisle, past a
hundred heads that never turned, past two hundred eyes
that never swerved from the altar.
All frames, says Goffman, have such dual tracks: one flow of
r. tivity is overt and acknowledged, while a parallel track is ig,,.,r',,r1,treated as though out of frame. Anything out of frame, by
,1,' l i rri ti < ln,does not deser ve at t ent ion. Since bot h t r acks go on sit he m inor t r ack m ust const ant ly be kept out of f ocus.
' ,' rrl ti ui eor r sly,
l " rrrl l rcr, ther cl<lr r r inantt r ack has t o be picked out o{'t he ent ir e as' ,r'rrrI rl i rgr:oI act ivit y.
S t' l st'r 1u( 'n( '( 's
it r c of ien lloundecl by what G of f nr an ( lr or r <lwir r g
Ir.trr l l i ttt'sot t ) t 'r r lls "llr ackct s, " c'onver nt i<lns
t hat r nar k t ht , llr lr t lcr s
,,1 :r l i ' l tttt t 'it t lir r t t 'it t t t l sllir ct '. 'l'lr cy iuur oun( ) c wlr cr r ir r r <lwlr cr t 'lr
r' r\ r' rr l i :trrt ct l cvt 'r r t got 's on, sr r r 'ltlr s llr t ' st ir lt lr r r r lf ir r islro{'lt s<, ssior r
rrr l l rr' ri tl )\ '.'l'lr r ' "r lisr r t t cr r r l" llir ck r r ll, r u's lir r t lr r ' plopr ir 'lv ol': r r 'ls
rr' l n,' l rrr(' n( '( '( 'sslr v r sir lcs ( likr '; r \ ': r \ \ 'r r ) .llr r t t lr r '\ 'nr r r sl lr l r r r r r lr . r l
' ,(f;r\ trol l o it r lr r r r lc ir r lo llr , ' lr ; r r r r , . .

202 | vrrel LrES,sTMPLE

TRUTHS
These parallel tracks-in
frame and out of frame-create
a
structure in social awareness that duplicates the division within
the mind between conscious and unconscious. What is out of frame
is also out of consensual awareness, in a sort of collective netherworld. As we shall see, the zone defined by the out-of-frame track
can serve as a veil for disturbing social facts, creating a social blind
spot.
Indeed, the social world is filled with frames that guide our
awareness toward one aspect of experience and away from others.
But we are so accustomed to their channeling our awareness that
we rarely notice that they do so. Take, for example, the frames for
work and for social roles.

THE TYRANNIES
AND FREEDOMS
OF FRAMES

rlF

i
J
.i

.Lurt
come and go as a society evolves. Consider the
", take for granted the workday
li'ame for work. We
as it exists now;
the eight-hour-day at the office or factory is an ingrained convention. There are minor variations-flex-time, four-day weeks, the
t'lectronic cottage-but all these are considered deviations from a
rvell-established norm. That norm, however, is itself a social fabrit'ation, a by-product of the Industrial Revolution.
In traditional societies, work and leisure are integrated. Buyer
,rncl seller linger over coffee before beginning to haggle; when
lriends come by, work can be dropped to socialize. The frame of
rvork as we know it is a peculiarity of modern society. It was the
llritish mill owners of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
n,ho by and large invented our frame for a workday. Even in the
,'rrrly eighteenth century in Britain work offered a high degree of
llt'xibility and independence: whether farmer or tradesman, most
pt'ople worked at home. Work rhythms by and large went in cycles
,rl ' i ntense labor br oken by idle, f r ee t im e.
The eighteenth century saw a crucial shift in the British econ()nrv: where befbre merchants had merely bought and distributed
11,,o{ls,
such as home-loomed cloth, they now began to orchestrate
tl rt' t' nti re pr oclt r ct ion pr ocess. Wher e bef or e m anuf bct ur ing hnd
l ,r' r' rrcl on e by nr r t r l f hm ilies weaving and spinning at t heir hor ncs,
l l rt' l oc' trso{'wor k lr egan t o be cent r alized. The m ill- t he pr ot ot yllt '
,,1l l rt' rrror lr . r r {ir
r ct <lr y- was bor n.
()rrt' lr ist or iir r ro[ 'r vor k cot 'nnler ) t son t his changel:r o
' l ' l rt' l lonl( 'wot 'kt 't '.

. \ / lt s it t r t t ir nv r ( 'sl) ( '( 't shis own nr ir sl ct' .... 'l'lr t 'lir r t 't 's t lr it t r r r lt '<llr is lit t c w( 'r '( 'ir r lr st 'r r st . or r t si < l r' lr is r l: t ilr 'lilr '; t lr ( '\ '( lit l r r , r l ovclslr : r r low, r r r r t<.
l r r vr . lo; r
l ri s l ro t t t , ', lr is lr r r r r ilr ',lr is nr ( ) \ '( 'lr r r r r ls; r r r rlrl r r lr ils,lr is lr or r r s
l ot s' r t t k lt r r , l lr is lr ot ns lot 1or , , 1. . . . lr r t lr , . r r r , , r lr . r r rr r ', , r lr l

I
I

204

| vrrel

or rneues | 205
THETvRANNTEs
ANDFREEDoMS

LrES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

discipline, and to observe other people's . . . orders, but

we have to remember that the population that was flung
into the brutal rhythm of the factory had earned its living
in relative freedom, and that the discipline of the early
factory was particularly savage.
The factory was the scene of a far-reaching reframing of work.
As Shoshana Zuboff observes,rr work was redefined in terms of'
"developing rigid guidelines for what the daily experience of'
working might legitimately consist of, and forcefully imposing this
new reality on an entire class of people. . . . The new demands ol'
speed and regularity could not tolerate the uneconomic rhythms of'
peasant life."
Employers assumed the right to control their employees'
moves and use of time during working hours. As Zuboff notes,
perhaps even more oppressive for the workers of the day, ernployers also sought to dictate how workers' "attention was organizerl
and distributed across the working day." For example, one obs er v e r n o te s th a tt2 " If th e w o rk e r sees a fri end... he can' t cl ap
him on the shoulder and hale him off to the nearest pub. . . . Thr.
factory system and rnachine4y brought the blessings of lighter
labor, but also the curse of greater attentiveness over fixed stretches
of time. In being paced by machines, work took on a new concentration."
The employer was now defined as the owner of the workers'
time and attention during the hours of the workday: he decided tht.
content and rhythm of their activities. The frame of the workday was
taking modern shape, and it was the manager who constructed it.
The new frames around time and activity of work took shapr,
through a gradual process. Witness, for example, this early accourrt,
circa 1831, of what have since become the lunch hour and cofli't,
break: 13
The diminution of the intervals of work has been a gradual
encroachment. Formerly an hour was allowed for dinner;
but one great manufacturer, pressed by his engagements,
wished his workpeople to return five minutes earlier. This
arrangement was promptly adopted at other mills. Fivc
minutes led to ten. It was found also that breaking ancl
drinking [afternoon meal] might be taken while the peoplc'
were at work. Time was thus saved; more work was cllrrt,;
and the manufactured article could be offerr:rl :rt ir lt'ss
p ri c e . . . . T h u s w h a t w a s a t f i rst parti al arrrl tt' rrrl l ori u' yl ri rs
become more general and perr-nilrrt:rrt.
Th i s re g u l a ti o n o f' w o rk t' r' s' ti rrrr' , ' /,nl > ol l sl r()\\' \, \\' :r\ :r l i rl rrl

irnprecise, seasonal; the notion of measured time was thought

c'ruel. One of Rabelais's characters says, "I will never subject myself to hours. Hours are made for man, not man for hours." Although there were some public clocks, the minute hand was
thought unnecessary.
By the late eighteenth century, the frame of work was bounded
lry minute hands: the market for clocks and watches boomed as the
rlemand for a synchronized work force grew. With the purchase of
workers' time, employers also set to managing attention. The desired state was nothing less than diligent, silent attention to the
rvork at hand-an
absolute about-face from the casual routines
rvorkers were used to.
For this reason, it was not easy to recruit and hold workers.
lior example, Zuboff describes how in 1830 a mill was built in
Nantucket, and women and children flocked to work there at first
(the men of the town were whalers). After about a month, though,
so many had drifted off that the plant was shut down. Three decirdes later a plant in Lowell set rules saying the factory gates
be locked during the day. The machinists there were in"vould
censed at the idea that they could not come and go as they pleased
rluring the workday; they struck to protest the rule.
The great innovator of the workplace, Henry Ford, used the
,tssembly line to up the ante of control overhis workers'pace. The
:rssembly line trivialized a job by breaking it up into a series of
single, repeated sequences done at a rate fixed by the needs of the
lirctory to maximize output. This new frame of work met with a new
wave of resistance. Even though Ford paid the best wages around,
the attrition at his factory was so great that, in 1913, for every 100
rtclditional workers the company wanted, they had to hire 963.
The frame of work in this century has gone through two strikshifts: more discipline in the ordering of the sequence and
'rrg
tirning of tasks, and a more fragmented and inflexible work schedrrlc. By now we take that frame for granted. Writes sociologist Har,,l rl W i l ensky: r *
'fhe time clock, the plant rules, the presence of a host of
supervisors and other control specialists, the close attention to rlrrantity and quality of output-these add up to a
<krnranclfor discipline'on the job. . . . We half forget the
srrstair r cr rl t , gr r lur it y insist ed upon in of f ice, st or e, and f acttl ry- wt ' it r ( ' so t t st t <lt r l it '
( )rrr ir t lit r r r lc t owr r r r l t lr c wor k li'lr r r t clr lr t lr c nr <lstpar t no l<lnger
rrccrl s l o lr c ir r r l) ( ) s( . (lrl v t lisr r r isslr lsot 'ovcr t <list 'illlir r t '.As Zr r lxr f l'
rrol cs, " ( ) r r c sir r r plv lr lr r r s il lr r ' , 'r pct ict r t 'it r g llr c sr r lr t lc ir llct r liot r rlitl.r'lttrrt

l,rr,'1.r,

lllrl

.l,,,rrr.

r.trr.r

rr.rrr'r'

trr

ll,:rl

rrtrtirrri

r'rli,rrr

( )r,r.

206 | vrrar- LrES,srMpLETRUTHS

'HETvRANNTES
ANDFREEDoMs
or rnerrars I ZO7

comes already adapted, one adapts, or one leaves.

No blood is shed
to achieve this kind of discipline. It is a civilized
process."

In much the same fashion as work, a social role

is a frame of
sorts,subtly directing and limiting how-and
how much_we at_
tend to the perso_nfilling it. The Jontour oi
,ol"'s frame can be
seen in the boundary of attention deemed appropriate
"
in our notice
of the person filling it: the one-dim"rrrior,"iity people-in
of
roles
demandsthat we ignore the ..rest" of them.
sartre describes the obligation of tradespeople
to constrain
their behavior and attentional range as befits their
role: 15
Their condition is wholry one of ceremony.
The public
demands of them that they rearizeit as a ceremony;
there
is the dance of the_gro""t, of the tJo., or lrr"
by which they endeavor to persuadeih"i. clientele
"""ii";;;.,that
they are nothing but a grocer, an auctioneer,
a tairor. A
grocer who dreams is offensive to the buye.,
b""""r" ,""r,
a grocer is not yhollv a grocer. Society d";;;J,
lh;h.
limit himself to his function as a grocer,just as
the soldier
at attentiol
T+"s himsglf into a *tai"r_it i"g *ii-h Jji""t
regard which
does not sEeat afl, which is ,ro-long","
to see, since it is the rule and not the interest
oTth.-"r"t
ment which determinesthe point he m"st n" ni,
;;;';"-o_
(the sight "fixed at ten p"".ir";. Th;;;;re
indeed"-".ry
precautionsto^imprisona man in what he is,
as if *" ti,u"a
in perpetual fear that he
escape
fi;;;i,'th;i'h"
_might
might break away and sudd"niy
ii, condition.
"1"d"
The sustainingof a role demandsthe mutual restriction
of attention by both.the role-playerand his audience.
To support thr,
premise that he is-merely a waiter or grocer gas
or
stationattenda'l,
we refiain from drawing attention to more peisor,al
aspectsof his
being: that he seemsto be nervoustoday, o, i, putting
on weight,
or is truculent. Like sartre's "soldier-thing," hl,
too,-figurativery
averts his gaze so as to ignore those ,"-!'aspects
about us_or
anything else beyond the domain of his role. Small
talk is okay,1,,,r
it must remain small: should it overstepthe
bounds of the rol., il
would becomeimpropriety, if not an imposition.
sartre makesthe casethat the one-dli-ensionality peoplt.
I
of
irr
social roles is symptomaticof a broader alienation
in the morlt.rrr
condition. while there may be some truth in this positi'n,
i
ii t,,il,
to acknowledgethe benefits that accrue from the
frarnc'.sorrr,-<li
mensionality.

#
+

One gain from th i s s h a l l o w n ess i s i rrtr.r.rr:rl

l rrrtr)n()nrv' I'lr r . I rrrI rble of privacy that onel- < linr t ' nsi< l r u t li t v r r f l i r r . lrs r r r {. ; r
||s
;l r.r' sorri s

f.ee to fantasize, reflect, daydream-in

short, to turn his remaining
rrttention to private pursuits and pleasures, even in the
midst oi
public life. while a given role makes some demands,
these are
generally routinized, leaving a large range
of freedo- in the psy_
c'hological realm. This inner freedom is most possible
in a mun<lane routine well insulated by attentional b.rff.rs. The g.ocer
is
{ree to dream precisely because he need not share his
dreims.
This freedom would vanish ifplaying the role required a fuiler,
nlore "authentic" interchange with each p"rro., encountered
in the
('olrrse of filling it. The waiter's polite
aloofness spares him the
i.vasion of his personal sphere by those he serves,just
as it affords
his customers the illusion of privacy in public. schemas
for those
roles deflect attention so that within the constraints
of role there
lies a certain liberty.
on the other hand, if we don the mask of role, we are in
danger
.f'being hidden by it-or hiding behind it. In
either case, the
t)erson is buried in the role. The entrapment is largely due to the
rrttentional standards that pertain. The- waiter is out
of line if he
('omments on the troubles of a couple
he serves, even though he
rrtry overhear much of their dialogue. The therapist
sabotagls his
li'ame if he unburdens his problems to a crient, Lrr"r,
thoufh they
rrraybe ver y m uch on his m ind.
A frame for what one can and cannot cali attention to constitrrtes a barrier as well. Roles exert their tyrrany when
these attenti'nal barriers hide the urgent feelings and intense
concerns of
llr<rseinvolved.
_This tyranny is a subiext of the film u,J Dinre,
tr ith Andr6. Andr6 Gregory describes such a barrier: 16
. . . I remember a
_night-it was about two weeks after my
mother died,.""d I was in pretty bad shape, and I went out
to dinner with three relatively close frie;ds, t*o of *ir;;;
had known my mother quite welr, and all ihr"" or tn."-,
have known,me for y."rt. A.rd we went through trr"r""tir"
evening without my being able to, for a moment, get anywhere near what-you know, not that I wanted itisit ancl
h.ve . dreary evening in which I was talking about;ii iil;
p.i' th:rt I was going through and everything-really
,,r,i
l t all. Br r t - br r t t he f act t hainobody
say, G ee, wlr lt
l
rr s l) ir r r r tir
' ll. r r t yo. r ' r ', t her , <lr H<lw "n,
ar e, l,yo.
f 'eeli, r gi,il. ; i
i t wr r s ir s il'not lr ing lr a<lhaplt ened.
'l 'l rt' tvl l r ttttv o l 'r '<tl c
tl r i tt Si r r tr t' r r o tt's l r t'g i r r s w l r t,r r tl r r , l i r r r r r r .
g <'tttti ttt'l ttttl t't'l cr ,':r r r r l r r r r r u r r r r .o r r c.t,r r r s.
At tl r i s l r o i r r l tl r r .
l 'l i r r <k 'l 's l l r l tl r r r o l r 'l tto vi <k's r tl l o w l l r r .p r .r 's( ) 1 i r r si <1 .t1 ,,,,.,r 1 r .
1, lrr.
'1 , 'l l r l r l ll l tl r z.r 'r l r i r l l r cr ' l l r ;r r r l i l r r .r 'l r l r .r l t,, l ,,. g i vr .r r l r .ss r l r r r . l l r :r r r l r r .
r l c s c r '\ '( .s. W;r l l r Sl r l r r vn ,i u r ( l ,\r r ,l r r .( j r ( .g o r \,( .o n n n r sr .t;r l r .: ,,
lrtrl|s

208 | vrrel LIES,srMpLETRUTHs

ANonE: . . . if we allowed ourselves to see what we're
doing every day, we might find it just too nauseating. I
mean, the wa-y we treat other people-I
mean, yor.,
know, every day, several times i day, I walk into -my
apartment building. The doorman calls me Mr. Gregory,
and I call him Jimmy. _The same transaction probabiy
occurs between you and the guy you buy gto""iiet from
every day, in some other way. . . . you see, I think that
an act of murder is committed in that moment. when I
walk into my building. Because here is a dignified, intelligent man, a man of my own age, and when I cdl him
Jimmy, then he becomes a child, and I'm an adult. . . .
Wer,ly: Right. That's right. I mean, my God, when I was a
Latin teacher, people used to treat me-l
mean. if I
would go to a party of professional or literary people, I
mean, I was just treated-uh-in
the nicest sense of the
word, like a dog. In other words, there was no question
of my being able to participate on an equal basis in the
conversation with people. I mean, I would occasionally
haue conversations with people, but when they askei
what I did, which would always happen after about five
minutes--uh, you tnow, their faces-even if they were
enjoying the conversation, or they were flirting with me
or whatever it was-their faces would just, you know,
have that expression,like the portcullir
down,
"."rhi.rg
you know, those medieval gatesThe "portcullis crashing down" is simply the withdrawal ol'
attention. Such snubs have the effect of dehumanizing the recipient, of shifting focus from the person to the role. This keeps things
at the surface: the role is not penetrated to the person inside. Tlris
failure to penetrate the role, to notice the person, can be in tht.
service of a low-order anxiety-attention trade-off, When we'd ratht,r
not see-preferring
to ignore rather than confront the personattending only to the role offers an easy out, if not outright solacr..
I t i s , a s Z u b o ff s a y s ,a c i v i l i z ed process.

THE WELL-MANNERED GAZF'

FFI
Lu-",
define the social order. They tell us what is
on, when to do what, and to whom. They direct our attention
'ring
t,rvirrd the action in the frame, and away from what is available t9
,r\\'rrrenessbut irrelevant.
For example, in the Middle East, people stare. I recall walking
rlrnVDthe street in Jerusalem the first day of a visit there. As I wouftl
.,g,1rroachsomeone on the sidewalk, with my peripheral vision I
' ,,' ' ,sedbeing wat ched. A caut ious glance as we passedand m y eyes
,,rr ld be m et by u f ull- on st ar e.
',
My first reaction was embarrassment. was it something about
,,r,' ? was I so obviously a t our ist , an out sider ? Did I seem so
.tr:trr ge?
I began to stare back. Each time my eyes were met by *rr
,,1,;r'oachingset of st ar ing eyes. Then I r ealized t hat ever yone cli<l
rl lo t'veryone else. Hasidic Jews in fur caps and long coats matchgtl
,t,u' ('swit h Copt ic pr iest s in whit e r obes. Ar ab wom en in vcils
1,,,'kt'clgazeswith Israeli women in army fatigues.
It wasn't me; it was the ground rule for attention in pu$ic.. Irr
tl r,' l Vliddle East t he convent ion is f or people t o st ar e openly ir s
tf* ' r' a ppr oach. I n Am er ica t her e is a ver y dif f er ent r t r le lilr gar . ( .
\' , l rv o st r anger sin Am er ica appr oach while walking, each c. <lver t lv
r' l ,ttt t 't 'sat t he t lt her t o plot a cour se t hat will avoir l c<lllisior r .lly
.tl ,,rtt tt 'ight l) ac( ) . eit
s ch of 't henr aver t s his eyes unr l ket , 1>.lrsis g; t . / . t '
,' l tt.rvllt 'r 'cr r nt il t hey 1) t ss. ls
lly {ir llowir r g t lr t : ir owt t r t t lt ' {r lr gazc, t ht ' pcolllc ol'. ft . r 'usir lt . r r r
wir s ir r r r iss.Wc r vcr . ( , ( ) l) ( , r .
' ,,.r,lc lr r c ir t , r r t r 'lvir wiu. t 'llr r r l sr lr r r t . t lr ir r g
.rlrrrg ir r r r r isr r ur t r , lr ir rli'ar
g r r t 's.
( lr r lt r t t 't 'is r t lxt skt 't ol f i'r r r r r , 's.
'l'o llr <. r lr . gr r . rllr
. : r l lilr r r r , . sr lalli'r
It,rttt , 'r t llr t t 'r 'lo cr r llur '( ', ( 'or r l; r t 'lslr r , l\ r , ( , ( . npcopr lr . lr or r r r lr lli, r r . r r l
I' rrr,lsclt t t lr c slickr '. l"r ) r r '\ ; r r r r 1, l, ',lr r ilr cr v i\ r n( , r r r r : rp:
l r r lr , l r l, r r r r l, .

2lO

I vtrel

LIES, SIMPLE TRUTHS

business in much of the world, a fact that makes Americans indignant.

But Americans have a style of frank openness that Mexicans
may regard as weakness or treachery, that Japanese may see as
boorish and crude. [n many Asian countries, "to" is used little;
"y"r" can mean yes, no, or perhaps. (A book for English-speaking
to help them in their dealings with japanese is called
-".,ug"rs
Neoer Take "Yes" for an Ansuer.)
In India, p"opl" can't bear to bring bad news' so they lie: the
train, they ,uy, i, 'iust coming," when in fact it is five hours late'
How late is "late"-varies drastically from culture to culture: five
minutes is late but permissible for a business appointment in thtr
U.S., but thirty minutes is normal in Arab countries. In Englantl
five to fifteen minutes is the "correct" lateness for one invited trl
dinner; an Italian might come two hours late, an Ethiopian still
having accepted only to prevent his
later, a Javanese not
^ll,of cultural misunderstandings goes <lrt
"t list
The
face.
host's losing
and on.
The averted gaze in our culture cushions life in public. Orrr
encounters are itanipulated by attentional frames so deeply
embedded in the social fabric thit in the main we notice them only
when they are violated: a passerby fails to look away as we wtlk
t<lward him, and his stare stirs in us an uneasy self-consciousness,
As we move in and out of relation to each other-browse in a sttlrt',
walk by stranger, ride in a crowded elevator-our privacy is prrt'
"
tected as though by an invisible scrim that veils us from view'
The fram"i fbt public interaction define those junctures wht'tR
paying overt attention is acceptable. The salesperson's"Y"y^I ht'lp
"How are you today?" ol'n
]ro.r?"--i,one such, as is the well-timed
quick glance other lrirs'
the
pass
or
by'
we
as
Lur,-rulacquaintance
If in any of tht'st'
elevator.
an
on
room
make
give
they
as
sengers
we feel discottt'
intently,
too
observed
ourselves
we
find
ir-,rtun"",
scrtttitty
someone's
of
object
the
To
be
embarrassment.
not
fort, if
invisibk'-to
feel
right
our
points
violates
appropriate
beyond the
a ,ight protected by the frames governing attention in public'
The well-mannered deployment of attention is a large part ol
what we call "tact." We all depend on each other to emplgy titr'1,
unruffled. Goffman, in his lroolr
so that we can maintain o,r.
"o.,rse Life, describes the attentiorirrl
Ersergd,ag
in
Setf
of
The Presentation
te
etiquette that governs public life:
We often find that when interaction mttst proceetl irt tlrc
pr e s e n c e o f o u ts i d e rs , o u ts i rl e r s tactfi rl l v l tt' t i tt l ttl l l l l i rrtt' r' so tl rttt i l ' pl rvsi
!i rsl ri < )tt,
es t c ' { , rrn i n v < l l v g c l ,rrrry rt:rt' t' i v i rrg

is',r.ll,l,,lll:',1,,.:l:,:::ll',:::
.,tl,is..l,rti.rr
:fliiliij,:,1,:".l'lll,'.

