Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2026

Two Moments That Changed How I See Authority

There are experiences that don't announce themselves as formative while they're happening. You don't feel the ground shift. You just notice, months or years later, that you are standing somewhere different than you were before -- and you trace it back.

Two things happened to me in the late 1970s at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington that I have written about separately over the years. A book I couldn't finish. A church I couldn't get out of fast enough. I've been thinking lately that they belong together, because they were teaching me the same lesson from opposite directions.


The Book

Picture the young man who would read that memoir.

I was a parachute rigger in the Strategic Air Command, working with B-52 bombers at a nuclear alert base in Spokane, WA. Fairchild AFB. I had a secret security clearance. I also had the longest hair on the base -- kept in something approaching regulation shape by a daily application of Dippity-Do hair gel, worn under my service cap until I got home and showered, mostly to wash off the JP-4 jet exhaust from packing drag chutes all day, partly to get my hair back to something resembling human. That annoyed my friends to no end as they had gotten $50 ticket for hair out of regs and had to -- and this really annoyed them -- pay for the haircut. 

To put this in perspective, I got awards for my work in the survival equipment shop, the parachute shop, which came with a three-day pass (not attached to the weekend -- WHY?), I received a Good Conduct medal. I wasn't a rabble rouser, but I questioned authority. At least internally. I got away with a lot. How? I read the manual. Literally. I knew what I could get away with and how far to go. When questioned, I'd state the regs and, I was always right (or I wouldn't do whatever it was). 

Think, when higher ups give you grief, and you say, "Fine, I'm packing these chutes 100% by the T.O." Technical Manual, which they knew would take forever. I wasn't a wise guy. I had a sense of humor, I was likeable. I made other people look good. I played the game. I think when I got out of the service, it broke our Shop Sergeant's heart, seriously. He told me he saw me as a son. I miss the guy. But I wasn't staying in. I got out and went to college.

When I turned twenty-one I bought my first legal handgun -- a Walther PPK/S .380, from a department store in Spokane. Great firearm. I'd had a .357 Magnum since I was eighteen, acquired from a friend in circumstances that were not exactly textbook legal (see The Teenage Bodyguard, an award winning screenplay). But the Walther was mine -- properly. The older gentleman in a suit looked at me across the store counter at -- a young guy, hair tool long for regs -- and said he didn't believe I was actually in the service. I showed him my USAF ID with security clearance. He said, "Okay, I believe you. But, how--? He spent a moment marveling at the hair while he completed the paperwork.

That was who picked up Westmoreland's book. Not a naive kid. Not a credentialed analyst. A young man who read the newspaper, watched the evening news, carried a concealed weapon legally, worked with nuclear weapons delivery systems, and had been listening for years to his older brother's friends -- seven years his senior -- who had come back from Vietnam with stories that often bore little resemblance to official accounts. 

Not My Lai level atrocities, but close enough to the edges of things to make a person skeptical. The Pentagon Papers had been public for several years by then. I hadn't read them cover to cover, but I had absorbed what they meant: that military leadership had been systematically misrepresenting the war to the American public while privately knowing better.

So, when I picked up General William Westmoreland's memoir when it came out, A Soldier Reports (Doubleday, 1976), I came to it with genuine respect. He was the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968. Whatever you thought of the war, the man had carried an enormous burden. I gave him every benefit of the doubt a young reader could give.

I signed up Vietnam era service. Delayed enlistment until there was a job opening for Law Enforcement. September 1975. That summer the war ended. I got all the war benefits on the G.I. Bill but they eventually recategorized me, Post Vietnam Era. 

So I got into Westmorland's book. And for a while, it worked. He wrote with authority and precision. He knew things I didn't. He was, by any measure, a subject matter expert.

But somewhere somewhere around the midway point, something shifted. The book began to construct a world I didn't recognize.

Westmoreland's argument, laid out with great confidence and considerable detail, was essentially this: the military had a sound strategy; the war was winnable; what went wrong was the failure of civilian leadership, the interference of politicians, the distortions of the press, and the damage done by the antiwar movement. 

The military, he contended, had been betrayed from within and from without. Victory had been stolen.

I remember the feeling of reading that and thinking: but I was there for this. Not in Vietnam -- but alive, paying attention, reading the news, talking to guys who just came back from there, mostly -- messed up guys. I knew about the body count metrics that Westmoreland had built his entire strategy around, already widely exposed as manipulated and strategically meaningless. I knew that the same Pentagon Papers documenting civilian failures also documented military leadership providing falsely optimistic assessments to Washington while privately knowing the picture was far darker. I knew what those B-52s I worked with had been doing over North Vietnam and Cambodia. I knew the guys who had worked on them other there. I worked with them every day.

Westmoreland wasn't lying in the way a con artist lies. I don't think he was cynical. I think he genuinely believed his version. That was almost scarier. He had taken the enormous complexity of a failed war -- a war with deep strategic contradictions, moral catastrophes, and institutional failures at every level -- and recast it as a story in which he and the military were the heroes, and everyone else was the villain. He hadn't written history. 

He had written mythology, dressed in the uniform of history.

I didn't have a word for it then. I do now. It's the stab-in-the-back thesis -- the same narrative structure that German militarists used after World War I, blaming civilian betrayal for military defeat, which fed directly into the conditions that produced Nazism. Applied to Vietnam, it became the founding myth of a certain kind of American right-wing grievance politics that is still very much with us.

What I knew, in my bones, before I had any of that language, was simpler: this doesn't add up, and he's asking me to forget what I already know in order to accept it. I wondered about the leadership above me at the time in the service, who were the same guys who were in Vietnam.

I put the book down.

That was when I discovered a theory. Conspiracy theory. Now when you have a theory of a group doing something unknown openly, and they are doing something bad, it may well be a conspiracy. They happen. Usually, they are uncovered for a variety of reason. One I noticed in the military. It doesn't run perfect, except through a lot of effort