TH E w E LL-MA N N E R E D c A ZE

I 2I I

when two sets of persons find themselves in neighboring

booths in a restaurant, it is expected that neither group
will avail itself of the opportunities that actually exist for
overhearing the other.
Frames not only direct traffic; they dictate how people in var,,rrs roles are to be regarded. Goffman uses the metaphor of the
tlreater to describe the dynamics of social role. When we are in a
role, those we address are our "audience." Here, too, attentional
rnanners are crucial to help us through the performances our roles
,l cmand: 20
We find that there is an elaborate etiquette by which individuals guide themselves in their capacity as mernbers
of the audience. This involves: the giving of a proper
amount of attention and interest; a willingness to hold in
check one's own performance so as not to introduce too
many contradictions, interruptions, or demands for attention; the inhibition of all acts or statements that might
create a faux pas; the desire, above all else, to avoid a
scene.
When performers make a slip of some kind, clearly
exhibit a discrepancy between the fostered impression
and a disclosed reality, the audience might tactfully "not
see" the slip or readily accept the excuse that is offered for
it. And at moments of crisis for the perfbrmers, the whole
audience may come into tacit collusion with them in order
to help them out.
This sort of tacit collusion is nowhere more obvious than in
l ,rt' rrchesof s ocial or der . I n The Cat cher in t he RAe, Holden Caullr,'lrl creates an uproar in his prep school chapel by farting loudly.
I lrt'breach is not smoothed over; a giggle triggers gales of laughter.
llis fart captures the attention of the entire assembly, and so sucr.r'rlS as an act of rebellion against the repressive frames of the
' ,,' i rool ' ssoci al or der .
'l'he off-key tone of such disruptions can ruin the semblance of
' ,rrroothnesswe conspir e t o cr eat e in dealings wit h each ot her ,
rrl ri t' l r w (' can do only by act ivat ing sim ilar f r am es in synchr ony.
\\' l rcn orrr fru r nes don't m esh, t he public or der f alt er s. G of f m an
, rl l r' 1' S
rr l i st ol'sr r c: hchallenges t o t he public or der : 2r
l i i rst, i r 1lt 'r lor nr ( 'rnlir y accident ally convey incapacit y, im prol l ri r' l l ', or r lisr cspr , t 't lly r n<lr nent r t r ilylosing m uscult r r
corrl rol ol' lr ir r r sr 'll. I lt ' nr it v t r il'r , st r r r t t lllt ', f ir ll; he m ay
l x' l t' l r, \' l \ \ 'r r , r r ur kcr r sli; r ol't lr t ' t r ) nt {u( ',scnt t clt lr ir r r st 'll,or '
l x' l l :rl rrl c r r l; lr nr : r \ ': r ( 'r 'ir lcr r t ; r llvir r r lr int r ( 't t por rllr c lr or lv

,rl:tttr"l"''

l,1l'

tl

li

I
212

THE wELL-MANNERED IAZE

| vrrer- LIES, srN{PLE TRUTHS

way to inappropriate outbursts of laughter, anger, or other

kinds of aff'ect which momentarily incapacitate him as an
interactant; he may show too much serious involvement
and interest, or too little. . . . The setting may not have
been put in order, or may have become readied for the
wrong perfbrmance, or may become deranged during the
performance; unforeseen contingencies may cause improper timing of the performer's arrival or departure or
nray cause embarrassing lulls to occur during the interact ion.
The rnajor strategy for smoothing over such breaches is to ignore them outright. In lieu of denial, the fallback is to shrug it off,
most commonly lry laughing at it. Laughter acknowledges the
frame break, while showing that it is not serious enough to disrupt
pr oc eedin g s . In e i th e r c a s e th e p l o y is deni al : of the seri ousnessof
the breach on the one hand, or thirt it occurred at all on the other.
The social fiction can continue, unperturbed.
What we think of as "good nlanners" are, in this perspective,
frames for smooth relations in public. When people interact who
do not share the same schemas fpr how to act properly in a situation, the result is embarrassmentl social friction, or outright anxiety. A newspaper column on "Reacting to Boorish Manners" deals
wit h t his d i l e mma :2 2
Did y o u s e e h i m ? D i d y o tr s e e her? D i d you see that?
Talking throughout the performance. Barging ahead in the
c hec k o u t l i n e . Smo k i n g d u ri n g th e meal . R edi al i ng a number with five people waiting to use the telephone. He
ought to b e a s h a m e d . S h e o u g h t to be ashamed. S omeone
s houl d s a y s o me th i n g !
Sometimes someone does-or perhaps not, for these
ar e t h e m i n o r tra n s g re s s i o n s i n l i fe. . . .W hy do they do
what they do, and how should we deal with it?
"You certainly don't say, 'H.y you blankety-blankblank, I was here first,"' said Dr. Leonard Berkowitz, a
ps y c h o l o g y p ro fe s s o r a t th e U n i versi ty of W i sconsi n. " It' s
not very constructive, and you could get a very nasty reac t ion ."
"As to those transgressed against," he continued,
"most of trs are uncertain of societal rules. so we're n<lt
sure whether it's right to object to a particular action. At
the same time, we don't want to generate {r'ictior) or trorrble. "
T he s c h e n i i ts th rtt c o n s ti trrtt' s o ci i rl nor' rrrsl i rr prrl ,l i t' l rcl r:rvi or
- t hir t is , " n l i u )n (' r' s -l u ' (' s rrs < ' r' l l t i l rl t'trl vi ol i rl rorr. \\' r' ;u(' ol i crr
" r 'i , r l t f ''

'l 'l '.r l

| 213

tainty supports a minor industry of experts, columns like Dear

Abby and Miss Manners. Social schemas are embedded and hidclen in the fabric of group life; when pressed to state them we
confront their implicit nature. Experts to whom we can turn for
rudvice offer a reassuring source of authority.
The socializing of a child, in these terms, is tantamount to
lecruiting him into the going frames:23"arry social system, in order
to survive, must socialize new recruits into its attentional patterns
(of perception, belief, behavior, and so on). This task requires encrgy, that is, attention. Thus, one might say that the survival of
social systems depends on the balance in the ledger of attention
i ncome and expendit ur e. "
In other words. it takes some initial investment of attention to
introduce a person to the ins and outs.of a frame. The more complex
that frame, the more investment required: grooming a new secretary, teaching a child "manners," instructing a novice in the etirltrette of a royal court-all take effort.
When that effort is no longer made, a frame that relies on it
rvill wither away. For example, in some social milieus, it was the
<'trstom for children to address their teachers with the honorific
"sir" or "madam," to stand when speaking in class, and so on, That
lierme of formality survives in fewer and fewer bastions outside
some private and parochial schools.
The robustness of a frame depends entirely on its potency in
r.t'cruiting new users and in getting those who know it to activate it
rrt the appropriate time. The slow evolution of social custom and
grr'oprietiesis the history of the rise and fall of frames.
Some of this inculcation of frames is covert, some direct. The
lrrtter sort is well described in this passagefrom Charlotte Selver:2a
The other day I visited some friends. Among the guests
were a couple with their daughter, a little girl of eight. . . .
She carne upstairs and sat down, one leg hanging down,
the other one on the couch. Mother said, "But Helen, how
do you sif ? Take your leg off the couch. A girl neDer should
si t l i ke t hat ! " The lit t le gir l t ook her leg down, on which
occasion her skirt flew high above her knees. The mother?
" [{el en, pull your skir t down! O ne can see ever yt hing. "
' fhe chi lcl blushed, looked down on her self and pulled her
skirt clown btrt asked, "Why? What is wrong?" The mother
Iookcrl at her r lr r it e shocked and said, "O ne doesn't do
tl rat!"
l l v t lr is t ir r r t ' t lt c ir t r r r ospht 'r t 'ir r t he r oonl wils cor ) lg;l ctr' l v r r n( '( ) nr lir . t : r lr lt'l'lr
'. <'lit t lc gir l r r <ltor r lv hr r <llr cr ' l<, us
rl ,rtvn l rr r t lur r l llr ( 'nl l) r '( 'ss( 'rrlr gr r ir r slcir r 'lrot lr t 'r '.I lcr slr , , r r l
rl ,' rs l r;r, l gr ) ! r ( 'ul) r n( l slr , 'lr r 'lr l lr , 'r ; r r r r r sliglr l r r g: r ir r sllr lr
l r l l l .'

1,,, , 1 . '

'l'1,,.

i r' , . r, 1

. , r. 1

.1...

,',..'1,1..'r

1 ...,1

;l

r
2I4

| vrrnl

LIES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

THE WELL-MANNERED GAzr'

longer. She suddenly stretched herself and yawned heartily. Again, a storm of indignation from her mother.
What will happen to this child? She will hold her unh"ppy pose {br a few minutes before she shakes it off. The
next time her mother will admonish her, she will hold it a
few minutes longer, and so on, each time a little longer,
until at last. . . The mother will have reached her goal:
she will have educated her to be socially acceptable.
This education in the restriction of movement is a perfect analogue of what happens to attention as children learn social frames.
Socially acceptable patterns of attention are carefully channeled. lt
is essential that children learn what sorts of things may be noterl,
what not. The four-year-old may blithely ask a cripple "Why do
you walk like that?" or the obese man "Why are you so fat?" Thr.
nine-year-old will have learned not to ask, the teenager to avert his
eyes, the adult to pretend not to notice. Social schemas tame atterrt ion.
In defining what is and is not pertinent to the moment, framt's
can be used defensively. When something happens that would provoke anxiety, it is often mana,gedby keeping it out of frame. Peoplr,
mesh with an exquisite precision in evoking this defensive use ol'
frames, fending off anxiety through disattention. We don't need to
be told what to pretend is not happening; we all know at onc'r',
without anything being said.
Take, for example, an incident on a British train described lrv
Paul Theroux. A car is shared by Theroux, an elderly couple, trrrl
some young couples with children, on their way to the country.
Suddenly a group of "skinheads," tattooed, with earrings, leatlrr.r'
jackets, vicious-looking boots, and heads shaved, barge into the rrril
car, laughing and shouting, yelling at each other to "fuck off." 'l'lrr'
proper Britons deftly employ the out-of-frame gambit:25
They were loud-earsplitting-but
the picnicking English people across the aisle, and the elderly people, an<l
each young family in its own pew did not hear a thing. Tht'
picnickers went on eating in their tidy way, and everyon('
else became silent and small. . . . "The long-range forecast
called for fine weather." one of the Touchmores whispered.
T h e c o n s p i ra c y o f s i l e n c e i n the face of unseeml i ngss w ol ks,
in its own meek manner, until a little girl pipes ul):
" D a d d y , w h y a re th o s e men si tyi rrg' l rrck ol 1"?"
" I d o n ' t k n o w , d a rl i n g . N ow tl o pl ,' rts,'l r' l rttc rcrrrlrrrv
p a p e r."

| 215

His voice was nervous, as if he had been holding his

breath. I had certainly been holding mine. . . .
"There, Daddy, they just said it again. 'Fucking hell.' "
"Hush, darling. There's a good girl."
"And that one said 'fuck.' too."
"That's enough darling." The man's voice was subdued .
He did not want anyone to hear . . .
He probably would not have been heard in any case.
The Skinheads were screaming, and running in the aisle
. . . one little Skinhead, a boy of about thirteen, also tattooed and shaven, and wearing an earring, was yelling,
"You fucking cunt, I'll fucking kill you!"
The invasion of the rail car by the Skinheads is an assault;
rr lrile they did no physical harrir, they effectively smashed the
,,llr('r passengers' frames. Their attack exemplifies attentional vam1,i ri srn.By int r uding on t he scene in a m anner t hat can't be ignor ed,
tlrc Skinheads force themselves into everyone else's frame. This
' ,,rrnei mposit ion is accom plished by obnoxious childr en, r owdy
,l rrrrrks,m anics, and cer t ain sor t s of psychot ics. All violat e t he t acit
.rtl cnti on al r ules t hat cr eat e or der in public places.
What we treat out of frame need not be so threatening; it can
,,l ro be what we'd r at her not not ice. For exam ple, a wom an in her
, r(lrth month of pregnancy wrote a letter-to-the-editor recounting
rr lutt befell her on a crowded train from New Jersey to Manhattan,
,', :r humid lO0-degree heat. As the train pulled up to the platfornr
rr l rcre sh e was wait ing: 26

. . . These well-groomed people around me began their

rrsual frantic shove toward the doors, heaven forbid they
rrot get a seat. I managed to dodge most sly elbows, but
or)e hit me hard. I looked at my assailant and pleadecl,
" l )l e ase don't shove. " No r esponse.
. . . I stood right next to two seated "gentlemen" wh<l lttrt
()n t heir blinder s im m ediat ely so t hey could uvoir l ackrrowleclging m y "condit ion" and so t hey could r enr ain ir r
tl rci r sacr er l seat s.
...I gr r t 'ss I 'll ncvcr r r r t t lt : r st ancl
t he t ot al alr at hv o{'t ht 'st '
;rpl l lt r t 't t t ly wcll- llr u, cl,st r cct , ssf ir pt
l , oplc. Ar : ( ' t ht 'v so st . ll i sl rlv ir r volvt 't l ir r t lr t 'ir own pr r r sr r it st lr at ot lr t 'r 'slr lr vt . r r o
pl rrt 't ' in t lr t 'ir r r t t 'r r t it lst 't sP Wor r l<l t lr t 'v war r t t lr cir owr r
l )r' ('gr r r ntwi\ '( 's or r uot lr cr s t o st r ur t lir s I lr r r <lt o, lr olt lir r g, r r r
l i ,r r lcr u lili. ?
( l ott sir lcr llr r ' ( jo, r r l Sr t t t t : r t ilr r rslr
r r , lr '." r \ t l'r ir r cr 'lor r'l'llr ', , logr

, .rl Srrni n;ttt

l otl V

rl tttl rnl s

rr' ;ri l r' ,1 l ,r !1r\ r' ;r s l rorl

1rr;rr' l t(' r' \r,rnrrf l r.

216

| vrrel

LIES, sIMPLE TRUTHS

At fifteen-minute intervals the seminarians went one by one to

another building to give their talk. On the way over, the students
passed a man groaning, slumped over in a doorway. Six of every
ten seminarians who passed the groaning man went right by, ignoring him. Half of those seminarians were on their way to talk about
the parable of the Good Samaritan, the man who helped a needy
stranger by the roadside. They were no more likely to help the
groaning man than the others who passed him by.
There are probably times when even the most altruistic among
us might not help out-for example, when rushing to catch a plane.
Indeed, in the case of the seminarians one of the main factors in
whether a student stopped to help was whether he was in a rush:
of students who thought they were late to give their talk, only one
in ten stopped; of those who thought they had plenty of time, six
in ten stopped. That some of them were reflecting on the Good
Samaritan parable had no effect.
When it comes to helping out, the frame a person holds can
make a large difference. In the famous Kitty Genovese murder the
thirty-eight Kew Gardens neighbors who heard her screams but
did not call the police each ascribed a frame to the event that
*It
*u, a lover's quarrel," or "someon(l
precluded their hllpit g'
"
It'
s
n o n e of my busi ness."
els e w i l l c a l l ," o r
The man lying face down on the sidewalk of a busy street poses
a minor puzzle to the passerby. Is he a wino? Junkie? Sick? Hurtf
Is he dangerous-could he have a knife in his pocket? Does hc
need help? Should I try to help or leave him to the police?
The answers to these questions are implicit in the frames eaclr
connotes. If he's a wino, the frame dictates no interference. If he's
sick and needs help, that's different. But the interpretation "Ilt'
needs help" leads to another quandary: What to do? Step in, ot'
leave it to the police?
Prompted by the uproar in the wake of the Genovese tragetlv,
psychologists have done numerous, elaborate experiments to teitsr'
out when a person will help another in need. The Good Samaritnrr
study was one of these. Typically, the studies entail a stooge stitging an emergency, such as collapsing on a New York City sttbwitl'.
to see under what circumstances people come to his rescue.
One feature is common to all these stagings: the bysttrn<lt'rs
are all taken by surprise. They are engaged in some other.fi'arrrc
on their way to some other appointment or otherwise catrght ttlt itt
life ' s c o mi n g s a n d g o i n g s . Thei r encounter w i th the l tcrsott sttrl
de n l y i n n e e d c o n fro n ts th e m w i th a chal l t' trgc t< ttl tt' i r ow l r (,rrgr)
in g fra m e . T o s to p w h a t they arc rl rti rrg to l rr' l p ottl rt' t;tti tt' s
tl rci r ow rr l i ' l rrttt'l o t' ttl t' t rutol l tct.
a l ta n d o n i n g f< l rth c rrro rrrt' rrt
' l' 1 ,r ,{ i' ,r r r r .s

THE wELL-MANNERED GAzE I ZI7

,f the victim's status (winos get no help, well-dressed men do), or

state (drunk or drugged, no; ill, yes), as well as the frame of the
rvould-be helper. Being in a rush, as was the case with the semirrarians, lessens the likelihood of helping, 8s do such factors as
lreing alone or nearly alone (the more people around, the quicker
people are to help).
_ Perhaps the major single factor in whether people help or not
is the conglomerate of frames that the sociologist C"org" -Sim-"I
,'alled the "urban trance." At the turn of the century Simmel proposed that urbanites were less responsive to people and things
,rround them (and so, by implication, less likely to help someone
irr need). This lack of responsivity was due, said Simmel, to the
rrrban trance, a self-absorbed state city dwellers fall into
", ".r"".sSor/ adaptation to the swirl and bustle around them.*
According to Simmel, the sheer volume of events in the urbanilt:'s surroundings produces a self-protective reserve and indiffer('rrce. More recently, that view was elaborated
by the social
l,sychologist Stanley Milgram in terms of "input overl,oad," that is,
:rrr intensity of stimuli too great for the person's attentional capac_
rtr'. The sights, sounds, and demands of the city, argued Milgram,
,,r'crwhelm the
lind's ability to handle them. The mental adapttrli,. to this overload is an obliviousness to all but the most imme,lirttely relevant of events. In other words, you register the taxi
,':rreening toward you, but take no notice of the drunk you step over
rrr the gut t er .
In terms of the model of mind developed here, that means thlt
l'rr the urbanite the threshhold of awareness is higher: it is not that
lr,' tloes not register as much information in the mind, but that thr.
1rri .e of adm ission t o his awar eness is higher . Fewer of t he avail.,1' l cs chem asjust if y t he expense of occupying space in awar eness. *
Frames have the power to steer attention away frclm co1rpr'll rrrrIvilt s. For t he m ost par t such obliviousness is higher i1 lr t 'r r ,' l i ts t han in cost ; t he m ent al space a f r am e cr eat es gives r r s t lr t .
l rrrttr y t lf paying f ull at t ent ion t o t he business at hanr l wit lr or r l
l r.i rrf, clist r act edlly t he busy wor ld ar ound us. Bt r t as t he lJat l Sr r rrrrtt' it it t tclelnl<lnst
s
r t t t te,
her e ar e social cost s t <tt hat olllivior r .
' Il r tIt'trt l t V
i rl s o l rt ' i t " rt t ri t l t t ' i t t t c c " : c o t rrrt ry l i l l k rrre c e rt i ri rrl y r, . 1 t rrl l l t . . l ' t l r.
s rrrrr, .
, r r I ol s r, l l : l rl l s o rl l t i o rr.
' l l r i s r v o rrl t l t t t ' r' o t t t t t l i l l ' t l rt ' l rt ' w i l rl c rrrrt ' rrt o l t ' o rrrrt rv { i rl k
o rr r. , rrri rrg l , l l r. r. i l r. .
l l r ( l l \( ' l l (' l t t l l s rl r(' rrrt t l t < l i t l l t t ' rl l o s < ' rc c rr < l rrt t l rq l ri g l r
i rrt t . rrs i t l , . l
i rr. r, l . i r, , rr, r r. \ , r. rrl s .
I l r , r r l il rrrrr, s : rl r, l o o rv i rl t , , t l rr, r, rro l i t , t , t o o rrrrrr. l r.
'l
l r | s rt t t t , ' r' , rrt l , l l rt ' s : ri rl , o l t o rrl s r' , l i rr t l rr. t i l v rl rv r. l l r, r i rr t l rr. r. o rrrrl rr
l rrs
'' l r .ttt:ts i l l (' t l o l
t t rl i t l l l r' < l l i rr t l r: rt s c l l rrrq , rv l ri c l r (. : u r r. (. \ u l l i rr o l l rc r l , rrrrl s , l t . r, rrl rr
r \ rr, l ; rl l , , 1
't.tr \
rrs g . l l rr, t rl l l r rr rrrrrrl : rr 1 , , ' s rl . l r. rrrrr. rrl , rrr
l r; rrr' l rrrl l l , ; r
l , rrr. ru rr
l l t r, , rrl r
: rl l . t l r. rv rrrl i s 1 x ' rrl ' . , rrrr' l rrrrr. l l rr. rr'
" r ttttl t\'
, p r, l l , rrt l l rr1 , . , , . l r, . rrri r. , l , , r
.
'
l
r,
l
n
t
i
('
. rrr, l
l l r; rl rrr. 1 , . , . 1t l r, . \ , rrrr. r' . r. , r' , r. , \ \ r, rl , , rl
'r l t.tl ts . rt l i r. ' l r' \ , l t t
l r, , rrr,

wHATyou DoN'TsEEwoN'T HURTyou

| 2lg

WHAT YOU DON,T SEE

WON'T HURT YOU

lf fru-"s are the building blocks of social reality, thctt

what is true for the individual mind can be true of the social orclt'rl
information that makes us uneasy can be handily denied. As is tlro
case in the family and other groups, when some aspects of tlro
shared reality are troubling, a semblance of cozy calm can be maitt'
tained by an unspoken agreement to deny the pertinent f,tt't;,
When stepping out of framt might bring us face-to-face with inlirr.
mation we'd rather not notice, then the frame offers itself as U
refuge from painful confrontations. Take as an example white lit's,
Lies big and small lubricate social life. It is tacitly understoorl
that civilized interaction requires timely deceit: we send dorrlrle
messages, hide true feelings, make crucial omissions; apart fi'orlt
out-and-out lies, we lie by innuendo and ambiguity. Just as sntoolh
social interaction requires that we do not comment on each lapse
in decorum, tact dictates we do not challenge every little lrit u[
insincerity.
Social lies have their uses. For example, white lies, sttt'lt rtl
those we tell to get out of accepting an unwanted invitatiotr, sir\'
the feelings of those they are told to. Other lies preserve our sot'lul
image-for example, what one researcher calls lies of 5slf-ltrcsctt=
tation: "attempts to present ourselves as a little more kind,:r little
more sensitive, a little more intelligent, and a little more itltrrrislltr
than in fact we are."
W e o v e rl o o k s o c i a l l i e s ; to cal l our fami l y, fi i ends, i ttttl rtssot' l =
at e s o n th e m i s ta c tl e s s .We taci tl yencourage one an< l tl tcr' sl i cs l ry
virtue of an unwritten social code that says we will so(' onlv w'lrnt
we a re s u p p o s e d to s e e ; th e u nseeabl e stays otrt ttl ' l i ' i trrtt' .W i tl rrrrtt
ou r mu tu a l a g re e m e n t to fo l l o w such nrl t,s, tl tt' vt' rtt' t' t'ol ' (' ()ns(' ttttl i
in e v e ry d a y i n te ra c ti o n s w rn rl d 1rt' r' li tw l tr' , l t' i rvi ng, no rl orrl rl ,sottt
rancor in its stearl.

social lies succeed as a lubricant only when received

with
t,rt'tfirl inattention. Face-to-face dearings frequently
present us
rr rtl r the oppor t unit y t o det ect such lies- f o, exam ple,
by st udying
r.rri ous aspect s of a per son's dem eanor t o sear ch
f or discr epancies
r,, u' hat he is t elling us.
The most detailed research on the game of sending and
detect_
rrrrl social lies-and its implicatiorN fo, the smooth -operation
o{'
,l.rrl' life-has been conducted by a social psychologist
at Hu.,r"rd,
l{'rlrcrt Rosenthal and a group of his g.ad.rale students.
To examine
l l r. rul eS t hat under lie t he t elling, det ect ing,
or ignor ing of t he
'r.rrt and small lies of daily life, they began io st"dv dece"ption in
tl r,' l i tte 1970s.28
Their research took a cue from Freud, who wrote
of the non_
,,' rl rrl clr es t hat can give away one's t r ue f eelings: '. I f
his lips ar e
.rlr'1;[,he chatters with his fingertips, betrayal
oor", out of frim at
, \ ('r'\/pore." It is a commonplace that
the body yields telling clues.
\ l,r'ced smile belies sadness; a clenched fist
bltrays
l' rr. lltrt the Rosenthal group's deception research-show"s
".,g"rLrpo_
that cer_
I'rrrrrrspectsof the body's language are
better channels for lying_
"r r'lrrcs to deception-than
others. The face, for exa-plr, is far
,,r,r(' t' ff ect ive
t
he
bodyor
even speech- in t elling lies.
! h"l
lt rv.s Paul Ekman, an expert on reading facial e*i."ssions,
,, lr,, first suggested why the face is probablyihe
least ri"r.v non_
,, rl ,;rl channel- and t he best liar . A per son's
abilit y t o Jecei, ue,
rlr, r pr.posed, depends on several asplcts
of the channel isuch as
r" r(' rl ' v' ice
or f acial expr ession) he uses. I n gener al, t he gr eat er
tl r,rtr' l ri r r . el's "sending capacit y, " t he m or e
decept ive it can be.
s.rrrli'g capacity is greater the more clearly dlfferent
, ' l r,rrrr r clca'send, t he m or e q'ickly it can
send t hem -"rrog",
, ancl t he
t,r,,r(' ri s illle or obvious t hey ar e. The f ace,
Ekm an ar gues, has
!,,,r\r' rrrl sending capacit y, and so is especially
well
t,,
l i r l l r r' , r r t r . st , t he body ( includir r g, f or lx"- pi",
g"r t ."q.
, *rri,ipp.
'i, . ll"r ,
" ' | rrl r" l l rrlr lc, slower , t r nd less obvious. While t f , ir
es t ir e llor ly
' l ' " ' r' l l i't 't ivt : channel lclr lies, it also m akes it m or e- ut
pr o'e t <lle. ki,
rl ," ,r' rro r r Vt 'r 'l) lrr lnessagest hat inadver t ent ly
. ", r "u[ a f 'eeling t lr t ,
r" r,,rr i s lr r . 'ir r gt <l hi<le. 'r <l get a r lr or e com plet e view 9f 'le1ks, t lr r .
It" ' .,rl l rrr l r r l'( ) t t Pt 'xt t 'r r <lt '<l
t ht ' list of 'lglky ch1n1r : ls t , ir r c, lr r <lt. .
1,,,r,tr, l rv ol'f iv'<': lir t . r ', llot lv, t or r t . ol'v<lir : e,
f let , t ir r g ( , xl) r . ( , . sr - ior r s,
,,,,| | l r,. rlist , r . r . plr r r r . itlr, ct
s u, r . t . nt lr r . r r r .
| ,rrr . . l'r ''it 'r ' r r r iulr ts( , ( , r r l. r r s r r t [ ir - st, r ( ) r . ( sir
. r r illr rl<l
.

r r r r l . ( i r l ) :l ( 'i tr 'l ,r 'l r r kr .r v tl l r r r r l , r l r r ."l .r r ki r r u "

l r ,r l r ,. l ,i kt,
l l ', \ {, r ( '( . ( ';l l r sr .tr r l n n l r l V n l r :l n ( .r .s o l
1 n ( ,:u r i r r l Ir ,r ,t.r ,r .:tsi l r ..
r 'i , , , n l r ,':r ,l i l \'( '( ) r r l r o l r l l r .i r l o l r ( 'o l vo i t.,. 'l 'l r r .:r r ,;r i t;r l r l ,,
f l 'r r r r 'l l , \ nr l t',r 'sl s o l l r r .tr r 'r sr '. l ,'o r o n ( .l l r r r r tr ,
1 ,,.( .;r r \( .,1 1l l r r .

wHAT you DoN'T sEE \,1'oN'T HURT yolr

22O I vrrnl LIES,sIMPLETRUTHs

of the skull. the voice we hear while we are speaking does nttt
sound the same to our listeners. (This may explain the almost uni'
versal reactions of dismay from people on first hearing their tape'
recorded voices.) In a tape people hear inflections and tonal quali'
ties that leak their feelings, but that are seemingly unnoticed lly
the speaker while talking. For all these reasons, the Rosenthrtl
group rated the tone of voice as more revealing than the body irr
the hierarchy of clues to lie detection.
Another category of leaky channels the researchers added in'
cludes very brief changes in the body (such as a muted hand mov(f'
ment) and face (such as a fleeting half-smile). Ekman claims suclt
momentary clisplays are typically unintended and uncontrolletl,
and so are even leakier than the tone of voice.
Even lelkier than these microlapses, though, are discreptrtr'
cies, such as tr smiling face with an angry voice. Such a discrell'
ancy, the Rclsenthal group proposed, was the most revealing ol'
leaky cues because it involves two channels, both of which are hartl
to control, especially simultaneously. Thus a liar might be very
careful of how he phrased his lie, rnight even remember, say, ttt
smile in its support, but might not also be skillful enough to control
the anger in his voice. That discrbpancy could tip off an alert olr'
s er v er t o h i s l i e .
When Rosenthal and his co-researcher Bella DePaulo begart trr
study lies and their detection, they were in for a surprise. A decttlo
of it done by Rosenthal-had shown ov('l''
of research-much
whelmingly that women are far superior to men at reading nonv('l''
bal messages: when asked to say what feeling a tone of voicc or
gesture reflected, women were found to be right much more <tlit'rr
than men. But women's accuracy seemed to lag when they w('l'fl
asked to decode leaks, that category of nonverbal clues which rrrr'
intentionally expose hidden feelings. The more leaky a totrt' ol
voice, or the more incongruent a message, the less well womerr tlirl
in interpreting it. Men showed just the opposite pattern: as hitkk'tt
feelings were revealed by more clues, their accuracy improoed'
Although women were better than men at reading the litt't',
their advantage decreased steadily as they confronted the rrrol't!
leaky channels. Rosenthal and DePaulo interpreted this efli't't rrl
fitting with women's greater social civility. In their view, pirvirrg
attention to a person's slips and leaks is tantamottnt to rtttlt'trcssl
indeed, noticing leaks is a form of eavesdropping.
A long w i th b e i n g mo re p o l i te i n i gnori ng l eaks, w otttt' tt i tl ttl
ar e m or e c a n d i d a n d o p e n i n th e n o nverbi tl ntt,ssi tgt' stl rt' v l l tt' ttl '
s elv es s e n d . Emp a th y re s e e rrc hh a s sl tow rr tl utl w ()trl (' ttrtt' t'l rt' l l t' r' et
t elegr aph i n g th e i r fi rc l i rrg s tl u rrr i u ' (' ut< ' tt.W ol n(' n, i l sr' (' tl ts,l rl l rl w
tlrt'il

t t o t t v t' r lxtl

tttt' ss:tt{ ( ' s lo lr c ttl( ) l( ' 1,'pl tl rl r'l l t;ttt

tl ,) l l l ('l r'

| 22I

In R osenthal and DePaulo's view, 2ewom en ar e m or e "polit t , "

irr reading other people's nonverbal messages than ur" ,r-,"r..They
{o on to add: "Perhaps wornen in our culture have learned thlt
tlrere may be social hazards to knowing too much about other peol rl e' s feel i ngs. This r elat ive avoidance of eavesdr opping by wonen
rs consistent with the standards of politeness and social smoothingover that are part of the traditional sex role ascribed to women in
,,rrrcul ture, a sex r ole t hat is only now beginning t o change. "
The interpretation that women are more "accommodating"
.rrrcl"polite" by virtue of ignoring leaks irks some other resea.cheis
,rr roflvrbal messages. One is Judith Hall, another former gradu,rtt' student of Rosenthal's, who is an expert on sex differences in
comm unicat ion. 3oHall object s t o t he social m ot ives t hat
' ,,' ttverbal
,rrt'i mputed to wom en in ignor ing leaks.
"The need for acctrracy at reading leaks," says
Hall, "is relatrrt' l y rare i n daily lif e. I would ar gue t hat inst ead of m en having
,l .r' el oped a skill t hat wom en have not - which is t he idea behinJ
l(,rsenthal and DePaulo's interpretation-women
develop some so,
useful skills in pr ef 'er encet o ot her s. M aybe *o- "n
ar e just
' ,rl l y
,l ,ri rrg sornething t hat r epr esent s an int elligent social st r at egy.
i nteract ion r equir es t hat people not not ice or com m ent on
" rrr.<
.t
t't'Y)th
little lapse in decorum, or every little bit of insincerity. Social
l rl ,' rvorks by i g nor ing lit t le social lies. Wonlen seem wiser t o t his
l l ,,,rr l l l en."

,'\nd how is it that we learn to ignore social lies? After all, we

rrr' 111v[
born w it h t hat capacit y. As t he t ale "The Em per or 's New
t l ,,tl r.s" attests, childr en can be br ut ally candid, wit hout guile
or
' , l l t' orrsci ousn ess.childr en ar e not able not only f or t heir lies, but
l ,,r tl rt' l i es they don't t ell. I f t he child is young, such f or t hr ight ness
t (' \(' rrsed.B ut as childr en becom e held account able f or cour t esy,
,,, l r l i ' i rnknessis r egar ded as em bar r assing.At t his point , childr en
,rr' l ;1rrrthtthat s ocial lies ar e t o be condoned. To oper at e sm oot hly
,' , tl r. rrrl rrl tw o r ld, childr en m ust lear n when it is socially benef i, ,l t,, l rt' l r.th r t good liar and a poor lie- det ect or .
I' l r< r'
' l ri l rl ' s wor ld is r eplet e wit h deceit s, bot h lar ge and sm all.
,rl ' tl rt' l i c s t <llclt o childr en, " wr it es Depaulo, 3r "ar e not less
" ,,r('
i ' rr | ' ,rsl crol rstl ran f ir ir y t ar les,car t oons, or t elevision com edies. For
r , ,1r1,1,'r', l ri l tl rt 'r r ar t : <lf t en t old t hat once a year , a f at m an
on a
l ,,l r\ l l ou' rr tl r r 'or r glrt lr c it ir by a f leet of deer . G r aver f act s ar e
l v'lt 'ss r , olor f r r l lier s ( G r t r ndpa went on a long
' , ' ,.rl l r rl cs< ' r' ilr crlr
' t' tl t.tt)t)t i l l ' ('t lot luct l, r 'r 'lr <lt 't l.or t 'loakr '<llly l vt 'necr <lf silelce.
\l rrrr ,t,l r cr' l i scr t t t 't t lsr r r ir r lr lr r lso lr r . r 'lr r ssif ir . rirl s lics <lt . sigr r t . <l
lir r .
' l ,rl ,l t,' tt l i rt .r: t r t r lr lr ', \ \ llt r ': r li. s r r r ; r kr '\ '( ) ulr ig r r r r t lslr or r g. ( ) t lr r , r .
It,r,l , ,l rrrrl rrrllr rlolr l 1, , , 'lr ilr ll( , lr : lr r , , r llcll r ( , t I : lr ( lr . r:lr s ilr r r or . uor r s
!,r | \. rr l rr.rrr.l icr , r ll, , r , '\ . r 1nl, l, . . , r , lull.r , r r r r r . lir r r r .l,s. ll, . lr ilr lr , . r r llr : r l

222

| vtrel

LIES, SIMPLE TRUTHS

their scribbled blotch of blue really does look like a grasshopper

(and quite a handsome one at that), or that the ball dribbled back
to the pitcher was a great hit."
In an article in the Annals of the Neus York Academg of Sci'
ences, DePaulo raises the question, "Are we better off seeing right
through a person's true underlying feelings or might we sometimes
do better not to see what another person does not want us ttl
know?" In the case of lies or deception that might do us harm, she
notes, clearly lie-detection is an asset. And in professions like psy'
chiatry or police work such sensitivity is particularly beneficial.
But, says DePaulo, available evidence suggests that most peopla
aren't very good at detection. What's more, in general, as people
age they get worse and worse at picking up real feelings that art'
masked by feigned ones (the sex difference in reading leaks is duc
more to women getting worse at it as they mature than to mett
getting better).
"It seems," wrote DePaulo, "that what children are learnirrg
as they grow older, probably through socialization, is politely trr
read what other people want you to read, and not what they really
felt." That is, attention is increasingly bound by social schemas,
Further, those people who dte most "polite" in this sense tend trr
be more popular and show more social understanding; they alsrr
feel better about their relationships.
What all this suggests, in DePaulo's view, "is that at least irr
some ways, in some situations, it may be better for us to see ottly
what other people want us to see and not what they really fet'|,
This is what children seem to be learning as they grow up. . . ,
Moreover, for people who do not obey this politeness formulatiorr
-a formulation which describes women especially well-tht'tt'
seem to be personal and interpersonal costs."
"The polite mode of decodi.g," DePaulo adds, "is probllrly
an easier way of dealing with interpersonal information thirrr n
mere probing and skeptical style would be. . . . People who lrt'girr
to doubt external appearances are first of all going to experit'ttt't'
more uncertainty; they may also feel guilty about their suspic'iottr
ness and lack of trust; and finally, they might find out somctlrittg
about the other person's feelings toward them that they miglrt lrer
much happier not to know."
Tact-in the form of discreet inattention-is a keystont: ol'llre
'l'o t'nll
social alliance to honor the integrity of the frames we shitrc.
attention to a leaky channel is to violate the social cotrtritt't tlrnl
obligates us to protect one another's ptrblic firctr-to ltrt,itk ir li'rttlto,
I n t h i s s e n s e th e fa i l u re to e x hi l ri t i tttt' nti otutl tl rt' l t' ottsti trrl csrl l l
at t a c k . It v i o l a te s th e l trg c r c o tk' s l l rl l 1l n' s(' r.v(' tl rt' sttr(xrl l w
r otl ri n g s < lf' th t' so < ' iltl o l' < lt' r . ( lo llilllllt

(tl t.st'tt't's: "'

wHAT you DoN'TsEEwoN'T HURTyou | 22J

when an individual projects a definition of the situation
and thereby makes an implicit or explicit claim to be a
person of a particular kind, he automatically exerts a moral
demand upon the others, obliging them to value and treat
him in the m_annerthat persons of his kind have a right to
expect. . . . The individual has informed them as to what is
and as to what they ought to see as the "is."
The unhappiness of those who pay an inordinate amount of
,rl l .rrti on t o leaks, t hen, m ay be t he social cost t hey pay f or bet r aynut ir basic social contract. That seems to account for the paradox
tlr;rl those who see-and say-most clearly what people actually
l,','l can pay a price for their clarity. But such paradox is not unusual
rr rllrin the realm of social deception. There, Depaulo points out,
l'lrt: rules and regulations and reward systems that usually govern
"nr verbal and nonverbal worlds get turned inside out and upside
rl,\\'n. Sources of information such as the face, which are ordinarily
, rlrt'mely informative, can instead be downright misleading, and
tlr,' kinds of skills that we usually get rewarded for-like the ability
1,, 1111ds1stand
what other people are really feeling-can instead
l rrrr.ti on l ike liabilit ies. The per son who knows when decept ion is
," ( ru'ring and who knows what other people are really feeling has
,r ttr()r'eaccurate grasp of what the interpersonal world is really Iike.
l l rrt i n som e ways, under som e cir cum st ances, r naybe being good
.rt rrrrtl ers t andingsocial and int er per sonal cues is just no good at
rl l "
White lies are an innocent, even well-intended, form of socill
' 1,,r' i t. Th ey ar e a way of pr ot ect ing t he f r am es t hat guide a ha. r rrr,,rriorrs social life. But the same dynamic can operate to hide fircts
tl r.rl :r' t: not so innocent . What begins as a whit e lie, an innocer r t
.u' r(' (' rrre ntt o keep t ouchy f act s out of f r am e, can shade clver int <l
,,
,rrrrocentsocial uses.
.,

QUESTIONSTIIAT CAN,T BE ASKED I 225

QU E S T ION S
THAT CAN'T BE ASKED

rt
lr

.1 r"-",
create social reality by directing attention kp
ward the business at hand and away from the irrelevant; what ll
out of frame does not exist, for the moment. For the most part, tlrll
selective attention is useful, but the capacity to keep information
out of frame can fall prey to a collusion that buys social coziness nt
the expense of important truths. These collusions create lacrrnlf,
warping social reality to supgress unpleasant information.
For example, a criminal lawyer of my acquaintance tells rrrg
that undercover police officers in his county routinely lie in corrrt,
particularly in drug cases. Not that these officers perjure tlrr,rrt.
selves all the time, says he, but many do some of the time, arrrl a
few do much of the time. This lawyer says he knows becaust. lre
used to benefit from their lies-he was at one time an assistrrrrt
district attorney.
Does the judge know? I asked. He may suspect, accordirrg kr
the lawyer, but the judge sees the police day in and day outl tlre
defendant is around only over the course of the trial. It keeps tlrirrgr
running smoothly if the judge acts as though he believes the poli,,r,,
Could innocent people be found guilty as a result? Perhaps.
Contrast such false police testimony with the white lit.s tlrat
smooth over social discomforts. The one has dire conse(lu(.n(,rtt,
the other benign. But ugly collusions partake of the same <lyrrnrulo
that allows white lies to succeed: the tacit agreement am<>rrgtlrnrp
concerned to ignore the fact that some crucial information lrirs lrr.t,1 1$
neglected. The net result is a sort of collective self-decelrtiorr. *t;,
Shared deceits routinely protect members of profbssiorrs r.r'lrrr *
ar e i n e p t. F o r e x a m p l e , o f 7 6 0 cases of physi ci un nri scorrrl rrr.t
of
im pa i rme n t re p o rte d to a N e w Y ork sti rte l l oar< l ,orrl y l 2 u,r.r' r.ts=
f er r e d th ro u g h m e d i c a l s o c i e ti e s.W i l l i i rrrr Ii i rr' l t,y.rr ( l rrrurrl i rrrr
i rrrer=
t hes i o l o g i s t w h < l n o w c l i rt' t' tsl l )r' ogr' ;rrrr
l i rr r.r' l rrrl ri l i t;rl i rrg
rrrl rl rr,l erl
F

22.1

lrlrysicians, tells of his years as an addict himself.33For almost ten

\ ('rrrs Farley, in addition to being an alcoholic, was addicted to a
lrr'pnotic drug called Dalmane. If he went more than three hours
rr ithout Dalmane he would go through withdrawal, shaking with
Ir('rnors so strong he could barely insert an intravenous needle,
l r i ghteni n g his pat ient s.
The signs of his addiction were obvious. He dressed sloppily
.,r,rl was irritable and argumentative. His eyes were swollen and
r,' < 1.B ut, says Far ley, one t hing pr ot ect ed him : "t he conspir acy of
' .i l t' nce am ong m y colleagues. They knew som et hing was wr ong
l ,rrt no on e want ed t o blow t he whist le. "
Taboos, a common social deceit, mark anxiety-provoking zones
,,1'si l ence. I n t he f acult y m en's locker r oom of a wom en's college
n('rrrmy home, for example, the professors shy away from one topic
to most collegiate male locker rooms: how attractive
",<ligenous
r rtriotrs female students are. The prospect of a professor-student
r()rnanceat that prim school is too threatening; the whole topic is
l ,rl r< l o.
One of the strongest taboos surrounds the subject of death and
,l ri ng. Oft en a dying per son will not be t old dir ect ly t hat he is
.rpected to die, although signs and clues-eyes averted when re,r\srrranceis given, for example-may at least hint at the likelihood.
l lrt'mutual pretense that all involved should act as though nothing
l ri rppening is descr ibed by Tolst oy: 3a
''
What tormented Ivan Illych was the deception, the lie,
which fbr some reason they all accepted, that he was not
clying but was simply ill, and that he only need keep quiet
irnd undergo a treatment and then something very good
would result. He however knew that do what they would
nothing would con-reof it, only still more agonizing suffernot
, ing and death. This deception tortured him-their
u,ishing to adrnit what they all knew and what he knew,
l rrrt want ing t o lie t o him concer ning his t er r ible condit ion
rrnrl wishing and forcing him to participate in that lie.
' l ' l rt' c'ollr r siont o ignr >r epainf ir l inf or m at ion can easily be t r sed
trr nrri rrtir ir rir polit ict l f ict ion. How var iot r s nat ions pr ef 'er t o r ccir ll
tl rr' l rorrl llt . r l y( 'r r r sof 't lr e St , con<lWr lr lcl Wnr of l'er sit r nple it t st anct 's.
( l ,rrr;r< l ltli)
, r '( 'xir , r r r lllt '.wlt s r 'ockt '<llly a llook r t 'vt 'alit t g t ht t li'or r r
l 1f.l .Ito t l) . 1, -itr s ol'{it 'iir l,ir r r yr licit lv lr r t i- Scr r r it ir ' ; >olicv pt 'r 'r r r it t t 't l
tl rrr rrrrrlcr 'lr opr r l; r lctr rl lr lior rt o lr t lr r r ilor r lv lr t r it 'klt 'ol'. ft 'w, s( t lt t 'sr t t t t t '
l r.rsl )(' (' n s: t ir lol't lr r 'U. S. ) . l, ikcu'ist '. llr r 'lilnt 'l'lt t 'llt t t r l L';I ; r t lllt t : t t lt '
tl rc si rnr ( , , 'lr : r r gr ' : r lr or r l Sr vit z, 'rl; r t r , l: t lr c t it lr ' ( '( ) nr ( 's lt ot t t t lr r '
r' \i )r(.ssior rllr r . Sr r r ss r r s, ', 1; r \ : r r r r lr lr , 'nn\ r r t lo t r 'lt t sr ' ; r , lnt isr t ut tlo

euEsrroNsTHATcAN'TBEASKED| 227

226 | vrrel LrES.sTMPLETRUTHS

Jewish refugees fleeing Germany. In both countries the shock

came because there had been a tacit denial of these facts of tht,
past.
Such guilty secrets are often covered up in history textbooks
as official policy. In Japan there was a furor when the Educatiorr
Ministry decreed that the passages in history texts regarding tht,
Japanese occupation of Asian countries should be less "negativt."
in future editions.3sA mention of the 53,000 Korean casualties inflicted by Japanese soldiers when that country was a colony wts
amended with the note that the Governor General of Korea estimated that there were only 2,000 casualties-but the text neglects
to mention the Governor was a Japanese official. The 20,000 peoplt.
killed in Japanese-occupied Singapore was changed to "more tharr
6,000;" the statement that 300,000 people were killed in Nankirrg
in 1937 was changed to say that the Chinese claimed that so many
had died. All these alterations, the Ministry said, were because ol'
the schools' "social mission" to make Japanese youth proud of tht.ir
history.
In the same vein, American textbooks rarely portray the occ'rrpation of Indian lands by "pioneers" as having even the least tirrgr.
of injustice. American invasions*of Canada, Russia, and Mexico irrr.
glossed over, while in the textbooks of those countries those invirsions are major events. Similarly, textbooks in F rance skew tht.ir
version of world events to fit an official outlook: 36
[One] page in The World Todag . . . was about the wealth
and health and culture of France's old African colonies.
Another was about wanton power in North America, and
another was about misery in South America. . . . The
teacher . . . saw nothing odd in the fact that Francophonc,
Africa resembled a set of Chamber of Commerce postcards, whereas New York City looked as if it had beerr
photographed by
police photographer on a slum homi"
c ide c a s e .
The collective mind is as vulnerable to sel{-deceit as t}rt' irrrlr
v idual mi n d . T h e p a rti c u l a r z o n e s o f shadow for a gi ven col l t' < ' l i vr.
are the product of a simple calculus of the schemas sharcrl lrv ilr
m em ber s : T h e a re a so f e x p e ri e n c e b l anked out i n the rnost i rrrl i vi rl
ual minds will be the darkest zones for the group as u wholt..
Cul tu re s a n d n a ti o n s o ffe r th e best exampl es o1' thi s pri rrci ;rl r,
wr it lar g e . T h e c y n i c a l c h a ra c te ri z ati on of' mass e< l rrc:ati orr
rrs l l rc
" t r ans mi s s i o n o f s o c i a l d e l u s i o n " i s rtccrrratt'to tl rc rk' grt.t' l l rrrl
what is ta u g h t i s s k e w e d b y l a c trn a s.A rr i rr< l crol ' rrt' rrl trrrr,s nrri r;rrr,
nes s , I s u g g e s t, i s i ts b l i n c l s 1 r< l tstlrr'
, l l ru' l i t' rrl :rrr' l crrrcrrl sol rr.;rl rl v
t he c ulfu rA l " w e r" r' 1 r1 )rt' s s to
t' s (' i rs (':rrrri r' li cs.

These blind spots are out of the line of sight of peopler irr tlrt'
,,rrlture, but stand out as quirks to those from cultures that clo rrot
share them. I remember, for example, hearing about a study dtlttt:
lry John Ogbu, a Nigerian anthropologist, of several cultures, irt
tirch of which there seemed to operate a caste system. In some
r'ountries the castes were racially distinct, in others they were not.
lrr all of them, the lower caste did the "dirty q7s1l5"-sweeping,
,'ollecting garbage, butchering, and the like. In each country the
lower castes did poorly in school.
The scholastic deficit, in Ogbu's view, was the outcome of a
srrbtle difference in how these children were treated in school: in
tlreir own cultures, no one expected them to have any but the most
rrrcnial jobs, and so they were treated as inferiors from the start.
In supporting his hypothesis, Ogbu included observations of a
.,.'hool district in a small California pity. His data showed that this
lrirtswas at work there, as in other parts of the world, with teachers
rrrlrtly holding minority children to a lower set of expectations. The
lrr'ltothesis was intriguing, his data compelling. But the real revel;rlion for me was the discovery that the American school district
lrr. studied was the one where I had attended school as a childSt ockton, California.3T
I was thunderstruck. His data and arguments all rang true to
1y.-Sy[ onlg in retrospect. While I was in school, and for all these
\ (.ru'sthereafter, it never occurred to me that this subtle discrimirr.rl i r)nw as going on.
That is just the point: we do not readily see or remember neg,rtrr(' soci al f act s. How ar e such social blind spot s f om ent ed? Con' ,r,l t' r' Inge bor g Duy, who was f our when t he end of t he Second
\\ , rrlrl War ended also her father's career in the Austrian SS. While
r,r('wing up, she learned next to nothing about the dreadful facts of
Il rc w i tf: 38

. . . in Austria . . . the national consciousness simply shed

tlre whole period between the Anschluss and the arrival of
tlrt' Red Army. . . . Veterans might discuss memories of the
l'lastern Front among themselves, but in the family circle
lt'fcrcnces to the Nazi period usually shrank to the level
,I'ir glance exchanged between parents over some radio
n('ws itr:nr, a suggestion that children should mind their
,,rvrrl x r sint : sswhich seldom needed r epeat ing. I ngebor g's
sr' l rool lr ooks h: r <la lit t le st icker on t he t it le page which
r' l ri l rl r cn w( 'r ( ' r t ot st t lt lt ost : <lt t l pick at . Under neat h was
,r l i ttl r . llr ir r t t . t l ( 'r 'oss wit lr t 'r ookt '<l lcgs. To t lt t t : st i<lns,
tl rr. l t': r t , lr ( . rr' ( . lllict l: "'l'lr r . l, w( 'r '( ' t lr t ' st it r t t lt sol' it t t t lt lt t 'r
!1r)\'('n nttt' rtl ,

w (' tt()w

l t:tv c

l t tt(' \.\' g()\r(' l ' tttttc ttt,

w (' w i l l

228 | vrrel LrEs,srMpLE

TRUTHS
now learn the names of the rivers and streams of East
Styria."
when Ingeborg went to America as an exchange student at
sixteen,she was shockedto learn what the Third nefth had done,
and how the rest of the world thought of people like her father,
who had been Nazis. on her return to Austri", ,h" confrontedher
father:
"What was the war about?"
"f don't want to talk about it."
"Did you gasany
Jews?"
"If you careto leave my house,_forever,
right now, you
need only repeatwhat you just said."
In a similar vein, Bini Reichel, born in lg46 in Germany, d..
scribeshow, in the
years,"amnesia becamea contagiorrs
^postwar
national disease, affecting
even postwar children. In this new
world . . . there was no room for curious children and adolescents.
we postponed our questions and finally abandoned them alt'gether." In her history books,the Nazi years were covered
in tcrr
to fifteen pagesof careful condemnation.
Reichel,too, recallshowthat amnesiawas inculcatedin her tt
school:3s
I suddenly remember how I had perceived that chapter of
Germany's past as a teenager.oui curiosity was so manipulated that we weren't euen aware that we never asked
questions.My history teacherin high schoolwas Fraulein
Schubert, a 65-year-old institution"in gray,,rhore-;t;;;sive interest in Johann Gutenbergand other icons of centuries lgng_a,qo_
prevented her from ever mentioning the
name of Adolf Hitler,
In an attempt to break through this group amnesia,Reiclrr.l
rec_ently,sought
out and questioned some of the gurr"r"iion wlr.
had fought in the war. one questionshe askedof a former Nazi wrrs
why he had never discussedthoseyearswith his own children. t tis
reply: "It was beyond discussion.Besides,they didn't ask."
Questionsthat ssn'1-e1 vv6p'1-be asked are a sure sign ,l'rr
lacuna. The creation of blind spots is a key tool of ."p."rri,u(, r.(..
gimes, allowing them to obliterate informationthat threatens.tlrr.ir
official line. In doing so they define one frame for events as virlirl,
any others as subversive-and still other events ure lley<lrr<lllrl
permissibleboundsfor attention.Take the caseof'Argt.rrtin1.
Wlrilp
the m ilitaryjunta was in control,the trnaskllrlt'<lrrcstion
w:rs,Wlrrrt
happenedto the seventhotrsandor so politit.irlrliss.rrtr.r.s
wlre prvs

Q U E S TI O N S TH A T

CAN"I' lll,; ASKI';l)

::lt

t, r i otrsl y disappear ed? O nce a dem ocr at ic r egir ne t <lok ovcr ' li'or r r
tl ,,' j rrnta,t hat sam e quest ion was t he f ir st t o be asked. 'l'ht ' iur sw( 'r ',
rl r r)urS,pointed a finger of guilt straight at the junta itsell.
'fhe Soviet Union is continually in the throes of struggles ovt't'
years, for exatrtt',,'lr fbrbidden lines of inquiry. During the Stalin
When
Khrushchev
to
hide
his
outrages.
history
was
rewritten
1,1,',
t,r,k poWer he empowered a commission to investigate Stalin's
r r nnS.What that commission found, though, was too disturbing to
,,'r'r'tl openly. Khrushchev admitted it in part in a secret speech in
l'156, again in watered-down form at a later party congress, and
tl,,'rr locked the report away in party archives.
According to Harrison Salisbury, "Khrushchev himself said
rl,.rt the revelations were so shattering that they could not be publr.'lrt'd,for fear of a repetition of 1937-38, when it was said that half
,,1 ltrrssia was accusing the other half of treason."aoWhen Khrush, lrcv left office, the investigation stopped.
Some twenty-eight years later a Russian historian, Anton Antl )nov-Ovseyenko, managed to get accessto some of those archives,
,| to cover much of the same ground through his own efforts.
\rrrong the facts he unearthed were the innocence of the victims of
' ,t,rl i n' s pur ge t r ials of t he 1930s, St alin's com plicit y in t he deat hs
,,1 l ri s polit ical opponent s, including Lenin's widow and St alin's
,rrrrr wif. and that the total number of Russian deaths through
lrrrr'!{eSand executions under Stalin's reign may have been more
tl',rrr fifty million. Stalin, in short, committed genocide against his
,,,, rr people.
Antonov-Ovseyenko's retrieval of this part of the Russian past
,', ,,t'cded, in his words, "because over the course of a generatitln
,rrlrstiurtial, often irreversible, shifts take place in the collectivt:
rrrr.nl or/ .I m por t ant f act s,event s, nam es, ent ir e hist or ical st r at adis.rt)t)(,ar'.The new generation enters life with a built-in amnesitt,
.' .rti {i callyinduced and m aint ained. " The book, published in Am er r r, ,r i rr l 9t] 2, was not published in t he Soviet Union.
'l'lre need to revise history to fit the official version leuves tht,
l i rrssi arrpast f ir ll cl{'holes.David Shipler , an Am er ican f or eigr t cor ,,' ' l rorrrk : r r tt her e in t he ear ly I 970s, obser ves: t r
' l ' l rt' syr r t ht 't ic hist or y of t he Soviet Union, as o{I 'er edt oclay,
i s < list ir r gr r ishcrrl t r ost ly l>y what it om it s, r at her t hat nwt r t r t
i t {i t llr it . ir t t . s.'l'lr t . t t ct it ' is r r ow <l{t ensiler t ce: siler t ct :t t lr t t t r t
tl rr. r 'r r r 'lyr lt . lr ir t t . sir r r <lcliss( 'nt wit hin t he t her t - f lt : <lglir r g
( l orrununisl l) r r r t y,silcnct . lr lr ot r t t lr t ' lr ir r <lshilt sit t t t l t 'r t t t 'lr t 'r 'lt lt t lt r t lt r 'pt t r gt 's it lt t l
l i r.s ol'lir n'r 't lcollct 't iviz, r r lior rsilcr
;
: r r r r lt lr r ' lr cst llt '<l Ar t t lv ol'liccls
r.\(.('r rior
l r s ol' gllr r 'lvl, ': t <lt 't 's
l ,r.l ir r r .t lr r . \ t , : u. . . silct t t 'r ' : t lr ot t l llr t ' . . . l1) : |1)lt ( ) lt llggl( 's

23O I vrrel

LIES, srMpLE TRUTHS

sion pact with Nazi Germany . . . ; silence on the soviet

Union's unpreparednessfor the German attack; silence on
the 915 billion in American and British food u"a *iiii"r"
equipment transported at great risk by convoy to Muimansk . . .
In 1974, the poet Yevgeny yevtushenko told of his dismay
when, around a campfire in siberia, an eighteen-year-oldgirl pro.
posed a toast to Stalin. Hadn't she heard how many p"opl" were
arrested and murdered during his rule? Maybe twenty lr thirty,
she replied. SaysYevtushenko:ag
And then I suddenly understood as never before that the
younger generation-really does not have any sourcesnowtd"yr for learnin_g$e tragic truth about thai time, b""".rr"
th_evcannot read about it in books or in textbook;- E;;;
when articles are published about heroes of o.r, n";;1"tion who died in the time of the stalinist repressions,the
pap_ers
fall silent about the causeof their deaths...'Th;
truth is replacedby silence,and the sirenceis a lie.

THE FLOW OF INFORMATION

IN A FREE SOCIETY

r
I

ldeas lead to acts. To the degree that a society limits

tlrc range of attention through authoritarian frames, it restricts the
, lroices available to its members. Lacunas can bury "dangerous"
rrlt'as.That insight was the idea behind Newspeak, the language in
t )r.well's 1984 which spawned terms like "doublethink" urrd "unlrcrson" and gave rise to slogans like "Ignorance Is Strength."
Nt'wspeak embodied the attempt to shrink the schemas available
t, citizens and so control their range of action.
In his Appendix on "The Principles of Newspeak," orwell
rurrkest he pr inciple explicit : a3
A pe-rson growing up with Newspeak as his sore ranguage
would no more know that equal had once had the r.""oniary meaning.of "politically--equal,"_or that
free had once
rneant "intellectually f1ee," than, for insta'nce, a person
who had never heard of chess would be aware of the sec<rndarymeanings attached to queen and rook, There wotrld
be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond hi.s
lx)wer to commit, simply because they were nameless and
t herefore trnimaginable.
As tirne went on and the vocabulary of Newspeak llecanr(,
I)r()rl rcssi vely spit r se and it s m eanings m or e r igid, people's ch<licsslilr .
,rr.ti orrw<lr r l<ll>t :evc, r nt r r r ower - or so O r well pr oposed.
' l ' l rt 'r 't 'is it
llar it llel pr inciple at wr lr k in ut t em pt s t o r egr r llt l t lr r .
r
t
t
r
<l
s<lcial
wor lt l t hr <xr ghc<lnt r olling t hc f low ol'ir r lil- r r pr 1' ,' l i l i < 'r t l
Itott i tt lt sot 'it 't y'.A sot 'it 't y lr ir r r <llt 'sir r f or r r r ir t i6ril)
r wir ys t lr ir t . lir . .
1,.rr:tl lr 'lt lr c wot 'kir r gsol't lr t ' r r r ir r r l.'l'lr t . r r r r r r kol'r lt . r r r r x. r 'lr ( .is\ , llr r r t
tttl ottl t:t t iot r llor vs li'r 'r 'lv'; it is r r ll; lr oglr ir r t rt.lr ir t t lr t , t . 6r r slilr r li, r r : r t
,un.n( l r rr crr l gur u'ilrr lcc i r rg li'r . r .s1r ccr . rl \ ^, , 1s
t l r r ' li r . st .
A lolr t lr l: r ti: r r t slr t lr ', lr k, ' t lr r ' lol: r lilr r rir ur sr . lf, lir r r ls ils ollir . i: r l

THE FLow oF INFoRMATIoN rN A FREE socIETY

232 I vrrer- LrEs,sTMPLE

TRUTHS

ti rl n of t he Bill of Right s in 1791. " For anot her , it r epr esent s t lr c

grolitical equivalent of a neurotic repression'
Such a contract would allow the government in power to ct:tt.,,r views and opinions out of line with its own. "The effect of'tlrt'
,lirective is this;" notes Floyd Abrams, an expert on constitutiglitl
l,rw. "Those people most knowledgeable about subjects of ovcrwill be least able to comment without t[t'
rirling nationil
"Jr,""rn
.,1,pro.ralof those they wish to criticize.''
wellThis way of attempting to muzzle critics-particularly
itlmethods
to
those
compared
rrrtbrmed critics-is rather
"l.t-ty
irr
inherelt
biases
built-in
unspoken,
,,,udy at work by virtue of the
crrlentire
group
an
to
smallest
the
from
,,,,1,collective sensibility,
I rrre or nation.
For example, in Soviet political life (it is easier to use a cast' ttt
class of political dissenters is categorizetl its
,, <listanc")
" ""tiain
.'rrfl-eringfrom
"sluggish schizophrenia" and sent away to psychi.rtric hofpitals. fne iigns that seem to lead to this diagnosis boil
,l,wn to the fact that ih" p"rron is dissenting and is therefore tlt'r i trnt .
When Soviet officials and KGB officers confront a political clis..irlent,one theory holds, they are "struck by a sense of strangenoss'
when the dissidents start lect,rirrg
.r sense that is
"o-po.rrrded
Soviet constitution." Normal p('othe
under
tlrt,rn about their righls
is t hat t hey m ay }t ' r n( 'r r suspicion
The
way.
don't act t hat
1rlt just
,
in'
is
called
t;rlly unbalanced; a psychiat r ist
Walt er Reich, a psychiat r ist who has st udied t he Soviet syst t 'r t r .
.u t{lresthat: as

version of reality too fragile to withstand an unbridled flow of ideas.

For a totalitarian authority to assert control, it must choke off alternative views and facts. Censorship-an essential tool of politictl
control-is the social equivalent of a defense mechanism.
The authoritarian regime, though, represents the extreme of'rr
continuum interconnecting all societies, including the most democratic. The vested interests and vying constituencies that make rr
democracy healthy also represent biased viewpoints, each with its
own blind spots.
Such biases are inevitable: the social self is prone to them firr
the same reasons the individual one is. The nature of schemas is to
guide attention toward what is salient and away from what is not,
By establishing a notion of what is salient, and how to construe it,
the schema is biased from the start.
Contrast the structure of publishing in America with that irr
authoritarian states. In the latter, state-operated publishing houscs,
with a very few key decision-makers, control all publishing. lrr
America, books are published by about a thousand independcrrt
firms. Although about two hundred firms do 85 percent of the btrsiness, there is nothing here like the singleminded vision product.rl
n
b y a s ta te mo n o p o l y .*
Even so, there is a noticeable tension within American govern=
ment between the principle of free information flow and the pra('tices of politicians. A case in point is the Reagan administratiorr's
obsession at one point with what one expert on constitutional lirw
calls "the risks of information":aa
. . . fearful of both its unpredlctability and its potential for
leading the public to the "wrong" conclusions . . . its actions are rooted in a view . . . that not only focuses on security but also equates security with secrecy, and treats
information as if it were a potentially disabling contagious
disease that must be controlled, quarantined and ultimately cured.
In the service of this view, the Reagan administration proposr',1
a remarkable device: a contract to be signed by all officials willr
access to classified information that would require thenr to srrlrrrrl
th e i r w ri ti n g s to g o v e rn m e n t revi ew for the rest of thei r l i vt,s. ' l ' l rr.
d e v i c e i s re m a rk a b l e o n tw o counts. For one, as noterl i rr i t w l rrrrrrrl l
b y th e A m e ri c a n So c i e ty o f N ew spaper E di tors, i t i s " pt' i rct.ti rrrt.
c e n s o rs h i p o f a s c o p e u n p a r al l el ed i n thi s corrntry si rr< ' r' l l rr,rrrl ,,p
* Still, so m e b ia se s in p u b lish in g irnrl tl rt'pr,'ss rrurv l ,,'
exa m p le , He r b e r t Gir r .ts,De d d in g Wl rttt'.s N rrr',r (N crv
Be n Ba g d ikiitn , 7 ' lr r ' ltlt' tlir t L ltttto ltrtl y (l l rston: l l trrr',,rr I'

. l or
,r tr ,l

| 233

t
B'

The Soviet psychiatrists who are called upon to rerttlt'r'

t heir diagnoJt ic judgm ent s ar e t hem selves Soviet cit iz. t : r r s.
They gro; up inthe same culture, are affected by the sitttrt'
p,,liil"al realities and develop-the same social percelltiorrs'
Alcl since t he way a psychiat r ist goes al>or r t lt : t ct 't t t it t is iil depends t o a gr et t t ext cr r t . t r llt t '
son
i. g whet her . per
^asst
r m pt i<l. s
about what is r t sr t it l it t t t l ( '\ lt sychiat r ist 's
m
ay, . pon c<lt . it lg it r t t l c'. t lt . it t 'l
he
s.
ciet
y,
ilt ict e, d in his
li'lt
ivit h t hc r lissit ler r t ,have t he sant e ser lseo{'st r it r r gt 'r r t 'ss
t lr t '
t
lr
r
r
t
sr
t
sllct
't
go
on t o
lr v t lr t , K( ; ll lggr it - 1r r r l r nuy
, 1, 'li'r r . l, t r tttt t it v lr t ' ill'
lr r slr . r . f. llr <,Sgr , ict llsy<. lr iir t r istslr lr t 't 'st lt t ' t 'ollt 't 't iVt ' st 'lr ( 'lll'r l\
t lt 'r 'ilr r r t 't '.l'ln( '( ) ur r t cr ing, ll( lissi, l. r r l is
l l r : r l r . r lr r lr t r , <lissi<lt , r r r . , . *iillr
.,t r r r llir r g,r , r . r , ' j: p. r ir r g. 'l'lr r li',
. , lings, 'r ', , kcr lr u'r 'sit t t illr r t , , r Vlt ; ll, lt t '
slt ot l slr '1r
r
villr
l ,.r , lr ir r r . n( . ( ) ulr lr . r s
llsr r 'lr olics ol ; t ll st r ipcs. ll is: r
'l'lt is . t lr lr t t t ; r lt t t t t t t l
t
.
l:
r
1,
,
'1.
g,
t
r
',
'lt
l:
t
lt
lr
;
r
r
r
r
lr
;
r
l ,r r ; r r l. r . lr r l. : r p1, lr '

234 | vrrer, LrES, srMpLE TRUTHs

how Soviet psychiatry comes to be used to handle dissent is charitable, to say the least: it removes the onus of complicity in political
repression from the psychiatrists if they really belleve (as well they
may) the dissidents are ill.*
This view from afar of a blind spot in the Soviet system suggests something about societies in general. points of l,rie,,a,,
or versions of reality that don't fit into the consensual view can bc
dismissed as eccentricity or aberration. In the politics of experience, the ease with which a society can dismiss deviant views-in
fact, bury them-suggests that the mechanism for doing so is th'
aggregate weight of its citizens'shared lacunas. we do not see what
we prefer not to, and do not see that we do not see.
* Indeed, the view that psychiatry
is.a tool to suppress social deviancy has bet,rr
taken toward Western psychiatry, ioo, by antipsychiitrists such as Thomas-S""rr.
t,,
some sense, of course, all psychotics are dissidents from the prevailing
ro"iul-ord"r,
to the degree that they deviate in thought and deed from commonly shi.eJr"-t.rn^*.

Conclusion

AN ANCIENT MALADY
AND ITS CURE

rn
I fr" dynamic of information flow within and among us
particularly
to
a
human malady: to avoid anxiety, we close
lroints
,,11'crucial portions of awareness, creating blind spots. That diagrrosisapplies both to self-deceptions and shared illusions. The mal,rtly is by no means new: Buddhaghosa, a monk who wrote a fifth('(rntury Indian text on psychology, describes precisely the same
I w i st of m ind as m oha, "delusion. " I
Buddhagosa defines "delusion" as "the cloudiness of mind
tlrlt leads to misperception of the object of awareness," a characltrization quite in keeping with the data of modern cognitive psy,' l rol ogy. Delusion, in his view, conceals t he t r ue essenceof t hings.
'\n "unwise attention," delusion leads to false views, to misinterlrrt'ting what one encounters. It is, he said, the root of all "unwhole..r)nre"sta t es of m ind.
What is fascinating about Buddhaghosa's assessment of the
lrrururn predicatment is not only its compatibility with the modern
\ \('w, but its prescription for an antidote. The cure for delusion,
' ,,rvsB trddhagosa,is panna, or insight - seeing t hings just as t hey
.nr' .* [n ter m s of our m odel of t he m ind, t hat m eans a com pr ehen'.rorrthat is undistorted by the defensive urge to avoid anxiety.
'ihe forms of insight are many; the particulars of that prescripl rorr rl r' pt: ncl<ln t he var iet y of delusion it aim s t o cur e. Fr eud, f or
r' \i urrpl t., was t 'xplicit in com m ending insight as t he cur e t o net r rol i c tw i s t s ol' r r r ir r d. The specif ic cognit ive st r at egy he r econlnr ir kt 's pcr f ect s( ) nse)in t er nr s of t he m odel t lf nr in<l
' ' r,' rrrl crl
,' rrl l i rrt' <llr ( 'r ( '. 'l'lr t 't 'r r r t 'of ir r rlt t er r r t iongone asker w,sit iclht : , llegir r s
u' rl l r:l n ur r r 'lor r <lct:lr wllx'n( 'ss. I n: r l1) 12 lcct t r r t 't o lt lr ysit 'i: t t r sir r p l rrl , , s r, g l l r' rs , o l c o rrrs , ' , l r; rrl rrrrr, ' l r l l r, ' s i t t rt c s (' n s c o l t l rc t t ; t l t t rt ' l t t t t l
' l l r ,.( l r r .r 'L
t rt t t t , l
l r r r r , l r or r ,r l rrrrrp l l rl l ' l ; rl rr, 1 , ' l i rrc rl l l r, ' 1 , l rrl , , r, , 1 , l r, ^ t ' s l : rs k : t s t t t r' l t ' l r' l l t t t rt t t l t t t t
l u rrg . i r\ \ ' ; rt c t t rs r o l l t l r'
l ,r l r r ,'.,,, r ,l r l , . . rl l r
. r l ; r' -L l l r, rl r, ' rI n l . ' \ . rn , t t rl l t t r,

238 | vrrer- LIES,srMpLETRUTHS

terested in applying psychoanalysis, he proposed that an analyst
should open his own unconscious to the patient's, free of any selection and distortion:2
The technique . . . consists simply in not directing one's
notice to anything in particular and in maintaining the
same "evenly-suspended attention" . . . in the face of all
that one hears. In this way . . . we avoid a danger which is
inseparable from the exercise of deliberate attention. For
as soon as anyone deliberately concentrates his attention
to a certain degree, he begins to select from the material
before him; one point will be fixed in his mind with particular clearness and some other will be correspondingly disregarded, and in making this selection he will be following
his expectations or inclinations. This, however, is precisely what must not be done. In making the selection, if
he follows his expectations he is in danger of never finding
anything but what he already knows; and if he follows his
inclinations, he will certainly falsify what he may perceive.
In other words, to compEehend the patient's schemas, the therapist must put aside his own'for the time being. The attitude Freurl
commends is, in effect, the purest form of listening. The therapist,
in bracketing his own schemas, becomes receptive to the most
accurate rendition of the patient's. In the ideal, this means tht'
therapist does not impose his own organization and selection as ht.
attends.*
In some sense, all therapies amount to schema repair. Tht,
"insight" therapies-psychoanalysis foremost among them-attempt to shed light on the dark corners of the mind created lry
defenses. Family therapies take on the same task, trying to rt.groove the destructive patterns embedded in a family's shart.tl
schemas. Even behavior therapies-whose theory ignores all cognition-can be seen as a retraining of self-defeating schemas.
The therapist is able to offer such service because he does rrol
collude with the patient's need to deny anxiety-provoking inlirrmation: he is willing to make the patient uncomfortable and inst.cure by having him confront information he has resisted, in or<k.r
to achieve a healthier security-one that can assimilate srrch tlrrt.irtening information.
What the therapist does for the patient, a l<lne voicc c'arrrkr lirr
t he g ro u p -i f h e i s w i l l i n g to break the hol rl of' tl rt.groul ) s l rl i rrrl
* I n actu a lity, th is id e a cle m ir ttd s r t' to ol i ng tl rr'l l rcrrpi sl 's;rl l crrl rorr;rl sl i rrrcr.,:r
l i rsk
F r e u d clid n o t le a ve ir n y lir r tltcr sllt' t' if i c strgg('\l i orrs l i ,r. ol l rcr l l uur r,.,,,rrrnr,'rr,l rrrg
t h a t i tr r itttitlvsl slr o r r l< llr ir r r sr .lllx. ir r r r lvzr.rl .

AN ANCIENT MALADY AND ITS CURE I 239

spots. I n his suggest ions f or cot t nt er ing gr oupt hink, I r ving f it r r is

suggests that a group designate one member as a deviant-that is,
irs a critical evaluator of what goes or, raising objections ittttl
rloubts. The devil's advocate can save the group from itself, mirking
sure it faces uncomfortable facts and considers unpopular views,
any of which could be crucial for a sound decision.
This willingness to rock the boat is the essential quality of'all
tl'rosewho would remedy delusion. It is the stance of the investigative reporter, the ombudsman, the grand jury, and the thera.pist
rtlike. To accomplish their task, they each must bring into the opcrr
tl'rosefacts that have been hidden in the service of keeping thirrgs
t.ornfbrtable. All must have the same impartiality; lacking it tht'y
:rre in danger of replacing one bias with another.
That same insight has come from other quarters. The sociologist Georg Simmel, for example, observed the importance of'tht'
stranger, or outsider, to the group. The stranger's position, sttitl
Simmel, is defined by the fact that he has not belonged to the grotrt)
li'om the start, and that he brings a point of view to it that is foreigrr.
l l e i s bot h inside and out side. Ther ein lies his par t icular value: his
strangeness brings with it a special objectivity about the grorrlr
i tsel f.
The stranger as characterized by Simmel describes not only a
social role, but also a psychological stance. The stranger, in tht'
l rsyc hological sense, is not com m it t ed t o t he unique vision t lr t '
{r'oup shares-he knows its core schemas, but is not investecl irr
tl rcm . Thus, while he m ay under st and t he gloss on r ealit y t hat t lr c
slrared lens imparts, he is not bound by it.
His objectivity is not simple detachment, but a combinrttion ol'
i rr< l if 'f er ence
and involvem ent , int im acy and dist ance. I n his olr . it 't 'ti vi ty t he st r anger has a cer t ain f r eedom : he has no obligat iot t s t o
l l rc gr ot r p t hat m ight skew his per cept ion or pr ejudice his t t t t <lt 't 'sl :rrrcling.The st r anger , as Sim nt el put s it , "is f r eer , pr t t ct icit lly ir r r t l
tl rt' o r ct ically; he sur veys condit ions wit h less pr ejt r dice; his c'r it t 'r ir t
l ol th cr n r r r e nlor e gener al and m or e object ive icleals;hc is r r ot t it '<l
,l or,vr rir r his act i<lnby habit , piet y, and pr ececlent . "
Wlr ilt ' he r r r ayhave blincl spot s, t hey ar e not likt , ly t o lr t ' t lr ost '
,rl l l r r . gr '( ) lr p,t r r <l so hc ciur seo whit t t hc'gr <lt r p visior r nt isst 's. ln
tl rrrtst it t t 'ol ir llir ir s lit 's llot h his gr c: atvr llt t c ant l his t lt r t 'lr t . As. lr r r r is
l r;rs olr scr vt 'r l, t lr cst ' ir t t it r r r lt . sir llow iI gr 'olll) t t t t 't t t lr t 't 't o lt l'oir t 'lr
r i crv s llur l t 'r ur slv( 't lr t 'gr 'ou1l li'ot t t it s illt t siot t s. 'l'lr t 'r 'lt lt t t 'ol llr : r l
sl rrr r r '( , \ \ 'ir sr '( '( '( ) gr r iz. t '<1,
lin'r 'r r r r r r lr lr ',ir r t lr t 'olt l lt r lr t 'lit 'r 'ol'llr r lilr r r
ri l rr. s ol sr . r . kir r t l. jr r t lgt 's
li'or r rollr cr lllr t ccs,sin( '( 'no t r : t lit 't 'r vr t slt t 't '
,rl l o< ' :rl ,' nl ;ttrul t' tttt' ttl s .
' l ' l r,. nnl )ul s r'
l o ,,l ,t,' ut('

(l ;rrk l :r,' l s , rv r' l l tr' ,'

\(' r' n.

(' (ttttrs

l trl ttt

240

| vrrel

LrES, sTMPLE TRUTHS

the need to preserve the integrity of the self, whether individual or

shared. A group may implicitly demand of its members that they
sacrifice the truth to preserve an illusion. Thus the stranger stanrls
as a potential threat to the members of a group, even though ht.
may threaten them only with the truth. For if that truth is of thc
sort that undermines shared illusions, then to speak it is to betray
the group.
Still, the truth-teller may fill the quintessential modern neecl.
We live in an age when information has taken on an import unparalleled in history; sound information has become the most prizerl
of commodities. In the realm of information. truth is the best ol'
goods. Illusions, on the other hand, are a tarnished coin of sorts.
There is something curative in insight. At its best, the scientifit,
community functions as a powerful system of this sort in its business of gathering information, with self-correcting mechanisnrs
built in to guard against bias. David Hamburg, when he was prrsident of the American Association for the Advancement of Scienct.,
proposed the scientific community as a model for dealing with what
is inarguably the greatest world threat, the nuclear arms buildup:"
The scientific communitg is the closest approximation our
species has so far constructed of a single, interdependent,
mutually respectful worldwide family. It does not solve
problems by blaming others but rather by undertaking objective analysis. . . . The spirit of science must be brought
to bear on [the] crucial problem of nuclear conflict.*
That, of course, is more easily said than done.
* However, we should not idealize the objectivity of scientists. They too are sorrrr'
times susceptible to the social forces that warp perception.

THE VIRTUES
OF SELF.DECEPTION

l\r.

I..y
thesis has been that we are piloted in part by
.rrr ingenious capacity to deceive ourselves, whereby we sink into
,,lrliviousness rather than face threatening facts. This tendency tos;rrd self-deception and mutual pretense pervades the structure of
rrrrr ps/chological and social life. Its very pervasiveness suggests
tlr:rt self-deception may have proven its utility in evolution. A mo,l rt' rrm of delusion m ay, som ehow, benef it t he species in t he long
,,,rr, although its costs for the individual can be great.
Consciousness, we have seen, runs along parallel, interlinked
l r;rt' ks,m ost of t hem out side awar eness; awar eness is t he last st op
:trrd not always an essential one-in
the flow of information
l l rrorrgh t he m ind. Cr ucial decisions as t o what should and shot r ld
rrrl cnter awareness are made in the unconscious mind. Thus that
r'.,scrrti?.llyhuman ability, self-awareness, brings with it the capacrtr l i rr self - decept ion.
lt is a simple step for the unconscious mind to act as a trickster,
,rrl rrrri tt ingt o awar eness a biased ar r ay of f act s int ended t o per ,' rr,rrl t't heawar e par t of m ind t o go along wit h a given cot r r se ol'
.rrl rr)n. The unconscious, in ot her wor ds, can m anipulat e t he cor r ' ,rrr)uSrn ir r cllike a puppet eer his m ar ionet t es.Why should t he r nir r r l
Ir. so l trr it r t ged?
S on r c sociobiologist s hypot hesize t hat self - dec: ept i<lr rhir s
I "or '
1,l ,rvcrllt llt r gt : - an<l lar gely posit ive- r <lle in hum an er v<llt r t i<ln.
r' \,urr1l lt ',ir r <lr r t 'ir r l{lln) ( 'nt ,t her r nale u, ho is t he r t t ost sr r cc't 'sslir l
ri .rrcti t'ir llv- t lr ir t is, wlr <l lr : r st ht ' r t t ost pr ogeny ar r t l so t 'or t t r ilr r r t t 's
nr.r(' l o t lr c g( 'n( 'llool- is
t lt t 'on( 'r , l'lt o int pr t 'gr r it t t 's t lr t 'r nosl
\\,)nr(' rr . 'l'lr r 'lr t 'stst nr t cgr 'lir r r loir r g so is t o c'or r vit t t 'r 't 'lt t 'ltor r t 'llut l
1,,' n' i l l lr r ' lor '; r l t o lr , 'r ',lr r 'lpir r g t : t isc t lr c r 'lr ilr lt 'r 't tol't lr cir t nnot t .
Il r.rl i s : r lir '. sir r t 'r 'lr is ir r lcr r t is lo lovc lr cr r r r r r ll, 'r r r c lr cr . llr r l lr r '
,r rl l l ,(' ! uosl likclr lo sr r r '( '( 'r '( 1,
t lr , ' ; ut ir nn( 'nl uocs, il lr r ' r r r '; r rncsl

242 | vrral LrES,srMpLETRUTHs

in his assurances of loyalty. His best chance for that is to belir.vr.
his own lies-that is, to first deceive himself.
There are many variants of this argument for the evolutionlry
virtues of self-deception. In another, two hypothetical prehistorir,
hunters and gatherers are out in barren terrain, searching for llt.r.
ries or some small animal. One convinces the other that he worrltl
fare better on a distant hill, when in fact the best chances are whcrr.
they stand. This lie, although unethical, has great genetic valrr{.,
since if two people are searching for food in a place where thert. is
barely enough for one of them alone, either one might raise his
own chance for survival by persuading the other to search elsr.where.
Grant, for the moment, the usefulness of such lies, and tlrt.
further usefulness of believing them oneself becomes evident. As
one sociobiologist puts it, "it is not difficult to be biologically sr.l"
fish and still appear to be sincere if one is sufficiently ignorant ol
one's own motives." In other words, to lie well one must first llr..
lieve one's own lies-a maxim whose truth should not be lost orr
any modern salesman or politician.
That is not to say that self-deception in evolution need alwiryr
have been in the service of putting others at a disadvantage; it t,irrr
strengthen social bonds as well as manipulate them. Indeed, irr u
study of parent-infant interactions, Kenneth Kaye, a developmt'rrtirl
psychologist, concludes that "a baby is more organism than person,
has neither a mind nor a self until late in the first year, brrt . ,
adults are tricked into treating babies as communicating partncrs."
The mother who talks to her baby as though he understoo<l lrr.r
may be fooling herself. But by interacting with him that wly.
meeting his eyes, gesturing, speaking with expression and givirrg
special intonation to her words-the mother gives him the exl)(.rl
ences he needs to graduallylearn to understand all those thilgs. ll
she did not act as though he understood, she might deprive hirrr ol
those crucial experiences. Better for evolution to have errecl on llre,
pos i ti v e s i d e , tri c k i n g p a re n ts i nto bei ng the tutors of an i rrl rrrrl
whom they treat as though he knows more than in fact ht. rl,rr.r.
That way, argues Kaye, he is surer to get the lessons he net,<ls.
Self-deception can lead to all sorts of virtuous deecls. I,'.r r.r
am p l e , c o n s i d e r th e h e ro i s m o f one S pi cer Lung on pan A rrr l l i gl rl
925 from Miami to Houston. According to newspnper rt'ports., [\lr.
Lung broke up an attempt to hijack the plane tr C.b..
About twenty minutes after the flight <lcllirrtt.<1,tlrt.r.r.\r,irs rl
dis t u rb a n c e o n b o a rd . A m a n c l a i mi ng t< ll l rvr.i r t{urr< l crrl rrrtl prltl rrrl
t he p l a n e h e a d fo r C u b a . M r. f,tt ng, orrt,ol ' l 2 | ;l l ssr.nl {(,r',rrr
s l ,,,i rrrl ,
s pr a n g i n to a c ti o n ,

THE vTRTUESoF sELF-DEcEprIoN

| 243

"You're taking this plane over my dead body," he told the

lrijacker. With the help of his fifteen-year-old son, Mr. Lung sub,lued the man. The hijacker, it turned out, had no gun.
"I don't consider myself a hero and I don't want to be called a
Irr:ro," Mr. Lung said later. "I'm just an ordinary person."
Mr. Lung, a Nicaraguan living in the United States, added, "I
rlidn't want to go to Cuba. I just had to do something to stop him. I
rvasn't sure whether he was armed, but I'm not scared of a
.r,capon."
In moments of heroism such as this, where a rational weighing
,,{'odds would argue against doing anything, bravery may well deg,t,ndon the variety of self-deception summed up in the words "I'm
rrot scared of a weapon." A mundane form of the same positive selfrlt'ception is seen in the tennis player who assumes a more confit k'nt manner after winning a point against a better opponent, or the
who gives himself a pep talk before making a tough sales
'rrlesman
,'rrll, when a rational weighing of odds would be discouraging.
Throughout human evolution, such self-deception may have
lrstered acts of bravery and courage, bonding and sharing, or compt'titive striving, all of which in the long run accrued to the benefit
,'l the species. The remnant of that capacity may still be a boon, as
rrr those moments when our intuition "knows more than we do"
.,'r<ldirects us toward a correct decision.
Every act of perception, we have seen, is an act of selection.
lrr cvolution, our survival as a species may have hinged in part tln
,,ru' erb ilit y t o select shr ewdly, and t o deceive our selves just t s
',lrrt'wdly. But the capacity of the unconscious mind to pilot thc
..rrscious can backfire. When this faculty for self-deception is mol,rlized to protect us from anxiety, the trouble begins: we fall pr()y
t,r l rl i nd spot s, r em aining ignor ant of zones of inf or m at ion we m ight
\' r' l > ett er of f knowing, even if t hat knowledge br ings som e pain.

vrrAt- LrES AND srMpLE TRUTHS | 245

VITAL LIES
A N D S IMP LE TRUTHS

is an almost gravitational pull toward putting

T"r"
out of mind unpleasant facts. And our collective ability to facr'
painful facts is no greater than our personal one. We tune out, w{'
turn away, w avoid. Finally we forget, and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth.
Elie Wiesel, who surlrived Auschwitz and Buchenwald, s:tys
"Memory is our shield, our only shield." For him, only the bringing into awareness of the painful past can innoculate against its
repetition. But such memories come at us like the Ancient Marint'r,
detaining us to tell us tales harsher than we might otherwise choosr,
to hear.
The tellers of such tales, though, offer an essential correctivr,
to the easy forgetting of disturbing truths. Whistle-blowers, likr.
Frank Serpico, whose testimony disclosed layers of corruption irr
the New York City police force, offer an insider's revelatiorr ol
things gone wrong. Watchdogs, like Nader's Raiders, do the stnr(,
from an outsider's vantage point. And insiders-becoming-outsi<lt'r's,
s uc h a s D w i g h t Ei s e n h o w e r w hen he w arned agai nst the mi l i ti rrv
ind u s tri a l c o mp l e x a t th e e n d of hi s presi dency, are' suddenl y w i l l
ing to tell how things have gone wrong because they are no lorrgcr
ins i d e rs .
T h e s e ti me s h a v e s e e n the emergence of a new A ntcri t' :rtr
breed, the truth-teller as hero. The best example of the genr() is llrr,
whistle-blower, usually a very ordinary person who somehow rrr;rr
shals the courage to tell the truth about some abuse. In <loing sn,
he v i o l a te s th e s h a re d l a c u n a s that had both kt' yrt hi rn si l crrt i rrrrl
t ie d h i m to th e g ro u p w h o s e bl i nd spots ht' l ay l xrrt' . ' l ' l rt' pri t' r' l rr
pay s i s th e ma rty rd o m g ro u p s havt, i tl w i tvs rl ci rl l l l r< ' i r'l rr' l r' :rvcl s.
Bi l l B u s h , f< l re x a n rp l c , i s i trt A l i rl ri rrrrrr:r(' r()\l ):r(' (' (' rrgi rrr' ,' r' w l rrt
c h < ts eto fi l c t l i rw s rri t l rg l i rrs t l ri s crutrl ,,r' ,' r,l l rc N ;rl rorurlA l rorri rrl

:rrbitrary and secret policy to put older engineers-like himsel{in unfamiliar jobs in order to demoralize them so they would retirc
t'arly. A federal ruling finally vindicated his charges, but only after
llush was demoted and threatened with dismissal.
Since then, Bush has become the hub for a support network ol
others who are conternplating similar action. Would-be rvhistlelrlowers phone and write him from all over. "I'm very careful what
I tell people," Bush told a reporter. "They should be prepared to
suffer, and know that it could be disastrous to their family anrl
liiends. I tell them plain and simple that it's very dangerous to tell
tl re tr ut h. "
It is easier to go along with the silent agreements that keelt
rrrrpleasanthcts quiet and make it hard to rock the boat. But soci.ties can be sunk by the weight of buried ugliness. The beauty of
u'histle-blowers and watchdogs is that they act as a counterbalance
lo the inertial pull of collective denial.
Even so, a note of caution. N{y assumption is that, to sonrt'
trtent, the muting of awareness to avoid anxiety has been largel-"l ,r' l pf ul, even necessar y,in t he developm ent of our species and ol
,'ivilization. But like any natural pattern, this one operates withirr
tlrc dynamic balance of a larger whole. "There is always an optinral
, rrl ue , " as G r egor y Bat eson t old m e, "beyond which anyt hing is
l ori c, no m at t er what : oxygen, sleep, psychot her apy, philosoplr v.
l i i ol o gical var iables always need equilibr ium . "
There may be some optimal equilibrium between deninl arrrl
trrrth .
Should all truths be told? Probably not. For example, Thco,lort' Lidz tells of a patient of his, a fifteen-year-old girl who irlt'alh er m ot her as a m odel of glam our and ef f iciency. aThe r r r ot lr cr '
' 2,' tl
l ,;rrl a f lour ishing insur ance business, which m or e t han conllx. n.' .rtt' <lf ilr t he f at her 's m eager ear nings as an ar t ist . The m <lt ht . rwr t s
,rl rl t' t<tbr r y t he dat r ght er t he f inest clot hes and wint er vuct t ions ir r
' ,unn \ / plir ces.
l lr r t t her n t he gir l not iced t hat "t he m <lt her 'sbt r . ir r t r sswir s r r ot
rri utt it sct 't r t ct l t o l>e. " Her t not her 's sole insur anco c'lit 'r r t \ \ , ls ir
rt r' ;tl t lr v ir r t lr r st r iit list .( ) r r vit cit t i<lr r ssor r t h, it jr r st so happt 'r r t 'r l t lr : t l
l l r. i rr <lr r st r ilr listu, r r s st ir vir r g in t hr : sanlc lr <lt cl. F'ir r ir lll', t lr c gir . l
t lur t t lr t "'lr r r sir r t 'ss t r ills" t hir t kt 'pt ht 'r r r r <lt ll( ,lwlr
r \ lj'or r r
' ,' ;rl i zct l
Irotttr'( ) n( 'ot 't r vo r r iglr t scir t 'lt wt 'r 'k w( 'r '( 't r yst s r vit lr t lr c ir r t lr r slr i; r l
r" t. \Vlr ilc r niln\ '<lllt cr 'llcolllt 'ir r t lr cir sr r ur ll<'or nnnr r r it vu, r , r '(l\, \ '; r 1r .
,,1 l l tt'lt 'r 'lng( 'lt t clt l, t lr r 'lir t lt t 't 'r vlt s r r r ir nr r ginl{not lo lr olicr '. \ \ r lr cr r
l l rc g it l's inulg( 's ol'lr cr l) ilt 'r 't t t s\ \ '( 'r ( ' slr ; r llcr t 'r l,lr , , r r r . ; r r 'lior r vr r slr
ic lr r , llr llr c
Irr(rn t \ ( 'uot t s lr inu( '; \ \ 'lr , 'r rslr ( ' \ \ '; l\ lr r or r ; ilr llor lr svr 'lr r ; r lr
r ,l \(' ( ' ;r1r1r' l o l .trl z ' r

:tl l l trl torr.

VITAL LIES AND SIMPLE TRUTHS I 247

246 | vlrer- LrES,srMpLETRUTHS

the discovery of a disillusioning reality like this, says Lidz, the
result is a pyrrhic victory: "The young person in adolescence needs
tangible models to follow into adulthood. The adolescent does not
really want to demolish her parents; her self-esteem is linked to
theirs. By destroying that ideal, the teenager does herself damage."
Such family secrets and pretenses have a pivotal role in many
of Ibsen's plays. Ibsen said of these desperate fictions: "Deprive
the average man of his vital lie, and you ve robbed him of happiness as well." Yet clinging to vital lies can be equally tragic, as
with Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman.
The mood of many therapists in the early seventies was one
that fostered a belief that total confrontation was curative. Will
Schutz, at Esalen, directed couples in his workshops to tell each
other three secrets as an antidote to stale marriages. The new breecl
of family therapists was carried along on the credo of Virginia Satir,
"There is great healing power in being straight." They sought to
unveil farnily ghosts, skeletons in the closets, secrets, as the path
to a cure. They looked with scorn at more traditional therapies,
where patients revealed their dark sides only to the therapist, irr
,*
confidence.
The cultural climate encouraged raw self-revelation. Americans were reacting against secrets in high places-rigged quiz
shows, covert war in Southeast Asia, Watergate. Group therapists
held out the promise that a cure lay in self-disclosure.
The current view is more sober. The recognition that "truth"
can be yet another volley in people's psychological wars, a neurotic'
strategy rather than a catharsis, is more widely accepted among
therapists. In family therapy, for example, there is a growing mov(,
not to challenge the family's equilibrium head-on, but to use tlrt,
judo of paradox and small changes to ease people toward improvt'ment. The answers, it is clear, lie neither in smug self-delusion nor'
in blatant self-exposure.
While it may well be true, as Franz Boas said, that "all that
man can do for humanity is to further the truth, whether it be swet.l
or bitter," delivering that truth artfully is a delicate matter. Wht.rr
truth is likely to draw open the veils that keep out painfirl inlirrmation, the dangers can be great.
Our discussion began with the body's pain system, a nerrrological model for the trade-off between pain and attention-irir (,xchange we have traced at every other level of behuviorirl
organization. Consider the lessons to be learned fi'<lrnsrrrgr.rv lor'
pain.
W hen a p a ti e n t s u ffe rs { ro n r c } r rorri < ' ,i rrtr' :rt' l rrl rl lt,l rri rr, w l rr.rr
not hing e l s e w i l l h e rl l r, th t' l l l rv s i < ' i i rrrnur\' r(.(' ()rnnr(,rr(l
srrrgr.r' r,,

understanding of the pain system has increaserl tlrir"curological

rrratically in the last decade or two, much more remains to lrt'
Icarned about the vagaries of that system. The surgeon has tl-rat
rrrostdangerous of things, a little knowledge.
Thus, certain surgical attempts to stop intractable pain have
rrot had such h"ppy results. Surgery that entails a lesion in any part
,,1'the pain system, from the spinal cord and brainstem to the thal.rnllls and cortex, can lead to a sorry condition known as "central
g,irin," an ache different from any its victims have felt before. This
ki nd of pai n has uniquely unpleasant qualit ies: "spont aneous achrrrS and shoo t ing pain, num bness, cold, heaviness, bur ning, and
,rllrer unsettling sensations that even the most articulate patients
l i rrd di ffi cul t t o descr ibe. "5
When central pain occurs, it usua.lly develops some time after
tl rt' surgery h as r elieved t he or iginal pain. The ir ony, of cour se, is
llritt it results from surgery intended to alleoiate pain. The trouble
rr that neural mechanisms which register and react to pain are
rrrtri cate,com plex, and subt ly balanced. The lesson her e is caut ion.n \': tampering, even when well intentioned, can make things
\\ ( ) l 'Se.

That lesson applies to the delicacies of painful realities in gen,'rrrl. For example, in diplomacy such realities are often handled by
.rn rrrtful ambiguity. Thus the "normalization" of American and
( l l ri nese ti es begun by Richar d Nixon r est ed on t he haziness of
\rrrt' ri canl i n ks wit h Nat ionalist China. As an edit or ial lat er not ed, 6
lloth sides have understood that the pressure of real issues and
.r crrts would ultimately force them to shed successive veils of
.rrrrl ri gtri ty.Their hope was t hat by t he t im e each t est cam e, visible
.r,l r:urtageso f cont inued r elat ions would of f set t he pain of unpleas.,r' l tnrths."
't'he balance between shedding veils and shielding painful
t,' rtl ri i s a s ubt le one. Thus, when Janis pr oposes t hat a devil's
.r,lvot'irtecan ofl'set groupthink, he hastens to caution against the
t lrr cirt to grotrp cohesiveness that such advocacy can represent. The
,l nsr' rrtcr cun dest r oy t he consensus t hat allows t he gr oup t o f uncIr ol l .

l l gcts tr ickier st ill. Since Janis wr ot e his book in 1971, t he

r,l ,' r ol ' tl csi gr r r r t inga r levil's advocat e has spr ead, t o t he point t hat
rt rs sonrr.ti rr r t 's
t holl<lw r it r r ir l: 7
l " or t' xi ur r lllr ', l'n'sit k'r r t . f ohnsor rar r r l <lt her ler r ding nr er nl ,r' r' sol ' lr is 'l'r r csr liw'l, r r r r clr ( ) r or r p t 'lir ir r r c<lt hat t hcy ht r l
rl t' r' rl ' s i r <lr . 'ocir lcs
t ir t t t 't lr cv <k't 'ir lr '<lt o
ir r t lr cit 'r r r it lst <'ir <'lr
nrl l rrsi l r'llr c u'; r r lr gr r ir r slNor 'llr \ / ir 'lnlr r r r .llr r t llr osr '<lcvils
' ( '( ': ur r ,r' lr ) nr ( 's
\\' r' r, no l vlr v r lcvilislr . , . l'l'lr , 'r I r gr r icklr lr

t
248 | vl:rel LrES,srMpLETRUTHS
piece only as long as they remained within the bounds of
what he and other leading members of the group considered acceptable dissent.
"Acceptable dissent," of course, is not really dissent at all. It
is guided by shared schemas, and challenges no shared illusions.
There is still another complication, this one observed by Gregory Bateson. During a conversation with me, Bateson recountetl
something that Robert Oppenheimer had told him in Lg47:
The world is moving in the direction of hell, at a high
velocity and with perhaps a positive acceleration
a
positive rate of change of acceleration; and the only"nd
condition under which it might not reach its destination is that
we and the Russians be willing to let it go there.
"Every move we make in fear of the next war," Bateson elallorated, "in fact hastens it. We arm up to control the Russians, thery
do the same. Anxiety, in fact, brings about the thing it fears, creatqs
its own disaster."
Then should we simply stapd back and do nothing? "well, lrt.
bloody careful about the politics you play to control it. you don'l
know the total pattern; for all you know, you could create the next
horror by trying to fix up a present one."
What, then, are we to do?
we must act, despite Bateson's caution. To let ourselves llr,
guided by
sensibility riven with blind spots, one twisted by thr.
" to avoid truths,
anxious need
is to increase the rate of our accelt.ration toward disaster. Truths must be told if we are to find our wly
out. Indeed, the clear and strong voices of the lucid among us nriry
be our last and best hope. We cannot let caution paralyze action,
stay us from trying to see and say things just as they are. We nt,r.rl
counsel that flows from insight; insight is curative.
There is, to be sure, a fundamental difference between tlrosr.
blind spots that spring from benign self-protection and thosc tlrirl
spring from ugly collusions. When the truth threatens to brirrg
down a conspiracy of silence that protects moral ugliness, rlrr.
choice is straightforward: speak the truth or join the conspirar:1,.
B u t s o m e b l i n d s p o ts , a s w e have seen, hel p us survi ve i rr tl rr.
face of painful truths; they are an essential part of'the hrrrrran(.()rl
dit ion. Wh e n th e b l i n d s p o ts i n q uesti ons muy be beni gn i rr t.l l i .t.t
- ev en p o s i ti v e -th e c o u rs e o f acti on i s n< l t so r' l r.rrrl y rrri rrkr.tl ,
T hen a g a i n , th e h u m a n p re d i c a ment i s typi cl l l v' so corrrpl cx l l r:rt i l
is not a l to g e th e r c l e a r w h i c h l i e s l rrr.vi trrl rrrr<w
l l url l rrrtl rs l rr,g l or.
dis c ov e ry . In D e u th o f u Su l t' $ n l ( ,n,i l s W i l l i ,. l ,orrurrrrl ri l i s 1,,s,:rr,l

VITAL LIES AND SIMPLE TRUTHS I 249

,'rrtastrophe,deluded by lies he cannot sort out, the anguished cry

rs: " A ttention m ust be paid! "
But how? and to what? Given the delicate balances at risk,
lrow are we to proceed?
Consider Allen Wheelis's 1966 parable, The lllusionless Man.8
l ' l re story b egins:
Once upon a time there was a man who had no illusions
about anything. While still in the crib he had learned that
his mother was not always kind; at two he had given up
fairies; witches and hobgoblins disappeared from his
world at three; at four he knew that rabbits lay no eggs;
and at five, on a cold night in December, with a bitter little
smile, he said good-by to Santa Claus. At six when he
started school illusions flew from his life like feathers in a
windstorm: he discovered that his father was not always
brave or even honest, that presidents are little men, that
the Queen of England goes to the bathroom like everybody else, and that his first grade teacher, a pretty roundfaced young woman with dimples, did not know everything, as he had thought, but thought only of men and did
not know much of anything. . . . As a young man he realized that the most generous act is self-serving, the most
disinterested inquiry serves interest, that lies are told by
printed words, Of all those people who lose illusions he
lost more than anyone else, taboo and prescription alike;
tund as everything became permitted nothing was left
worthwhile.
\\'lrcelis's hero marries a woman who is full of illusion. As they are
t, r l rt: w ed, he t ells her :
Ood won't be there, honey; the women will be weeping
firr their own lost youth and innocence, the men wanting
. to have you in bed; and the priest standing slightly above
rrs will be looking down your cleavage as his mouth goes
rl ry. . .
l l y the t ale's end, Henr y- t he illusionless m an- and his wif e,
l ,,rr' :rl rcl l e,ar e elder ly. By t hen Henr y has seen t hat illusion lends
I,ol l r t' orrrfilr tand m eaning t o lif e.
. . . hc cot r lcl see him self st r iving t owar d a condit ion <lf
l rt.rrrr t yor t nr t h r lr go<ldnessor love t hat did not exist , llt r t
w l rcrr. ir s t . ir r lit , r ir r his lif il hc hacl alwuys said, "lt 's: r r r
i l l rrsi or r , " lt r r r l t r r r r r r '<lawit y, r r ow lr t ' sai<l"Thcr c isr r 't lnytl ri rrg r 'lsr ', " lr r r t l st r r yt '<lwit lr it . . . . Ar r r l wlr t 'r r it <'r r r r rtrir. r x,
to tl i c l, or llr r 'llt 'slr i<l. "Nr ) \ v w( 'll r r cvr . r 'lr r .lxr r 'lr . r l, "lr r r <l
Il crrry sr r r ilcr l r r r r <lkisscr l lr cr r r r r r lsr r ir ll, r lr ir r r sr . ll',"'l'lr , 'r r .
i sn' l :r r r r 'llr r r r H
cls( . , ; ur ( l t lr r v r lict l.

.rRu-r-lrs
250 | vrlnr- LIES,srNlpLE
Then again, there is the point made by this (no doubt ap.crvphal) story told about the Dalai Lama:
In Lhasa, it was the custom for monks to gather to discrrss
theological issues on the steps of the main monastery. One by orrr,
they would take a turn at answering a religious riddle. The qu(,ri=
tions, though, were set long ago, and the answers were always tlrr.
same, memorized from ancient times.
To his distress, the Dalai Lama was expected to stand befor.r,
the assembled monks once each year and go through the ritual ol'
the question. His tutors would select a monk to ask him a questiorr
they had chosen, for which the answer was well rehearsed. Thotrglr
the question and its answer were a charade, the assembled monks
would gasp with amazement at his answer.
In his thirteenth year, as the question ritual was approachirrg,
the Dalai Lama finally decided he had had enough. He drearlt.rl
the masquerade of spontaneity and the gasp of amazement tlrrrl
would predictably follow his rehearsed response-a rote reply tlrtt
no one really understood.
That year's question: "How do the rivers answer a bird whr.rr
it rains ?"
The answer: "By turning to snow."
The Dalai Lama ardently wished for an original answer, ()n(.
that would silence forever that false gasp, piercing the veil of ritrrrrl
courtesy.
The more he searched for a profound response, the mor(,
sunken his eyes and wrinkled his brow became. Night after niglrt
he sat a restless vigil, day after day he struggled for just the riglrl
answer. He seemed to age from a young boy to an old man in a li,w
weeks. Finally, he fell into a deep melancholy.
on the appointed day, he called for his regent, who was ast.rr
ished at the decrepit aspect of the young lama. The Dalai f,trrrir
now looked like a gnarled, dessicated shell.
"There will be no more ritual questions," the Dalai l,rrirrl
rasped. "I want a fresh question simply put. Something thut worr'l
amaze me, but will make us aware of things as they acttrally ar(. orl
this earth. And I absolutely forbid anyone to gasp at my unsw(.r'.
When the shriveled Dalai Lama appeared befirre lris ir.ssr.rrr
bled mo n k s , th e y a l l g a s p e d s i l e ntl y at w hat they srrw ,l rrrt rrri rrurgr.rl
t o s t a y o u tw a rd l y c o mp o s e d . B u t not a si ngl e nrorrk corrl tl tl ri r-rkol
a new q u e s ti o n . N o o n e h a d a n y thi ng srri tal rl cto rrsk.
T h e y s a t to g e th e r, s i l e n t, throrrgh tl rc tl av rrrrrl l ong i rrl o tl rr.
crystal black night.
At l a s t o n e o f tl -rt: y o u n g (' r' rrrorrks;rsk,' rl , i rr rr l i rrrrrl voi cr.,
" A r e n ' t y o rr c < l l rl ,Y< l rrrIl o l i rr< ' s s?"

VITAL LIES AND SIMPLE TRUTHS I 25I

"Yes, I am," was the reply. "Aren't we all?"

"Yes, Your Holiness, we are," the monks replied.
"Then," said the Dalai Lama, "let us go inside."
As the monks reassembled in the assembly hall, with butter
larmps burning warmly, the Dalai Lama ascended his throne looking healthy and young once again.
And as he said, "That's just the kind of question and answer
we should have," he was once again the boy they knew, smiling
the broa dest of sm iles.
a life of vital lies
Somewhere between the two poles-living
rtnd speaking simple truths-there lies a skillful mean, a path to
sanity and survival.

NOTES

IxrnonucrroN
l.
\{ichael Weissberg, Dangerous Secrets (New York: W.W. Norton, 1983).

2.
rbid..27.
,).
.fesseJackson,"Playboy Interview," Plagboy,May 1981,70.
,1.
Samuel G. Freedman, "From South Africa, A Tale Told in Black arrtl
W h it e, " TheNewYor kTim es, Febr uar y19, 1984,H7.
5.
'fhese examples are from Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperceptiort
in lnternational Politics (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University'
l ' ress,1976) .
{i .
l,ois Cunniff, "Soviet Photojournalism,"Colu,mbiaJournalism Rcrlir'rr'.
\laylJune 1983,45.
7.
f ohrr Updike, "ReHections:Kafka'sShort Stories,"The Neu Yorftr,r,l\{rrv
1),1983,12l.
,,i.
'l 'l r tt co n ve r sa ti o n w a s r e p o r te d , i n p a r t, i n "Br e a ki n g Ou t o {'th r ' l ) o r r l r l t
llirrcl," Psychologg Today, August 1978.

PnH'r Oxu
I
| )rr v i < l Li v i rrgs torrt' , A f i ,s s io,turU ' l ' ntoc l :;, l fJ 57, i rs < l rott' rl i rr l )r' rrrri s | )
K r'l l v , "S orttrtti c S t' rrs orl ' S v s tt' trt l \' : ( )t' rrtri rl l l t' prc s t' rrl l rti orrs ol l ' ;ri u rrrrrl
'\rri rl gc s i rr." i l r l ' ,r' i t' K rrrrrl < ' l i rrrrl .fl trrrc s S r' l tr,r' rrr' l zr'
, rl s .. l ' r' i rrc i 1i l t' .r,tl N t' tttrtl

S r'i r' ,l l r' (N c r.r' \' otk ;

l ' l l s c v i t' r N ortl r IIol l rrrrrl , |1),ul ), 2| l .

.l l)r' rrrri s l ). K r' l l r' , i rr K rrrr,l ,' l ,rrr.l S ,' l rrv rrrl z ..op. r' i t ' l ' l r,' ,1,' r,' rrpl rorr,tl tl r,,
tr l ;ttt1,' l r' l r;rr,' rl ,rrr l r\ i r( ( orttrl .
1r;t ttrs v s l c trt i tr tl rrs ,' l rtl l l l t

254 | Norrs

3.
Hans Selye, The Stressof Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956).
4.
SamuelC. Risch et al., "Co-releaseof ACTH and Beta-EndorphinImmunoreactivity in Human Subjectsin Responseto Central Cholinergic Stimulation," Science222 (October 7, 1983),77.
5.
Brendan Maher, "The Languageof Schizophrenia:A Review and Interpretation," British Journal of Psgchiatrg l2O (f 970),3-f 7.
6.
Buchsbaum'sdata and argumentsare in a seriesof papers:Glenn C. Davis,
Monte Buchsbaumet al., "Analgesiato Pain Stimuli in Schizophrenicsand
Its Reversalby Naltrexone,"PsgchiatryResearch,l (1979),6l-69; Glenn
C. Davis, Monte Buchsbaumand William E. Bunney,Ir., "Alterationsof
Evoked PotentialsLink Researchin Attention Dysfunction to Peptide Response Symptoms of Schizophrenia," ir Neural Peptides and Neuronal
Communications, E. Costa and M. Trabucci, eds., (New York: Raven
Press,1980).Monte S. Buchsbaumet al., "Evoked PotentialMeasuresof
Attention and Psychopathology," Adrsancesin Biological Psgchiatry 6
(1981),186-194. Monte S. Buchsbaumet al., "Role of Opioid Peptidesin
Disorders of Attention in Psychopathology,"Proceedingsof the NeusYork
Academgof Science,1982,352-365.Glenn C. Davis,Monte S. Buchsbaum
et al., "Altered Pain PerceptiorgandCerebrospinal Endorphins in Psychiatric Illness," Proceedingsof the Neu; York Academg of Science, 1983,
366-373.
7.
Floyd Bloom, Salk Institute, in personalcommunicationwith author.
8.
Y. Shavit et al., "Endogenous Opioids May Mediate the Effects of Stress
on Tumor Growth and Immune Function," Proceedingsof the Western
Pharmacologg Societu 26 ( 1983),53-56.
9.
The intricate relationship between attention and stress centers is described in David M. Warburton, "Physiological Aspects of Information
Processingand Stress," in Vernon Hamilton and David M, Warburtort,
Human Stressand Cognition: An lnformation ProcessingApproach (New
York: John Wiley and Sons,1979).
10.
Karl H. Pribram and Dianne McGuinnes,"Brain SystemsInvolved in Attention-RelatedProcessing:A SummaryReview," presentedat The Syrrrposium on the Neurophysiologyof Attention, Houston,July 1982.
11.
Warburton, op. cit.
t 2.
G. Weltman,J. E. Smith, and G. H. Egstrom,"PercepttralNarnrwirtgl)rrr'E xposure,"H tnrtun b-ucktrsl l ] (11)71),
ing Si m u l a te dP re s s u re -C h a mb er
79- 1 0 7 .

NorES| 2Ss
13.
Mardi Horowitz, "Psychological Response to serious Life Events," irr
Shlomo Breznitz, ed., The Denial of Stress (New York: International Urriversities Press, 1983).

t4.
The list of intrusionsis paraphrasedfrom Horowitz. ibid.. 136.
15.
David Alpren, The New York Times,section 10, I, september 27, rggr.
16.
Richard Lazarus,"The Stressand Coping paradigm," paper given at conf'erenceon The Critical Evaluation of BehavioralFa.udig-, {'o-,pry"hiatric
Science,Gleneden Beach,Oregon,November lg7g.
17.
C' H. Folkins, "Temporal Factorsand the Cognitive Mediatorsof Stress
lleaction," Journal of Personalitg and social psgcholog,J14 (rg70), 173t84.
18.
Aaron Beck, Cognitiue Therapgand the Emotional Disord.ers(New york:
InternationalUniversitiesPress,1976),14.
19.
llichael wood, "In the Museum of Strangeness,"The New york Rer:ieu;
o.fB ooks ,M ar ch 19, 1981,44.
20.
llobert Jay Lifton , Death in Life (New york: BasicBooks,tg67), 10.
2t.
llorowitz, op. cit., paraphrasedfrom 134.
)2.
"l)ositive Denial: The
Case for Not Facing Reality," psgchologgToduu,
N ovemb er1979. 57.

Penr Two
I
S\gnrund Freud, The lnterpretation
l i r s t p u b l i sh e d 1 9 0 0 ) .

of Dreams (New York: Basic llrsks,

ll,irl.,540.
.i

I 'l r t ' l r e s t r e vi e w o {'th i s sa g a a n d th e i ssu e s cl e a l t w i th i r r n r o r l t,l i r r L rl l r .

r r r i t t <li s i r r N l a tth e w l l tr g h Er d e l yi , "A N e w L o o k 1 t t[t'N t'r r 'l ,e e k:
l ,t,r
, r 'l r t r r i r lI ) t'ft:r r se :r r r r lVi g i L r n ce ," Psych o l o g i t'ti l l l t,t,i t,r p$ l ( l g 7 ,I) . l - 1 ,- r .
\ l s r r r ( '( 'o ttl tl t( 'tr <l ctl :( l o l i n M a r ti r r r l tl r ', C o g r ti ti o tt tttttl ( ) tttt.st.i r ttt.r ,r ( .r r
t l l o r r r t . w oo r l , l l l i r r o i s: l ) o r .st'v l ) r t'ss. l g fJl ) .
rrl fl r.

: t 5t .

l ,lfl i .r' l ol S r,l orr l ' r.r' < ' r,pl i orr," I,.s ,t1t.l trtl t,t,i (.(rI

256 | uorrs
5.
Donald E. Broadbent,Perceptionand Communication (London: Pergom on P re s s ,1 9 5 8 ).
6.
E r dely i , o p . c i t., 1 9 .
n
Donald A. Norman, "Toward a Theory of Memory and Attention," Psgchological Reoieu 75 (1968),522-536.
8.
George Miller, "The Magical Number Seven,Plus or Minus Two; Somg
Limits on Our Capacity for ProcessingInformation," Psgchological Re'
rsieu 63 (1956),81-97. Also, Herbert A. Simon, "How Big Is a Chunk?"
Science f 83 ( 1974), 482-488
9.
Ulric Neisser,"The Limits of Cognition," in Peter Jusczykand Raymontl
Klein, eds., The Nature of Thought (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrenct'
Erlbaum Associates.1980).
10.
Donald A. Norman and Tim Shallice, "Attention to Action: Willed arrrl
Automatic Control of Behavior," Center for Human Information Process'
ing, December 1980.It was Michael Posnerwho proposedthat Neisser's
expandablecapacity is not on thg limits of consciousawareness,but ott
unconsciouschannels,at a panel tn "Psychoanalysisand Cognitive Psychology," during the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,August 1983.
lI .
Donald Norman, "Slips of the Mind and a Theory of Action," Center lirr'
Human Information Processing,University of California at San Diego,
unpublishedmanuscript,February22, L979,8.
12.
Emmanuel Donchin, personal communicationwith author. Donchirr is
head of the Laboratory for Cognitive Psychobiologyat the University ol
IIlinois, Champaign-Urbana.
13.
Roy Lachman, Janet Lachman and Earl Butterfield, Cognitioe Psgchologll
and lnformation Processing(Hillsdale, New Jersey:Lawrence Erllxtrrrrt
Associates,1979).
t4.
A thorough accountof schemasis given in David Rumelhart, Schuttttltt
The Building Blocksof Cognition,Center for Human InformationPrrtt'r'sr
ing, University of Californiaat San Diego, December1978.
15.
Jean Piaget,The Construction of Realitg in the Child (New York: llirstl
Books,1971).A more inviting introductionto Piaget'sw<lrkis l)orollrv ( j
Singerand Tracey A. Revenson,A Piag,etPrimer (Nt:w York: Nt'w AtrrctI
can Library, 1979).

NorES | 257
16.
Unlessotherwise indicated,Ulric Neisser'scommentsin this chapterare
lrom a conversationwe had at Cornell in November 1982.
17.
Rumelhart,op. cit., 13.

r8 .

t.

EmanuelDonchin,"Surprise!
. . . Surprise!"
Psgchophgsiologg
t8 (1981),
193-513.
t9.
Susan Fiske, "Schema-Triggered Affect: Applications to Social Perception," in M. S. Clark and F. T. Fiske, eds.,Affect and Cognition (Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982),55-77.

20.

llumelhart, op. cit., 14.

21.
(lharles Simmons, "The Age of Maturity," The l,lew York Times Magazine,
l ) e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 8 3 , Il 4 .
22.
Peter Lang, "Cognition in Emotion; Concept and Action," in Carroll Izard,
.ferome Kagan and RobertZajonc, eds., Emotion, Cognition, and Beharsi,or
(Boston: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
l:1.
(ieorge Mandler, "Consciousness: Its Function and Construction," Center
lirr Human Information Processing, University of California at San Diego,
f rrne 1983. Some of Mandler's ideas presented here are from his Presidential Address to the Division of General Psychology, American Psychologit'rrl Association, August 1983, and other presentations there.
14.
Nrrrman Dixon, Preconscious Processing (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
I f)ftI ).
15.
liichard Nisbett and T. Wilson, "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal
llcports on Mental Processes," Psgchological Reaiera 84 (1977),231-259.
'l'lre debate within psychology over the existence
of the unconscions is
,,'r.'iewed in Howard Shevrin and Scott Dickrnan, "The Psychological Un, onscions: A Necessary Assumption for All Psychological Theory?" in
\rrterican Psgchologisf 35 (1980), 421-434.
l {i .
\\'illiarn Kunst-Wilson and R. B. Zajonc, "Affective Discrirnination of Stirnr r l i 'l 'l r r r t( l a r r n o t b e R e co g n i ze d ," Sci e n ce 2 0 7 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,5 5 7 - 5 5 8 .
.,,1.
I l o u 'i t r t l S l rcvr i r r , "So r tte Assr r r n p ti o n so f Psvch o a n a l yti c ( l o m r n r r n i c:r r ti o r r :
l r r r p l i t 'i r l i o rr so l 'Sr r l r l i r r i r r i tl Il cst'l r ch l o r I'syc'h o a r r a l y'ti N
c {r :th o <la r r tl 'l 't.t'l r -

i
I
i
t

r r i r l t r r ', " i r r N o r 'l r t'r 'l l "r 't't'r l r n i r r lrr r r r l Sti r r r l t'r '( i r i tr r r l , r '<1 s.,( l o l l tttttttti cr tl i t',t'
r .r r ' \'o r k: l 'l t.n r r u r , l \) 7 7 ) .
5 / r r r r 'lt t t 't 'rtttttt
;
I':;t1 t'l ti t'.S/r 'r r r 'l l r l ('rN,,s
.1,5
I l , r r r : r r r l S l r cvr r r r . "'l 'l r r , Il r r r '( ,n \( l o u \ l s ,,\l i vr . :r r r r l \\',.1 1 ." r r r r ;l r r l r l r sl r ,.r l
r n ; u r r \ ( r r 1 lt.I) r ',','r r r l r r r 1 1 1 7 1 )

258 | Norss

NorES | 259

29.
ErnestHilgard,Dit:idedconsciousness
(New York:Johnwiley and Sons,

re77).

30.
Ibid., 186.Thereis a controversy
aboutthe validityof the hiddenobserver.
See, for example, Jean-Roch Laurence, Campbell Perry, and John Kihlstrom, " 'Hidden observer' Phenomena in Hypnosis: An Experimental
Creation?" J ournal of Personalitg andsocialPsychologg 44(1983), 163-169.

31.
Ellen Hale, "Inside the Divided Mind," The New York Times Magazine,
April 17, 1983, 100.
32.
Willard Mainord, Barry Rath, and Frank Barnett, "Anesthesiaand Suggestion," presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation,August 1983.
33.
Henry Bennett, Hamilton Davis, and Jeffrey Giannini, "Posthypnotic SuggestionsDuring General Anesthesiaand SubsequentDissociatedBehavior," paper presented to the Society for Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis,October 1981.

Penr Tunnn

.i

l.
Ulric Neisser, "John Dean's Memory: A Case study," cognition g (tg8l),

L-22.
2.
Hearings Before the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Actiuities of the United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, First Sessiorr,
1 97 3,9 57 .

3.
Neis s er o
, p . c i t.,9 .
4.
I bid. , 10.
5.
I bid. , lg.
6.
The New York Times, February 16, 1983,23.
,7

Anthony Greenwald, "The Totalitarian Ego," American Psgchololqi.sl ,l,rr

(19 80 ),60 3- 618.
8.
Seymour Epstein, "The Self-Concept: A Review and the Proposal ol'rur
Integrated Theory of Personality," in Ervin Staub, Personulif r7rfla.sir',4s
pects and Current Research (Englewood Cliffis, Nc'w .Jt,rscv: l)r'r.nticr.
Hall, 19 80) , 84.

9.
Aaron Beck, Depression:Clinical, Experimental and Theoretical Aspects
(New York: Hoeber, 1967),135.
10.
Aaron Beck et. al., Cognitiae Therapg of Depression(New York: Guilford,
1979),13-15.
11.
Epstein,op. cit., 104.
t2.
Mardi Horowitz, "PsychologicalResponseto Serious Life Events," in
Shlomo Breznitz, ed., The Denial of Stress(New York: International UniversitiesPress,1983),139.
13.
The dynamics of the self-systemare most cogently presented in Harry
StackSullivan, The lnterpersonal Theorg of Psgchiatry (New York: W. W.
Norton, 1953).
14.
Mark Jacobson,"How SummerCamp SavedMy Life," Rolling Stone,J:uly
21, 1983,48.
15.
Sullivan,op. cit., 190.
16.
I visited with Ulric Neisserat Cornell in November 1982.
17.
Lester Luborsky, Barton Blinder, and Jean Schimek,"Looking, Recalling,
and GSR as a Function of Defense,"Journal of Abnormal Psgchologg70
(1965),270-280.
18.
'Ihe account of the Russianresearchis in Howard Shevrin, E. Kostandov,
and Y. Arzumanov, "Averaged Cortical Evoked Potentialsto Recognized
irnd NonrecognizedVerbal Stimuli," Acta NeurobiologiaeExperimentalis
:17(1977),32L-324.Howard Shevrintold me of the experimentaldetails.
19.
Sl'revrinreported his researchat the annual meeting of the American Psyt'hologicalAssociation,August 1983.
lo.
\/ernon Hamilton, "Information-Processing
Aspectsof Denial: SomeTentrrtiveFormulations,"in Shlomo Breznitz ed., The Denial of Stress(New
York: InternationalUniversitiesPress,1983).
Jl .
Sigrrrrrncl
Freud, "Repression,"in J. Strachey,d., The Standard Editiort
,,t'tlrc ConqtletePsqchologicalWorksof SigntundFreud vol. l5 (Lonclorr:
l l ogarth P rr : ss,1957;or iginallypt r blished1915) .
i 2.
\l rrttl rcw hlr '<k'lvi
Otolt lllt 'r g,"l, t 't 's Not Swt 't 'p llt '1lr t 'ssior r
ir r r <ll}t , r r jar r r ir
l l rrrl cr

tl rr' l l rrg: ' l ' ow ru' < l rr Oogrri l i v r'

l )s v t' l rol ogv ol ' l l t' pt' r' s s i orr," i rr .fol rrr
i c k l ' l v ' rrrrs , l i rurtr' / i ttttttl l )i s rrt' r/r' r' .sttl ' N l t' rttttt rl (IIi l l s
l ,rnv rl rrc r' l ' ,rl l ,;rrrrrr A rs o.trrl rs . l 1)71)).l ' ,rrl ,' l t r l r,rs ,l ,rttr'

K i l rf str',rrrr i rrrrl l "rtrl l r

,l .rl r'. N l rr'

l r' r\(' \' :

r
)'r'r,.s
| 2(il

260 | Norns
seminal work in understanding Freud as a cognitive psychologist. I owe
much to his thinking on the role of repression, both from the article cited
here and from personal conversation.

4.
Ibi d.,85.

23.
Freud,op.cit.
24.
R. D. Laing,ThePoliticsof the Familg(Toronto:CBC Publications,
lg6g),
27-28.
25.
Leslie Epstein,"Round up the usual suspects,"The Neu york Times
BookReoiew,October10,1982,9,27-29.
26.
Ibid,,2g.
27.
rbid.
28.
rbid.
29.
ErdelyiandGoldberg,op.cit.
30.
SigmundFreud,TheInterpretationof Dreams,J. Strachey(translator
and
ed.),StandardEdition,vols.4 and5) (London:HogarthPress,1953;originallypublishedlg00),600. 16
31.

David Shapiro, Neurotic Stgles (New York: Basic Books, 1965). Atltlitiorrirl
clinical detail comes from Theodore Millon, Disorders of Persornlity
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982). This state-of-the-art sumnrary ol'
personality styles is a companion volume to the recently revised Diagnos'
tic and Statistical Manual, the official psychiatric handbook for diagnosis.
6.
Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of the 'Gloria Scott,' " The Originul
lllustrated Sherlock Holmes (Secaucus, New Jersey: Castle Books, 1980),
236-247. The case is of special interest to Holmes buffs, since it reveals
some of his history before becoming the world's first private detective.

Matthew Erdelyi and Benjamin Goldberg, op. cit. See also Morton Reiser,
Mind, Brain, BodU (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

32.
R. D. Laing, Politics of the Family (Toronto:cBC Publications,lg6g),28.
33.
Harry Stack Sullivan, The lnterpersonal Theory of Psgchiatry (New york:
W . W . N o rto n ,1 9 6 3 ),3 2 1 .
34.
Erdelyi, op. cit.
.tD.

S ulliv a n ,o p . c i t., 3 1 9 .

Penr Foun
l.
Wilhelm Reich, Character Analgsis (New York: Farrar, Straus & Girorrx,
1972).
2.
Reich, as quoted in Daniel Goleman and Kathleen Speeth,ecls.,'l'ltc Iis.
(New York: New AmericanLilrmry, lgti2), 7l.
sential Psgchotherapies
3.
Ernest Becker,Angel inArmor (New Y<>rk:
F'rt.t'l)rtss. ll)7,-r),
tJ:)

D,

7.
The perceptual and logical powers of Sherlock Holmes are spelled out in
greater detail by Marcello Truzzi and Scot Morris in "sherlock Holmes as
ir Social Scientist," Psgchologg Todag, December 1971, 62-86.

u.

My description of The Detective owes much to David Shapiro's sketch of

the paranoid type and Theodore Millon's depiction of the paranoid personality's srrspicious pattern.
L
S h a p i r o , o p . ci t., 6 1 .

t0.
llricl.,57.
ll.
'l 'h e o d o r e M i l l o n , o p . ci t.,3 8 l .
t2.
.fcrry Adler, "The Ludlum Enigma," Neu;sweek, April 19, 1982.
13.
Sharpiro,op. cit., 96.
I-1.
'l'lrersl-root-outmicroevent, reported in Susan
Quinn, "The Competent't' ol'
llirlries," Atlantic Monthly, January 1982, 54-60, is from the resertrclr ol'
l)r. Duniel Stern, a psychiatrist at Cornell University Medical Center irr
\ t 'w Y or k C i ty.
15.
S r , l r r r aF r a i l r e r g r e p o r te d th i s ca se a t a sym p o si u m h e l d ttt th e U r r i vt'r 'si tv
, r l ( l i r l i l ir r r r i :r N l e <l i ca lC e n te r , Ju n e 5 - 7 , 1 9 8 1 , i n Sa n Fr a tr ci sco .
l(i.
f . r r r r \ ''s l r r r ttl t'w i tl r l r e r r n <l th e ri s i n D a n i e l Ste r n , Tl w F.i r st R cl u ti tttr .sh i l t:
: a r v:r r <lU r r i ve r si ty Pr e ss. 1 9 7 7 ) ,1 l O- | l :I
I t t l l r t t t t tttd i l Io tl u ,r ( O:u r r l r r i <l g eH
t7
\ l . r r r . r l ,i r l .. l l l .
Iti.
f l r , , , , r l,r r r ,\l i l l ,r r r , l ) i .r o r r /r 'ts o l l 'r 't'sr tttttl i ttt( N tu ' \'o r k: f o l r r r Wi l ,'r ,r ttr l
S o r r s . l 1) !i l ) . l X)

F
262 i xorus
19.
'Morton schatzman, sour Murder (New york: New American
Library,
r974).

20.
Schreber, quoted in Schatzman.26.

2t.
This formulationof the angerat the root of paranoia
is morefulry elar>rratedin w. w. Meisner,Tie paranoid.r"o"u*
yo.k, JasonAronsor),
iN"*
le78).
22.
GiselaZena,"Mistreatmentof children and children's
Rights,,,quoted irr
Alice Miller, For Your ousn Good (New york:
Farrar, straus and Giroux.
1983),89.
23.
rbid.
24.
Adapted from Miller, op. cit., 106.

25.

Double-bind theory is spelred o rt in Gregory

Bateson,Don D. Jackson,
Jay Haley, and John weakrand, "Toward ih.;of
Schizophrenia,,,Behaoioral ScienceI (1956), 25l_2g6.
"
26.
Laing, self andothers (Londog: Tavistockpublications,
196g),r27iJ
27.
Ernest schachtel, Metamorphosis(New york:
BasicBooks,Igsg).
28.
Erving Goffman, The presentation of setf
in Euergd,agLife (New york:
Doubleday & Co., lgsg).
29.
Lilly Pincus and christopher Dare, secrets
in the Familg (New york:
Pantheon,lg78).

Pnnr Flvr
l.
sigmund Freud,
psgchoroggand the
Anarysisof the Ego (N.w
lroup
York: BantamBooks,
1965),tS_tO.
2.
Manfred Kets deVries and Danny Miller,
The Neurotic orgnrtizrtti.rt (st,t
Francisco:JosseyBass,lgg4).
3.
David Reiss,The Family's construction
of Reality (c).'rlrrirlgt,: llr..r,:rrrl
University Press,lg8l ).

NorES | 263
4.
Robert Merton's 1949 study typed individqals; Reiss extends the local/
cosmopolitantypology to families.
5.
Reiss,op. cit., 2.1.
6.
Reiss,op. cit., 66.
7.
David Reiss and Marry Ellen Oliveri, "Sensory Experienceand Family
Process:Perceptual Styles Tend to Run in but Not NecessarilyRun Families," Familg Process22 (1983),289-3f 6.
8.
Ibi d., p.226.
9.
Jill Metcoffand Carl A. Whitaker, "Family Microevents:Communication
Patternsfor Problem Solving," in Frorha Walsh, ed., Normal Familg Processes(New York: Guilford Press,1982),258-259.
10.
Eric Bermann,Scapegoat(Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press,1973).
ll.
The caseof Roscoeis reportedin Reiss,op. cit., 231, basedon Bermann's
account.
12.
Hume Cronyn told this story in an interview with Timothy White, "Theater'sFirst Couple," The New York Times Magazine,December 26,1982,
22.
13.
R. D. Laing, The Politics of the Familg (Toronto: CBC Publications,1969),
40.
14,
Ibi d.,41.
15.
rbid.
16.
Ibi d.,29
t7.
Michael Weissberg,DangerousSecrets(New York: W. W. Norton and Co.,
l e83).
18.
SarrdraButler, ConspiracA of Silence: The Trauma of lncest (San Fran<'isco:New Glide Publications,1978).
t9.
The caseof'Margaretis describedin Butler, op. cit. Though Butler intervit'wt'tl hrurrlretlso{'incestperpetratorsand victims, the caseof'Margaret
rt' rrtl sl i kt.n t 'onr posit c.
While it r naylr e sonr ewher t apocr yphal,
it nor r t 't ht 'Itss rrurkc sllr r ' point lr r . r t '.

2G4 | Norrs
20.
Weissberg,
op.cit.,26.
21.
Ibid.,r08-109.
22.
Irving Janis,victims of Groupthink(Boston:
HoughtonMifflin,
visededition,tg83).
23.
Ibid,,3.
24.
Ibid.,205.
25.
Arthur s. Golden, "Groupthink in
JapanInc.,,, The New york TimesMag_
azine,December5, 1982.137.
26.
J anis ,op. c i t., 1 3 .
27.
I bid. , 37_3 g .
28.
My conversation.withHarry Levinsorrwas printed,
in part, as ..oedipus i.
the Board Room''' in psych'ologgTod.ar7,
DJcemu", tgzz, 45-5r.
29.
charles c. Manz and Henry p. si'rs,
1S "The potentiarfor .Groupthink,in
Autonomouswork Groups," Human Rerations3s
(Igg2), 77s-7g4.
30.
Eugene M. Fodor and Terry smith, "The power
Motive as an Influe'c*
Making," lourna,I of personoiny ona Sorio,t
eryriotoea
il,:;S5Decision

panr Srx
].
Goffman'stheorvof framesis describedin
Frame Anarysis(cambriclgt,:

Harvard University Press, 1974.). The

interpretation of frames as simrrltrrneously activated shared schemas is rny
own, not Goffman,s.

2.

Herb Caen, San Francisco Chronicle,

Novemb er 2g,196'.

3.

"A Conversationwith
Roger Schank,'-,
Todary,April, IglJil,l]!
_psychologg
"ulric-ii"irr"r-are
some cognitive ps-ychologists-notably
n.t so s.rrguine as schank about scripted computers
mimicking h.rnnn lr.h.virr.
Neisser points out that
of the lnror,n"tior- u, which we rrirvig;rrr,
t hr ough a s it u a ti o nre m a-oit
i n so u t o f u * u ." r" rr,;;i i s
c:.l l y.rrrl l .ss.
His point is th a t i t w o u l d b e v i rtu a l l y i mp ossi r,i " -i ,l 'Jrr.cti
,r;;,,;;;' ,:t,,,,,' i ,,,,,,,
wit h as m uc h i n fo rma ti o na s a h u m a n .s e s
i rr u si trrrti rrr- l i r..rrr.rl ri rrg,
t he hum anc a n n o te v e n te l l y o trc c l n rl rl t:tt' l y
w l rrrtl l r;rlrrrl rrrrr;rl i rrr
i r.

NorES I zos
4.
William James,The Principles of Psgchology(New York: Dover, 1950;
originally published 1910).
5.
Alfred Schutz, Philosophg and PhenomenologicalResearch,is quoted in
Goffman,op. cit.,4.
6.
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Realitg
(N ew Y ork: Doubleday& Co. , 1966) , 22.
7.
Luigi Pirandello,Tonight We lmprooise (London: SamuelFrench, 1932),
7-8.
fl.
John Barth, Lost in the Fun House (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1968),

r27.

L
Kathryn Hulme, The Nun's Storg (London: Frederick Muller, 1957),3738.
10.
J. L. Mannond and Barbara Hammond, The Town Labourer (London:
Longmans,Gr een,and Co. , 19l8) , 19- 21.
ll.
ShoshanaZuboff, "Wolk and Human Interaction in Historical Perspective," Harvard University, January 1979. The insights in this section are
ltasedon Zuboff's incisive studieSof the social organizationof experience
in the workplace.
12.
SebastianDeGrazia,Of Time,Work, and Leisure (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1962),60.
t3.
ReinhardBendix, Work and Authoritg in Industry (Berkeley: University
<r{'California Press,1974), 87.
t4.
FlaroldWilensky, "The Uneven Distribution of Leisure," SocialProblems
e (1961).
15.
f ean-PaulSartre,Being andNothingness,trans.by Hazel E. Barnes(New
Yt>rk:PhilosophicalLibrary, 1956),59.
I6.
WirllaceShawn and A,rdr6 Gregory,Mg Dinner With Andr/, (New York:
(l rove P ress,l9ul) , 66.
17.
ft0-ttl.
l l ri < 1..
IrJ.
ey es l re trv t' rtc < l i tt l tl rorrt
I ow r. ruv krrow l r.< l gt' ol ' tl rc A rtrt' ri c i trr nrl t:-that
l o ( l ol l i rr;rrr, i rr l r gt' rrtl rutl t' s < ' ttti tutl ' l rt' ti rrrgl rt i tt l J c rk r' l < ' r' i rr
r.i gl rt l )i l ('(.\
l l X i 7. t rro l r )l rgr.r 1(.(' rrl lw ' l r,rs r.s l rrrl r l r,' rv l rs c i ti rrg.' l ' l rc rl i l ' l i ' l ' ,' tt.' t' l rt' l w t' t' l t
,\rrrr.r i r';rrr .r rr,l N l rrl ,l l ,' l ' ,;rs l c r n g.i l l (' t ttl ,' . l t,ts ,t l rr' l l t' r k tt,,rv tr 1,,rt,tl l ,' l rrr

t
266 | Norns

NorES | 267

the distance at which people feel comfortable standing from each other
while talking. In Arab countries the preferred distance is close enough to
see the iris dilate; in America it is arm's length. Thus, as Calvin Hall
reports in The Silent Language (New York: Doubleday, lg5g), over the
course of talking while standing, an Arab will edge closer and closer to an
American, who will in turn back up. The result is that-given a free range
-the Arab will back the American against a wall.

r9.

30.

Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Euergdag Life (New york:

Double d a y& C o ., 1 9 5 9 ),2 3 0 .
20.

rbid..23r-232.
2r.
Ibid.,52-53.
22.

Margot Slade, "Reacting to Boorish Manners," The Neu: york Times,May

23,lgg3,Bl2.
23.

Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi,"Attention and the Holistic Approachto Behavior," in Kenneth s. Pope and JeromeL. singer, eds., The stream of consciousness(New York: Plenum, lg78).

24.

Charlotte Selver, "sensory A*u."l-,"rs and Total Functioni ng," Ceneral

Semantics Bulletin 20 and 2t (1957),10.

25.

Paul Theroux, The Kingdom bg the Sea (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, lgg3)
12- 16.
26.
The NeusYork Times, September 17, 1983.
27.
J. M. Darley and D. Batson,". . . From Jerusalemto Jericho,"Journal of
Personality and Social Psychologa27 (lg7}), 100-108.
28.
Much of this researchhas been done by two Rosenthalprot6g6sin particular, Miron Zuckerman and Bella DePaulo. The full reportsofthe research
reported in this section can be found in: Bella M. Depaulo. Miron Ztckerman, and Robert Rosenthal, "Humans as Lie Detectors," Journal of
communications,Spring 1980;Miron Zuckerman.,Bella M. Depaulo, ani
Robert Rosenthal,"Verbal and NonverbalCommunicationof Deception,"
Adtsancesin Experimental Social Psychologgvol. 14 (Academic press);
and Robert Rosenthaland Bella DePaulo, "Sex Differences in Eavesdropping on Nonverbal Cues," Journal of personality and Social psuchologa
37 (1979),2,273-285,
29.
Rosenthaland DePaulo,op. cit.,280.

Personalcommunicationwith author, Harvard University, 1981.See rtlstr

(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniJudith A. Hall, NonuerbalSexDi,fferences
versity Press,1984).
31.
Bella DePaulo,"successat Detecting Deception:Liability or Skill?" Arlnals of the NeusYork Academg of Sciences364 (June 12, l98l).
32.
Goffman, op. cit.
33.
In Lawrence Altman, "The Private Agony of an Addicted Physician," The
New York Times,June 7, 1983,C8. Also "Medical Groups Rebut Charges
Against Doctors," The NeusYork Times, February 25, 1983.
34.
Leo Tolstoy, "The Death of Ivan Illych," Collected Works (New York:
New American Library, 1960),137.The framesthat keep the factsof death
from intruding into social awarenessare detailed in David Sudnow, The
Social Organization of Dging (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. 1967).
35.
Clyde Haberman,"ControversyIs Renewed Over JapaneseTextbooks,"
The NeusYork Times,July 11, 1983.
36.
Jane Kramer, "Letter from Europe," The Nert:Yorker, February 28, 1983.
.'t 4
JJ.

John Ogbu, Minoritg Education and Caste (New York: Academic Press,
1978). I was told about Ogbu's'work-and his study of my childhood
schools-by Ulric Neisser.
38.
of Books,March 5,
Neal Ascherson,"Ghost Waltz," The Neu York Reaierts
l98l) .
Viking,
Yor
k:
Day,
G
host
Waliz(
New
I
ngebor
g
1981,28.
39.
Bini Reichel,"Tell Me About Nazis,Daddy," villagevoice, May 10, l9tl3,
9. Also, Reichel's interviews with members of the Third Reich in "What
Did You Do in the war, Daddy?" Rolling stone, March 31, 1983.'thc
collective repressionof postwar Germansis describedin Alexancleratt<l
MargariteMitscherlich, The lnability to Mourn (New York: Grove Prt'ss,
l e75).
40.
Ilarrisgn Salisbury,"stalin's Tacticsat Home," The NeusYorkT'itrttslJook
I7, 1982.Review of Anton Antonov-Ovseyerlktt,'1,.Iu"I'itttt'
Il,euierc,January
ol ' stul in ( New Yor k: Har per& Row, 1982) .
lt.
l ) i r v i r l K . Sh i g l l e r , "R ttssi i t: "A l ) t:o p l e Wi tl r o r r t l l e r o t's,"
'l 'i t t r r ', rNl r tsttzi ttt',( ) <'to l r t'r l ,- r , l t) ttl l , f) ,5 ,l ( Xi '

,t:

llrirl. l(Xi.

269

268 | rvorns
11
prgeorwell,l9B4 (New York: New AmericanLibrary, 196l, Appendix).
1l

6ydAbrams, "The New Effort to control Information," The New york

Magazine, Septernber25, 1983.
ltnas
li

illterReich, "Psychiatry in Russia," The New york Times Magazine,

prury30, 1983.

CouclusroN

, visuddhimagga:The Path of purification,Nanamolirhera,

lddhaghosa
ps,(Berkeley:Shambhala,lg76).
Freud, "Recommendationsto PhysicianspractisingpsychoanaliCIunq
,i,"The collected Papersof sigmund Freud,vol. 2, Jamesstrachey,ed.,
York: BasicBooks,1963).
16v
l

Lederberg, "David Harnburg: President-Elect of AAAS," Science,

lihua

1983.
ire23,

,*

pdore Lidz, The Person(New York: BasicBooks.1976).

1

D. Kelley, in Eric Kandel and JamesSchwartz,eds.,principles of

nrnnis
yitalScience(New York: Elsevier, lg8l).
fr
pddinga ChineseVeil," The Neu: york Tintes,August lg, lggt.
Janis,Victims of Groupthink (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1983).
1,1ng
$
XpWheelis, The lllusionlessMan: Fantasiesand Meditations (New
W. Norton, 1966).
11t:W.

(continued from coPgright Page)

'Peter
bg Carrol lzurcl,Jerttrttt
J. Laig,ln Emltion, bognition and Behavior,edited
and Robert Zajonc. Copgrig-ht1984.
-Kagan,
'
Illtislon"lessMan: Fantasiesand Meditations.Published
eyenWheelis nifn"
dt
I966.
Co',
bA W. W. N orton
lrt;ing L. Janislr"'Cto"pthink, SecondEdition. Copgright 1982b'J Houghton
Compang.
-Mifflin
-''"
Houghton tvlifflln Compang for The Kingdom by the Sea, bg Paul Theroux.
1953bi Cape Cod ScrioenersCompang'
Copgright
'
Andri
Press,-lnc.',
b*u,
for My Dinner with Andr6, bU Wallace Shawn and
Cregory. Copyright l98l baWallace Shaun and Andrd Gregorg-'
The New Vork-n""i"w-of Booksfor "Ghostwaltz," bg Neal Ascherson,March
5,
-'- lg81 (ool. 28).Copgright I98I, bg Ngrea,ln-c'
CBC interpriseslLes Entreprisesiladllo-Canadafor The Politics of the Family
ba R. O. Laing. Copgright R. D' Laing. Publtshedin Canada'
pantheon noofi, o1iuirion of Random House,lnc., andTaaistock Publications
r"-ity an'clother Essays,bu R. D. Laing' Copsright 1969bu
i';kii;;ilh"
f"r+;;
R. D. Laing.
W. W. N orton b C ompang, lnc./or The'InterpersonalTheory of Psychiatry,bU
H arry Stack Sullirsan.I 953'
"Succ-ess
at
ihu Nt* York AcademU
-gilio of Sciencesand Bella DePaulofor
-Detectof
York Academy
New
the
of
Annals
the
in
bipo"to,
Ui
i"e Di"iitiii,t'
(ool. 364) 1981.
Sciences,
and the Ho'
Sl.eiind Freud Copgrights Ltd., The lnstitute of P^sgchoanalgsis
to Phgsiciais Practising Psgchoanalgsis,"gartL--p;7e:ss
Ltd yoi ';n[ioi*endations
fromThe StandardEdition of the Complete PsychologicalWorks of Sigmund Freud
("ri.' iil, tri"Jitii
bs James straches; and Basic Booksfor the Coliia
"anta
Copyright I9-59'Freud'
Sigmund
of
Papers
lected
'CiorZ, Brortil-"li,tii.7o, Angel i., Ri-ot, bg Ernest Becker.Copyright 1969ba
Becker.
'-iiri;;6ph,lcol
-Ernest
Librarg for Being and Nothingness,bg Jean PauI Sartre, truns.
1956.
CoPuright
Barnes.
Hazel
bg
"" D;;Ue4ag {z Co,"ln\./orThe Social Constructionof Reality, bg Peter Berger
Peter Berger and ThomasLuckmann'
ona
- - flriios ,-iuckmann.Cipqright 1966bg
bo"tilr:da,t d, Co, lnc.p" f[" Presentationof Self in Everyday Life^,bg Em;ing
Goffman. Copuright'lgSgbU En:1ySGoffman. 4"4 ql:.o,shortextractsfrom Eraing
ifr" pr6r""tationif S.tf i" Ev6ryday Li[e(AllenLanelThePenguinPress,
ciitii",
rcdq, pp. 52,230-31. Copsright 1959 bu Eraing Goffman'
Hart:ard U"luiitlW fiuti 7o, The Family'i Conltr,tction of Reality, bu DaDid
Redss.Copuright 1981bu Daaid Reiss.
The NeusYork Timis Companyfor seaeralarticles,co_pgright
]98?!Y^184.
N"urweek,lnc. for "The Ludli* Enig*o," Newsweek,April 19,1982.BgJe*g
reserued.
rights
All
Adler. Copgright lSbZ b,l Newsweek,lnc.

INDEX
!
,1

t
I

*
Abrams, Floyd,233
accommodation, 75
ACTH (adrenocorticotropic
h o r m o n e ) ,3 2 ,4 2
attention enhanced by, 35
action:
adaptive,53
inhibition ol 20
range of, schemas and,231
aggression, 126
of children, 152-53
endorphins and,37-38
repression ol I19-20
alcohol, as palliative, 53
Alcoholics Anonymous, 5l
alcoholism , 17, 176
Alexander, Franz, 162
alienation.206
:rltruism, 2L5-17
American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 240
Anrerican Society of Newspaper
Editors. 232-33
anrnesia:
n:ttional, 226-30
postliypnotic, 108
i r r t a l g e s i : r3, 0 -3 1 , 3 8
h y p r r o t i c , 8l i
; r r r t 's t l r c s i l ru, n ( '( ) n st'i o r r s
l ) ( 'r '( '( r'll i or r r r tr r l ,l t$ ) - {X)
; u 1 g ( 'r, l 1 ) , l l l
, r l c l r i l r l r c r r, 1 ,1 5 ,Il ( i , l 5 l l - r i I
t

animals:
endorphinsof, 31, 37-38
exper im ent son, 30, 31, 35, 3738
pain systemof, 30, 3I, 35
stressol 98
anti-Semitism,I 14-15, lI7 , l2L,
225-26,228
Antonov-Ovseyenko,Anton, 229
anxiet y,10, 20, 29
as cognitive static, 40-43
defined. 19
denial as antidote to,46, 52-53,
152, 153
em ot ionas, 45
forms of,4l, 45-46
groupthink'sminimization of,
181-82, lg3
Happy Family's minimization
of, L74-79, 181,183, 190-gl
of infants, 102-3, 104-5
obliterative, 103, 104
schemasand,82-83
as stressout of place, 44-46
subjective,125
trade-offbetween awareness
and. 2l- 25
rrnxiety attacks, 125-26
anxietygruclient,103
apr t r t hcir l,l8
ir gr lr r : r is:
t f - lr 0, 52
, , l7
Ar cr r r ll.I l; r r r r r r r lr
2o.

272 | rrvorx

r Nr ) r . . Ix Zl: l

Argentina, unaskable questions

in.228-29
arms race.248
vital lies and, l8*lg
artificial intelligence, research in.
l9 8n
a ssemb ly l ine, 205
assimilati on,7S
associations:
avoided. 52
free, 86, IlJ,126-27
attention:
ACTH as enhancer of, 35
a s act of'will, 2l
breakdown of,33-34
con sciou s v s . unc ons c ious
forces in, 2l
defined, lg
of Detective, 136-38
dimmed, as soother of pain, 36,

37_39,52

employers' managi ng of, 204,

205

endorphins' hampering of, 35,

36
fbcus of,G4,82-83
as f r am e,2 0
isolation defense and, l2l, 122
privacy and,2O7
in psychoanalysis,
23g
public, 2Og-23
rationalization and, I2l. 122
schenra.s'
interactionwith. 7g_
81, 82_ 8 3
in .sentence
construction,33_34
socializationof, 146, 150_b5
social roles and, 206, 2OT,2Og
stressresponse'sdual link to,
47
sublimationand. 122
trade-offbetween pain and,2l,
22, 27_5 4
Austria,blind spot about Nazism
in,227-28
automaticroutines:
flow of informationin, 71, g7
pos t - F r eu c l i asnl i p s i n . 7 | _ 7 2

,r

automatic writing, 69
automatism, 122_23
autonomy, internal, 206_7
awareness,24I
channel capacity ol 6g
denial and, 120
frame of,20,24-ZS
in Freudian model of mind. 5g_
59
individual vs. collective. lg6
knowing without, 67-6g, 70_
72,94_go
long-term memory and, 63, 65,
66
in Norman's model, 64, 6b_66
as primary memory, 63
projection and. 12l
repression and, 120
schemas and, 86*87
three zones of, 84, g5
trade-off between anxiety and,

;
*
i

2l_25
urbanite's
threshhol
d of.2lT

seealso consciotrsness

bad-me,103. 104
Bagdikian, Ben, 232n
balance,senseof, 30
Bales,Robert,163
B a rth,John,200
Bateson,Gregory,9,24, lS4, ZOl.
245,249
Bay of Pigs invasion:
groupthink in, lg0, rg4_gg
origins of, 184
Beck, Aaron, 49, g8-gg
Becker, Ernest, 132-33, L43_44
behaviorists.57
behaviortherapies,schenr:rrcpirir.
i n,238
Berger,Peter, lgg-200
Be rkow i tz,f,eontl r<
12
, Zl
Be rrnanrr,
Fl ri < ,.| 72-7:\
b i a s:
t' or_l rri l i rr', 1Xi 1)l i

*i
*I

dangersof, 136, 138-39

perceptual,1, 61*62, I lfl
i n respon sevs. per cept ion, 6l62
science and,240
social,232,233
Bion, Wilfred, 163
Bissel,Richard,184-85
black box, 57
blacks,rage suppressedby, 17-18
Blacks,The (Genet),200
bl i ndsi ght,6T,68
blind spot:
cultural, 226-30
of Detective, 143, 144
physiological,l5-16
psychologicalparallel to, l619,22,107,133
in relationships,156-57
of stranger,239
B-lipotropin,3ln
Boas,Franz,246
Boat ls Full, The,225-26
body language, 2L9-23
books,frame breaksin,200
B ourgeoisGentilhomme, Le
(Mol i dre) , 24
brackets,of frames,201
"Brady family," group self of, 166168
brain:
computer-averagingand, 35n
cortex,2O-2L,35n,58
novelty and,4l-42
pain systemof, 22,29-32
topographicalpicture of, 35n
,seealso endorphins
l rri bery,209- 10
llritton, James,75
llrou<lbent,Donald, 62-64, 80
l Jrow rr,John Seely,155- 56
l l l rrrrt' r,.fer<lnr e,
lO t i
l l rrt' l rsl xrrrrM
r ror
, r t r ',21. 34, 35,36
l l rrr' l rsl
ri rrungr oul) ,ll4- : ] 5
l l rrrl tl l rrrgl rosr
,
2l]r 7
l l rr:rrl r', I\'l r'( l c orgr' . I l i ,l
l l rrrrrrr'1, l ,rrrs ,,l l )

Bush, Bill,244-45
business:
br iber y in, 209- 10
groupthink in, 190-93
Happy Family in, 190-91

I
I
i

I
I

il

Canada,anti-Semiticpolicy of,
225
Capablanca,Jos6,72
cast esyst em , 227
Castro,Fidel, 184, 185, 189
Catcher in the Rye, The
( Salinger )2l
, I
chtheterization,89
cathexis.133
censorship:
mind and, 59, 60, 6l-62, 106lll; seealso defense
m echanism s;
denial,
repression
Reaganadministration and, 232233
self-, in groups, L87, lg2
in Soviet Union, 19-20
cerebralsclerosis,ignoring of,
174
character:
basedon memory-traces,58
shapingof , 23, 129- 58
characterarmor. 13l-33
Chien Andalou, Un,49
child abuse,17,152-53, 178-79
child development,defense
mechanismsand, 144, L45149
child rearing, in nineteenth
century, 150-51
children:
aggressionol 152-53
angerof, 145,146, 151-53
divorce and, 172
{rarnesof. l9fl
f ics irnrl,221-22
r r r ir r or ily,
227
1

\ ( l l (' n t i l s

t'

()1 . / t )
-P

l N l ) l ':\ l l 7 5
children bont.)
schizophrenia in, 147
socialization of, 213-14, 221222
see also mother-child
relationship
China, U.S. normalization of
relations with,247
chu nk.68
CIA (Central Intelligence
Agency), 184-85
civilization, sublimation and, 122
Clayburgh, Jill, 197
closure, fbmily, 170
cocktail party effect, 63-64, 8l
cofl.eebreaks,204
cognition:
a nxiety a nd, 40- 43
appraisal as act of,47-50,52
as balance between vigilance
and inattention, l0
building blocks of, see schemas,
tc
character created by, 23, 129-

r58
palliatives and,53-54
in stress response, 46,47-50
see also mind; thought
cognitive biases, 96-98
cognitive develnpment, 75
comrnunication:
nonverbal, 219-23
as repair process, 155-56
schizophrenia and, 33-34, 1541 55
two-tiered, in groups, 163-64
see also language
company vice presidents, group
unconscious of, 163-64
comp ute rs,3 5n
programming ol 198
con sciou sn es s ,241
in Freudian model of mind,5859, 60, 84
psychobiology of, l0
see also awareness
coorclination, in family, 169-70

coping, Sl
defense mechanisms vs., 148149
instrumental vs. emotional, 5l-

52
corporategroupthink, 190-93
structuraltendencv toward. l9l
cortex, 20-21
frontal,35n
sensory,35n, 58
couple, mother-child as, 145-46
CRF (cortico-releasingfactor),32
critical thinking, 189
as casualtyof groupthink, 183,
186, 188
Cronyn, Hume, 174
crowd psychology,16l
Cuba:
army of, 185, 188
attempted hijacking to, 242-43
seealso Bay of Pigs invasion
'{Cubanmissile crisis,189
culture:
blind spotsand,226-30
framesof,209-10

daily life:
as intersubjectiveworld, 200
reality ol 199-200
Dalai Lama,250-5I
danger, threat of, 47-42, 43
Dare, Christopher, 157
Darsee,John,95, 96, 100
Day, Ingeborg, 227-28
daze,as form of denial,52
deafness,hypnotic, 87-88
Dean, John, 93-95, 96, 97, glJ,
100,l 12
Dear Abby column, 213
death:
from diarrhea, 19
isolationdefbnseanrl. | 17. l2l
mind{irlnessol. 2i}7tr
ol , I l (i . I l 7
rt:pressi orr
t i tl l oos i rl torrt. 22,-r

Death of a Salesman(Millt'r),
246.248-49
decisionmaking,personalvs'
group, 180,192
deep-seadive, simulatecl,44
defensemechanisms,54, I 13,I 18123
as attentionalPloYs,132
coping tactic vs., 148-49
development of, 145-49
Freudian, ll3n, lL9-22
isolation, Ll7, L2l, L22
personality molded bY, 127,
129-58
projection, 120-21, 122, 123,
142-44
psychotheraPyand, 123, 124-

r27
rationalization, l2l, 122, 123,
l B 8, l 9l
repressi o nvs', 118
security operationsmodeled
on, I05
shared,162
sublimation,l2l-22
Sullivanian. 122-23
seealso denial; rePression
del usi on:
zs moha.2 37
remedying of,237 -40
democracy,information flow in,
23L,232-33
cl eni al ,l 13, 120
as antidote to anxietY,46,5253, 152, 153
of Detective, 143
in Game of HapPy FamilY, I75179
in projection,120-21
as psychologicalanalogueof
ert< l orphins, 43
soc'iitl
. 177-78
r,'i tt'i t'ti t's rtl , 52-53
| )r'f 'rtrrl rr, l }r' l l i r. 220-21.

222, 22:]

rl r'1l rt'ssi <l tt:

ri rr.nl orr l r rrtl . l Ol )
s,'l l rt'l rctt t;ts i rr.1l l { 1fl f

se l fl se r vi r r g ttti tr r <l t'sr r r r r l ' l ( X)

t0t
Detective,The, 134, ll],5-4'1
blind spotsvs. highlights ol'
144
hyperalertnessof, 136-38
interpretive schemaof, 139
isolation ol 143
psychic armor of, 142-44
roots of paranoid stance of, 144,
150
of, 139-40,
suspiciousness
153
weaknessof, 138
deviance:
'dissidencevs. ,233- 34
rules uncoveredby, 200
diarrhea,deathsfrom, 19
disattentior't,seedenial
disavowal, 52
displacement,152, 153
in projection,120, 121
sublimation comparedto, 12l
"acceptable," 247-48
divorce:
children's fear of,172
emotional denial in, 16
doctors:
denial and,177-78
shared deceits and, 224-25
Donchin, Emmanuel,72-7 3
dormitive.24-25
Dostoyevsky,Fyodor, I l2
double-bind theory, 152-55
doubt, suppressedpersonal,
I87
Doyle, Arthur Conan, 136
dreams:
bad, 46
and, 59
unconscious
"Dr. Schreber"casestudY' I lfi,
150-5r
224drtrgaddiction,of physic'i:tns,
225
5l]
t lnr gs,ls pr t lliir t ivt 's,
l) r r llt 's.Allt 'r r ,lf t '1,lf t i- r
rl v tr.tt pl ri rr, i | |rr

i
I

276 | rrvonx

lt
tt
;

eavesdropping, women's
avoidance of,220,221
education:
discrimination in,227
as "transmission of social
delusion," 226
e go ,125, 126
as "I r " 162
ego analysis, 127
Ego and the Mechanism of
Defense, The (A. Freud), 125
egocentricity, 97
ego defenses, 126-27
ego ideal, group ideal vs., 162
Einstein, Albert, 72
Einst ein, Els a, 72
Eisenhower, Dwigh t D., 184, 244
Ekman, Paul, 219,220
emotion:
denial of, 120-21
ego exposure and, 126
as fornr of anxiety,45
!
projection of,I2O-2L
repression's effects on, I lS, lI7
schem as and, 8l- 82
tho t r ght v s . , 8ln
uncanny, 104
emotional coping, 51, 52
endorphins, 32, 34-36
ACTH complementarity with,

35-36
attentionhamperedby, 35,36
denial as psychological
analogueof,43
dis c o v e ryo f,3 0 -3 1
in pain-attention link, 34-39
of schizophrenics,
34-35
E ps t e i n ,L e s l i e , l 1 4 -1 6 , l 1 7 , l 1 g ,
1 2 l , 1 2 3 ,l 3 l
Epstein, Seymour,98, 100
E r del y i , M a tth e w ,6 5 ,l 1 8 , 1 2 3
Erikson, Erik, 162
EscambrayMountainsmaneuver,
185
ethical blinders, in groupthink,
188
ev il. 2 0

tN r ) n x I ZIZ

evol uti on,37, 42

of pain tracts,30
self-deceptionin, 24L-42, 243
experience:
as balancebetween vigilance
and inattention. l0
blanksin, 15
kaleidoscopic,75
schemasas organizersof, 75-83
usefulnessof, 78

face,223
maximal sending capacityof,
219
"face" schema,78-79, 80
face-to-faceinteractions:
detectionof lies in, 2lg
ground rules of, I0
factory,work frame redefined by,
203-4
failure, fear of, lacunasand, ll0lll
familiarity,unconscious,86
family, 23,165-79
busi nessas, 190-91
closurein. 170
communicationin,
schizophreniaand, L54-55
as consensualmind. 166
coordination of, 169-70
as group mind, 17I-73
H appy, 174-79,181,183,l g0l 9I
information-processingof, lG7170
invisible rules about rules of.
175
local vs. cosmopolitan,165-66
mi croeventsi n, 17I-72
as model for groups,162, l6:1,
179
patternregulatorsol',17l-7:\
sel f-systern
i nfl rrerrc.t'l rv,
< l fX i ,
lfi)
sl r:rrr.<
x'lrrl i tvi rr. l ,rr,"lr,
(i (i . | (' i ,u,
t7l . t7)

social world ol 169

vital lies in, 16-17
lamily paradigm, 17 I-73
fiunily self, 163, 165-70
ftrmily therapy, 17 l-72, 246
fantasy:
blocking through, 53
m e m o r y vs.,9 4
repression of, 120
Ftrrley, William, 224-25
f'ear. 19
in Game of'Happy Farnily, 176,
179
paralysis induced by, 40-4I
o f s n a ke s.8 2 . 8 3
{'eeling, see emotion
f.etishization,Becker s use of, 133,
t44
fight or flight, 42,52
F i s k e . Su sa n . 7 7
Ford, Ford Madox, 16
F o r d , He n r y,2 0 5
Fraiberg, Selma, 146
{i'ame, franring, 20, I97 -217
brackets of, 201
breaks in, 2l l-72
context provided by, 201
cultural, 209-10
defensive use o{, 214-17
defined. 197
direct inculcation of, 213-14
dormitive,24-25
clual tracks of, 201-2
scripts fbr, 198
social lies and, 218-23
firr social roles, 206-9
tyrannies ancl fi'eeclonrsof, 20320fJ
rr n c ' t'r t:r i r r tvi r l r o r r t,2 1 2 - l 3
rr r t sl r i r r t'r l .I 9 7 - g t't
u , i t l r cr i n !{ i r \\'l r vo l , 2 l ;l
w o r k. 2 0 :l - ( i
i r r , :1 2 ( i
I t:r . tJ( ;

fieedorn:
inner, 206-7
political, 232-33
of stranger, 239
fr e e w i l l :
mix of self-deception rrnd, 20
unconscious perception ancl, 90
Fretrd, Anna, 125-27
Freud, Sigrnund, 2I, 22, 54, 62,

72,87,105,1rl, Lr7,124,
133,162
d e fe n se m e ch a n i sm s o f. l l 3 n .

1t9-22
g r o u p s a s vi e w e d b y, 1 6 l - 6 2 ,
163. 179
insight as viewed by, 237-3f3
model of mind and, 57-60, 80,
84
o n n o n ve r b a l cu e s,2 l 9
partrnoia theory of, 150, llln
r e p r e ssi o n a s vi e w e d b y, l l 2 1 1 3 .1 1 7 .1 1 8
o n su b l i m a ti o n , l 2 l
"Fr i e d ki n fa m i l y," g r o u p se l f o f,
168-69

Gans. Herbert. 232n

gaze, averted, 209, 210
general adaptive syndromc', ,scr
stress response
Ge n e t, Je a n ,2 0 0
Ge n o ve se , Ki tty, 2 1 6
Germany, in Worlcl Wars, llJ
Ge sta l t p sych o l o g y, 7tl
g e sttr r e s,se n cl i n g cu l 'xr c'i tlo' l , ! l {)
"Gl o r i a Sco tt, Th e ," l l l 5
(l o ede I, E,s't lu, r. IJu c I t
( FIol,st:r<lter).
2(X)
( l o fl l r r a r r ,Ii r v'i r r g , 1 0 . | ,1 1 6 - ,- rl71,) 7
1 9 9 , 2 0 1. 2 l 0 - 1 2 , 2 2 2 - 2 r ]
( Jo l tl t'r r .Ar tl r r r r . l l J2
g o o <l - r r r r ',l Ol ]
( l o o r l Sr r r r tl tt'i l l rstr
tr r r l r, i l 5 l l ;
( )t t rt rl S r, / r/ i l r . ' l ' l t r' ( l . ' o r r | ), | { i
(, o r t rrrl , I l , ' n n l rrrr.
l!i

278 | rNorx
Great Britain, Industrial
Revolutionin.203
Greek philosophy,insight in,
237n
Greek tragedy,perceptual flaws
in ,2 0
Greenwald, Anthony, 96-g8
Gregory,Andr6, ZO7-8
Grinspoon,Lester, l9
groups,23,159-93
cozinessof, l8l, l8B, 186, lg3
c r o w d v s ., 1 6 1
family as model for, 162, 163,
179
Freud on, 161-62, lO3, l7g
individual vs. collective
awarenessin. 186
lone voice as therapist of, 238239
loyalty to, l83
mental homogeneityof, 16l
personaldecisionmaking vS.,,t
180,192
as "primal horde," 162
as pseudofamily, 163
self'-censorship
in, 187, lg2
self-esteemof, 167
sharedschemasof, 158,16l,
162,163, 164, 165, 166,16g,
l7 l ,l g 2
spontaneous,162-63
totalitarian skews of, f82
unconsciousof, lOl. 103-64
group mentality, 163
Croup Psgchologgand the
Analysis of the Ego (Freud),
16 1
group therapy,246
groupthink, 180-83
alternativesto, l89, l92-93,
239,247
in Bay of Pigs invasion,180,
184-89
corporate,190-93
critical thought as victim of,
lg3, lg6, lgg
ethical blinders in. lfl8

rNDEx | 279
frequency of, lg2
invulnerability illusion in, 186
Janis'sformulation of, 182
mindguardsand, l87-88
rationalizationin, 188,lgl
stereotypesin, 188-89, l9l
suppressedpersonaldoubts
and, I87
unanimity illusion and, 186-87,
188
gui l t:
family, 176
Happy Family and, 176
repressionand. ll5

H al deman,H . R . (B ob),93-94
H al l , Judi th,221
hallucinations,negative,108
Hamburg, David,240
Hamilton, Vernon, l0g-lt
Happy Family, 174-79
i n busi ness,l g0-gl
groupthink comparedto, lgl,
183
Heller, Joseph,200
helping behavior,franresancl.

2r5-17

heroin, 3l
heroism,self-deceptionand, 2.1!
243
hibakushc,Lifton's intervit,wsol,
5l
" hi gh" feel i ng,3l
hijacking,self-deceptionin, 2.1j
243
Hilgard, Ernest,87-8tj
hi ppocampus,42
H i rst, W i l l i am,69-20
" H ol mes, S herl ock,"i rs' l ' l rc
D etecti ve,135-:]{i .l l }7. l .1,,J
H ol ocarrst:
i s <l l a t i o r r<l t . l i 'r r s rr,r r r r l .I I
rJt
r t 'l t r c s s i o r ro l , I l . l | ( i . I I I
I l o r o r v i t z . N l r r r <l i ,l 5 l {i . 5r-l
] 5,1
IOl

I lrrlmes, Katherine, 201

I Itrnt, Howard, 93
lrvpertension, 43
lrvpervigilance, as form of
anxiety, 46
l r r 'p n o s i s,8 7 - 8 8
negative hallucinations in, 108
l r v p o t h a l m u s,3 2

l l r s e n , H e n r i k, 1 6 ,2 4 6
r,l, 125
t | | tt sionle ss M an, The (Wheelis),
249
rr r t 'e s t ,17 , 1 7 6 - 7 7 , I7 8
rlanger signs of, L76
rr:pression of wish for, l19
lrrtlia, bad news rejected in, 210
I rrrltrstrial Revolution, 203-5
rrrl i r n t s :
rrrrxietyof, 102-3, 104-5
rrs<rrganismvs. person,242
st'curity operations of, 104-5
r r r l o n n ati o n fl o w :
irr irtrtomatic routines, 71, 87
rrr fiee society, 231-34
rrrlolrrration-processingtheory,
105
l r r r r r i lya n d , 1 6 7 - 7 0
r l r o r r p th i n k a n d , 1 8 0 , 1 8 3
o f m i n d a n d ,2 l * 2 2 ,2 3 ,
', r <r <l e l s
55-90
I r r , r r r y r ',I) a n i e l K., 9 3
rrr 1r r r to ve r l <l a d ,2 1 7
, " , . r g l r t ,2 3 7
I o r . r r rsr tf, 2 3 7 - 3 8
rr r ,r, t l l r t tl r t'n tp i e s, scl tt:r tr i tr e p a i r
i r r , 2l ]fl
r r '. ( ) n u ri l r ,i ts fi l r r r t o {':l r l xi ( 'tvr4 6
rrr ', 1r rr r r r t'r r ti tl<'<l 1 r i ttg
5 ,l * 5 2
rrrI r ' i l r '<'lru r ls, r l r ti o rr i tli z,l tti o n s <l f,
tll
! , , 1 , I' l , , t'l ttl i ttr t ttl ' I ) r t'ttttt,s,'l 'l u '
( l " r cr r r l ) ,5 7 . ,.r ,3( ,i 2
r r r l r r r r r o r r l,o tr r ts o l ,.l 5 ,l ( i
r r r l r u s r \'r 'r ( 1 ,'l r s,
;ts l r l tttt,r l
. r t r ttr 'l r '.1 5

invulnerabilityillusion, 186
isolation defense, LL7,l2I, L22

Jackson,
Jesse,l7- 18
Jam es,William , 21, 69, 90, 199
Janis,Irving, 180-83, 184-89,
239,247
Japan:
collusion to concealpainful
information in,226
cultural framesin,210
Education Ministry in, 226
group unity in, l8l-82
Jews,anti-Semitismand, l14-15,
177, 121,225-26,228
Johnson,Lyndon 8., 247-48
Johnson,Sam uel, 44

Kafka, Franz,20
Kaye,Kenneth,242
Kennedy,John F., 184-85, 186,
189
Kennedy, Robert, 188
KG B, 19, 233
Khrushchev,Nikita, 229
Korean casualties.in World War
r1,226

lacunas,lO7-ll, 127, I33

defined. 107
fear of failure and. I l0- I t
Game of Happy Family, 174179
in int ir nat er elat ionships,|56=
157
rrrukingof, lOft
shar et lr
l y gnr r r lr s,162,lf i: ]
. sr cr t lsor t '1lr t 'ssior r
l, ir ir r s,I t . l) . . 24. ll, {. lll) , l'"r , 1,
17, 1- 76
l l r r r g r r .;r g r ':
I r o rl r '. i | 1 ) i :l
co g n i l i vr ' l r i l ts r r '\'r 'i r l l r l r r r , 1 ) T

280 | rxnex
language (cont.)
family experience and, lT4-75
holes in, 15
metaschemas and, lOTn
News peak , 23l
schemas of.200
schizophrenic, 33-34
lateness, culturally perrnissible,

2t0
latrghter,frame breaks and,2L2
Lazarus,Richard,47, 48, SI-SZ,

r04

on palliatives,53,,54
leaders:
b u s i n e s sl,9 l -9 2
o fg ro u p s ,1 6 2 ,1 9 1 -9 2
leaks. 2Ig-23
channels of,2Lg-20
price paid for
acknowledgementof, 223
sex differences and,220-ZI,
222
'r
learning,schemasand,75
Le Bon, Gustave,161
leisure, work integrated with, 203
Levinson,Harry, lg0-gl
Liddy, Gordon,93, 94
Lidz, Theodore,24S-4G
lie s ,2 1 8 -2 3
children and,22L-22
evolutionary virtue s of,24I-42,
243
f ra me sa n d ,2 l 8 -2 3
professional, 224-25
self-beliefin,242
of self-presentation,2 I8
truth vs.,244-51
vital, f6-19, 244-5I
Lifton, Robert, 5l
Literaturnaga Gazeta, lg-20
Liv i n g s to n e D
, a v i d,2 9 , J 2 ,3 6 , 3 7
locuscoreleus,S5n
looking, act of, 80-81
loss,fear of. 156
Luborsky,Lester, 106-7
Luckmann,Thomas,lgg-200
Ludlum, Robert.140

rNDEx | 281
lunch hours,204
Lung, Spicer, 242-43

Macy Foundation conferences,g

Mandler, George,84
manners,"good," zl}-l}
Marcel, Anthony, 67-08
"Margaret" case,social denial in.
177
marriage:
areasbelow the surfacein, 157158
well-adjusted,157
marriagecontract,unwritten, LS7
medical research,unconscious
perception and, 89-90
meletethanatou,237n
memory:
as autobiography,g6
consci ous,53-59
depressionand, 10g
failure ol 52
fantasyvs., 94
in Freud's model of mind, b859
long-term, 63, 64-65, 68, 79,
84,85,86,89n, 120
positive vs. negative, l0g
semantic, 65,66
short-term (primary), 02-63, 6b,
68
skewed.93-95
stored in schemas, 7g
thematic grouping of, I 13
unconscious, 58
men, nonverbal communication
and, 220-21,222
mental preoccupation:
as equivalent of heart
palpitations, 4l
as form of anxiety, 45
Merton, Rollert, 165
metaschr.rrr:rs:
r l t 'f i r r c r l . 1 0 7
l i r r g r r i s l i r ', l O T n

Michigan,University of,
psychologyclinic at, 109
rnicroevents,145-49, 150, l54n
in family, 17I-72
Middle East, staring in, 209
Mi l gram ,St anley, 2lT
rnilitary history, refusal to believe
the truth in, 18
N'liller,George,68, 70
rrrill hunk, stereotypeof,77
Millon, Theodore,139,148-49
rrti nd, 55- 90
Broadbent'smodel of, 62-64
censorsand, 59, 60, 6l-62, 106Il7; seeclso defense
mechanisms;denial;
repression
collective vs. individual, 226230
feedbackloop in, 64
Freud'smodel of,57-60, 80,
84
i nformation-proces
sing model
of,2I-22, 23, 55-90
intelligent filter of, 6l-66, 80
lnd knowing without
awareness,6T-73
N ei s ser 'sm odel of , 68, 69, 70,
75, 80- 81
N<rrman's
model of, 64,65-66
lxrrallel strandsof information
i n, 70
ste also unconscious
rrri rrtlgtrards,
187-88
rrri rror it ychildr en,expect at ions
oI'.227
\l i ss Manner scolum n.213
,' r,r< lt 'r nisln,
20
,tt,,l ut, 237
\l ,,l i i ' r t . , 24
rrrotpl ti nt' , l X ), i l l
rr roI Irr. r' --t' l ril rl rr' l i rti orrs l ri l l :
,l cvc l oprrrc rrt

ol ' < l r' l i ' rrs t' s i rr,

I ls . 11)
rr'l l rl c c r' pl i orr

i rr, )1,12
tnr rvl l ttr' trl . r' tl ttc l tl i orr i tr
rrs l ttr' l rorr ol . i l .l

l ,l

movies:
reappraisalof threatsand,49
repressionof scenesin, 109
Mg Dinner usithAndrd,207-8

Nader'sRaiders,244
naltrexone,38
administeredto schizophrenic
vs. normal groups,34-35
"natural killer" cells, 38n
Nazism,Austria'sblind spot
about. 227-28
Neisser ,Ulr ic, 68, 69, 70, 75, 8081, L22, 20L
Dean'smemory analyzedby,
93*95
on diversionaryschemas,106,
107, 108-9
nervoussystem:
of hum ansvs. anim als, 38
of schizophrenics,
34-35
seealso brain
neurotic styles,13l-34
neurotransmitters:
pain numbed by, 30-31, 32,3'l36
seealso ACTH; endorphins
Neoer Take "Yes" for an Arr.srr,r'r',
210
Newspeak, 23l
New York Academgof Scietu't'.:.
Annals of,222
Neu Yorker, The, 107, lU l
Niet zsche,Fr iedr ichW. , l( il
night m ar es, 46
Ninet eenEight g- F'o
ur ( O r wcl|) ,
96, 231
Nisnevich.Lev. l1)
Nixor t ,Riclr ar <l
Nl. ,93- 1) , - llt
r, I,
247
trottv < ' t' l l i tl (' ornnul rri c l rl i orr. 2 | 1)

22ll
l, 'r r ksir r . 2l1) : : ]
s c rrrl i ng (' i l l r;tc i l v ol , :l l 1) :l o
s r.r rl tl l ,' r,' n( r' \ l rr. i l :l 0

:l | , .l :l :l

282 | rrvonx

r Nr ) r , . l:
\ s: t

Norman,Donald, 64, 65-66,7072

Notesfrom Underground
(Dostoyevsky),112
noticing vs. not noticing, 15, 80g l , 1 0 6 -l I
seealso attention
not-me,103, 104
novelty:
responseto,4l-42
threat of,4l
nuclearnumbing, lg
nuclearweapons,l8-19
Nun' s Sto rg ,A (H u l m e s ),2 0 1

objectivity:
of s c i e n c e
.2 4 0
of stranger,239
Oedipus myth, 16
Ogbu, lohn,227
opioi d s ,2 2 ,3 1 ,3 2 , 3 8
Oppenheimer, Robert, 248
orienting response,42, 48
Orwell, George,96,231

'i

trade-offbetween attention
and,21,22,27-54
seealso anxiety
Palmer,Stephen,TS
pani c,4l
panna,237
paranoia,144, 150-58
basic recipe for, 153
Freud's theory of, 150, lSln
parents:
defensemechanismscausedby,

r25

redefining of, 125

self-esteem and, 100
see also mother-child
relationship
pattern regulators, of family, 17 l173
pattern which connects. 9-10
Pavlov, Ivan P.,57
perception:
under anesthesia. 89-90
bias in, 6l-62, ll8
of Detective, 138
failure to revise schemas and,
IJ

pain, 16
in a n i ma l sv s . h u m a n s ,3 0
brain'ssystemfor sensingof,
2 2 ,2 9 -3 2
as cognitive static,40-43
elusivenessof, 43
hypersensitivity to, 20
ordinary responseto, 38
physicalvs. mental,31, 39
psychologicalfactorsin, 30
repressionol l12-23
schizophrenic'sheightened
toleranceof, 34-35
as s e n s e ,2 9 -3 0
soothedby dimmed attention,
3 6 ,3 7 -3 9 ,5 2
source of,42-43
subjectivity of, 109
surgical attempts to stop, 246247

flaws in, in Greek tragedy,20

in Freud's model of mind, 57,
58
as interactive, 75
as sel ecti on,2l ,80-81
situationalchange vs. change
in, 148
unconscious,67-68, 84-90
perceptual defense, 108
personality:
defensesas molders of,727
mul ti pl e,83-89
Piaget, Jean,75
Pincus,Lilly, 157
Pirandello,Luigi,200
P i tcher,Okl a.,grorrptl ri rrk
i rr, l fJO
pituitary glancl,32
Plato, 237n
pl ays,frarrrt' isrr,2(X )
P ol i rrkor,,
l ,r.l ' , l 1)
;l ol i cc l csl i rrrorrr,, fi rl sr., i 2.l

politics, lies in, 225-26

post-Freudianslips, 7 l-72
preconscious,59, 84, 85
pregnancy,defensive framesand,
2t5
Presentationof Self in Euergdag
Life, The (Goffman), 2L0-12
Principles of Psgchology(James),
199
privacy, 206-7
professor-studentromances,225
projection, I2O-2L, 122, 123
stagesof,142-44
psychiatry:
lie detection and,222
Soviet.233-34
psychicclosingofl 5l
psychoanalysis,
16, 1ll, lI2,123,
124-27
seealso Freud, Sigmund
psychologicaldefenses,23, 9l-

r27
see also defense mechanisms;
denial; repression
psychological stance, of stranger,

239
publishing, in democracy vs.
totalitarian state, 232
punishments, 102-3

tltrality circles, 191-92

rltrestions, unaskable, 224*30

lialrelais, Frangois, 205

l r r t : i s n r ,vi ta l l i e s a n d , l 7 - 1 8
r ; r l l l r e s yste m , 3 5 n
r rrlirrnirlizrrtion,l2I, 122, I23
i r r g r o r r l r th i n k, l 8 u , l 9 l
" l l i r t N 'l r r r r ( 'r ts( 'str r r l v, I l fi
r:tls:
, \ ( ) 'l'l I r r r l r r r i r r i stcr crto
l , ,],- r
, 'r r r l o r p l r i r rl cvr 'l s o l '. i ]l , l ]ft
I r n r r o l g r o r r 'l l r r l r l cs o l , i l l 't
' ','rsl r l
r r ': r r 'l io l tl o l r r r ;tl i o r r ,sr
. 'rt,'r

{i 7 ( i l i
r e a cl i r r g ,r l n ( 'o n s( 'r o r r s.
R e a g a r ri t<l l rirrr i sll r r li o r r ,
i n {b r r r r i tti o r rr i sks r u r tl . 2 l }2 :l :l
reality:
ci r cu m sta n ( '( 'so l . I 1 ) l )
co n str u cti o r r o l , 2 l , 2 :1 ,7 ,1 .8 ) .

t95-234
everyday,199-2U)
par excellence,199-200
schemasas private theory of, 7(i
rebelliousness.l9
reflex, stimulus-response
sequenceof,57
Reich,Walter,233
Reich,Wilhelm, l3l-32
Reichel,Bini, 228
Reiss,David, 165, 166-70
relationships,blind spotsin, l5fi157
repetition, L24
as penalty for repression,I lfi
repression, ll2-20
ofaggression,l19-20
anatomyof, ll9
broad use of, ll8
as "the compactgone awry,

lr5
d e fe n se m e ch a n i sm s vs., l l l J
defined, l12
emotional effects of . I 15. I l7
narrow sense of, l19-20
penalty for, 116
sublimation compare<l to, li I
"R e p r e ssi o n " ( Fr e u cl ) , I l 2 - l :l
resistance, I27
response, bias in, 6l-fi2
restaurant script, 198
r e ve r sa l ( r e a cti o n {i r r n r a ti o r r ) ,I 2 tl ,
123. 143
rewarcls, 102-3
Rerynol<ls,lJrrrt, l!)7
R o st'r r tl ta l ,Ii r l r t:r t, 2 I1 ) - J I
l i <tse r r tl tagl r o l r l ) , 2 l 1 ) - 2 |
r o t tti ttt's, l ttr l o r tu tti t', .sl r l r rr lo rrl r l r r '
r o r r l i tr <.s
fl r r r r r r 'l l r ;u 't.| ) ;r vi r l. i ( ;. i i
r ttn r i tu r l r o r r .'1 5 .,l l 'l

284 | ruorx
rural tran ce, 2I7 n
Rusk, Dean, 184, 185
Russell, Bertrand, 96

salesmen, self-deception of, 243

Salisbury, Harrison, 229
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 206, 207
Satir, Virginia,246
scapegoats, family, 172-73
Schachtel, Ernest, 156
Schatzman, Morton, 150-51
sche mas,22, 75- 84
activation of, 84,85
assumptions of, 76
attention's interaction with, 7991 , g2 - 93
connecti<lnsclf, 79
Detective's interpretive, 139
diversionar l' , 106- ll, 113, llo
emo tion s and, 8l- 82
"face," 78-79, 80
fbr frames, 198, 201
hyperactivation of, 82
illusory group, 185-89
la ng ua ges as , 200
metaschemas, 107
mindguards and, 187-88
of patients, 238
repair of, 238
repression and, 120
revlslo n ot , i D
se lf-,96 - l0l
sh are d by gr oups , 158, 161,
1 62 ,163, 164, 165, 166, 16g,
f- -

L7T,T82
for social roles, 207
stereotypes as, 77
synchroni zing of , 155-56
testirrg of,76-77
as theory, 76-77
"worry," 110
schizophrenia:
attentional breakdown in, 33-

34
in ch ildr en, 147
cl<luble-bincltheory ol. I 54-5,"r

rNDEx I ZBs
heightenedtoleranceof pain
i n,34-35
sl uggi sh,233
Schlesinger,Arthur, Jr., 184, 186,
197,l gg
Schreber,Daniel, 150-51
Schrodinger,Erwin, 7
Schutz,Alfred, 199
Schutz,Will,246
science,cognitivebias in, 97
scientific communi ty, 240
scripts,defined, 198
secrets:
D ostoyevskyon, 112
Happy Family and, 176-79
from oneself,112-16
security operations,104-5, 122123
automatism,122-23
selective inattention, 122, 123
seeing,looking vs., 80-81
selectiveinattention,I22, 123
self:
collective,23, 159-93
family, 163,165-70
self-control,Schreber'sviews on.
151
self-deception,23, 97-727
diversionaryschemasand, 106l l l ,113, l 16
induced by trade-offbetween
anxietyand awareness,2125
mi x of free w i l l and,20
virtues of,24I-43
seealso defensemechunisnrs;
deni al ;repressi on
self'-esteem,
98-100
group, 167
groupthink and, l8l-fJ2
hi gh,99, 100
l acunasand, 109-l o
l ow ,98-99, l (X ).l 0t)
s el f-i mage,102
s t' l fl systcrrr,
l X ' i -| O5
rts t'l rl l rl otl i r rr{ sr'l rr.rrrr,.'1)Fi
l l rrrri l r i rrl l u(,rr('(' orr. 1Xi . l (l o

need to evade anxiety as

organizing principle of, 104_

r05

schemasin. l0g-ll
as topographical chart of pain,

r09_10

totalitarian potential of, 96-g7.

r05

Selver, Charlotte, 2IJ-I4

S e l y e , H a n s,3 l - 3 2
semantics, in vital lies. l7
.sending capacity, 2lg-20
sensations, unbidden, 46
sensory signals, receiving vs.
registering, 58
sensory storage,5S
sentence, construction of. 33-34
Serpico, Frank,244
sex differences, in nonverbal
communication, 220_21. 222
sexual wishes. 126
repression ol llg-20
S h a l l i c e , T i m ,7 0
Shapiro, David, 133-34, 136-37,
l3g-39, 142
Shawn, Wally, 207-8
Shevrin, Howard, 86, l0g
Shipler, David, 229-80
shock:
escapable vs. inescapable, 3g
stress response and, 48
"Shoot-out at the OK Corral,
The," 145-46
.^ilence, conspiracy of , 214-lS.
224_30
Sirnmel, George, 217, 2Bg
S i r n o n , B a r n e y, 1 8
S i n r <l n ,H e r b e r t,6 8
Skinheads, conspiracy of silence
vs., 214-15
s l t 'r . p <l i s t rr r l l a n ce s,4 6
s n r o k i r r g ,g r o r r p th i n k a n <I,l fJ2 - g 3
t n r r k t 's , l i 'r tr o l , ti 2 , u i l
S r r v t l c r ',S o l o n r o r r ,l ]0 , l l l n
S r r c i r r /( ) o r t.slt- ttt.li o tt ttl ' Il t,u li t t1 ,
'l 'l t t ' ( l l r.r 'g r .r '
i l n ( | l ,r r ckl r l r r r r r ) .
t 1 ) 1 ) : ( X)

socialization:
of attention, 146, 150-55
of children, 213- 14,2ZI-22
socialorder,breachesofl 2tl212
social roles:
burial of self in,2O7
framesfor,206-g
one-dimensionalityof people
in, 206- 7
of stranger,23g
theater metaphor for, 2l I
tyranny of, 206, 207-8
socialservices,denial and,l77-

r78

socialsystems,survivalof.213
Solom ons,Leon, 69
Sorensen,Theodore,187
Soul Murder (Schatzman),f50-

15r

South Africa, vital lies in, l8

SovietUnion:
censorshipin, lg-20
forbidden inquiry in, 22g-30
lacuna researchin, l0g
political dissentersin, 233-84
psychiatryin,233-34
U.S.arms racewith,248
in World War II, l8
Spelke,Elizabeth,69-70
Spence,Donald, 107-8
spouseabuse,17, I 7G , 178
St alin,Joseph, 22g
staring,209
Starting Oaer, lg7
startle reactions,46
StateDepartment,U.S., lfiS
Stein,Gertrude,G8-69
stereotypes,77
in groupthink, ltiti-tjg, lgl
Stern,Daniel, 145-45, l,-r0,l,"r.lrr.
156
st ir nr r lr r s- r es1t <lr57
r sr ',
st nr ngerinr
, lt or t iur t ,ol,
r ' 2; ] lt , t t t
sl r css:
:r r r xi r .l vr r r r <l ,.l .l ,l ( i
cr r r l ,r r;r l r i r r sl l i g g cl r .r l Ir r ,.,l I

r '37

286 | rnnrx
stress (cont.\
options for short-circuiting of,
DJ

threat of pain as essenceof, 3l

stressresponse(generaladaptive
syndrome),3l-32, 4l-43
ACTH vs. endorphinsin,35-36
cognition in,46,47-50
dual link to attention of, 4l
prelude to, 48
threat and,4l-42, 47 -50
s ublim at io n .I2 I-2 2
subliminal material. 84-85
suicide,clues o{, 178
Sullivan,Harry Stack,102-5, L22123,124-25
superego,125
surgery,89-90,246-47
survival, fitnessfor, 37-38
Switzerland,anti-Semitismin,
225-26
S , J bil, 88
Szasz,Thomas,234n

tact,210-II,2I8,222
tennis, self-deceptionin, 243
t es t s :
Detective'sscoreon, 138
of family informationprocessing,168-70
textbooks,skewed reality in,226
theater,as metaphor for social
r oles ,2 I I
theory:
bending of factsto fit, 136, 138
schemascompared to, 76-77
therapists,role of, 238
Theroux, Paul, 2L4-L5
thought:
constricted,52
critical, 183, 186, 188
emotion'sconnectionto. 8l-82
em ot ionv s .,8 l n
persistent,uncontrollable,45
seealso cognition;mind

threat:
cognition of,46,47-50
Detective's expectation of, 137,

t42
reappraisal
of, 49, 50,52
to self-esteem,98
stressresponseand, 4l-42,4750
as subjective experience,4'7
time:
measured,cruelty of, 205
in sixteenth century, 204-s
T-lymphocytes,38n
Tolstoy, Leo,225
TonightWe lmprooise
(Pirandello),200
"Totalitarian Ego, The"
(Greenwald),96-98
totalitarian states,information
flow in, 23L-32
tradespeople,Sartreon
obligationsof,206
b transference,126
trauma, I13, I 17, 148
truth, lies vs., 244-5L
truth-telle r, 239-4O, 244, 247 -48
tumor growth, stressand, 38

UCLA, endorphin researchat, 38

unanimity illusion, 186-87, 188
uncertainty,222
novelty as essenceof, 4l
stressand. 4l
unconscious,21, 22, 238
activity, TO-72
denial and, 120
family, L7I,172-73
in Freud's model of mind, 5859,60,84
in groups,161, 163-64
perception and, 67-68, ti4-90
projectionand, 121
rationalizationarrrl.I 22
schenrus
i rr,22
as tri < ' kstcr'
)l..lI

United States:
China'srelationswith, 2'17
franknessin,2l0
public attention in, 201)
publishing in,232
Soviet arrnsrace with, 24li
textbooks in,226
in World War II, lll
U pdi ke,Jo hn, 20
trrbantrance,217

Vietnam war, devil's advttcates

in,247-48
visual system,lacunasand, 107-tl
vital lies, 16-19, 244-51
denial evident in, 16-17
role of semanticsin, 17
voice,tone of, leaksand,219-20

Wall StreetJournal, The,18-19

Watergate:
groupthink in, 180
heari ng s, 93- 95
We Bombed in Neut Haoen
(H el ler ) , 200
we-feeling,186
Weissberg,Michael, 176, I77-79
w heel i s,Allen, 249
whistle-blowers,244-45
whites,tendernesstoward blacks
repressedby, 18
Wiener, Norbert,9

wit . st , r ,, , , ; ; , ', ; ] , '

Wilt 'r r sky,I lit nr lt l,20lr
w i vt's, i tl l ttse tl , 1 7 6 , 1 7 8
wonritn schetnrrs,u l
w()nlen, n<lnverllul
commttnicatiotr rtntl, 220-2 I,

222
w o r k:
eff-ectsof Industriarl Rervolrttiott,

203-5
factory systemof, 203-4
fiamesfor,203-6
leisure integrated with, 203
in traditional societies,203
workers,recruitmentand morale
problemsof,205
world:
intersubjective,200
James'suse of, 199
World Health Organization,19
World War I, denial of trtrth in, ltl
World War II:
collusionto concealpainfirl
informatio n in, 225-26, 227228
denial of truth in, l8
Writers' Union, Soviet,19-20
writing, automatic,6!)

Yevtushenko,Yevgen.v,2130

Zuboff, Shoshana,204-fi. 2OfJ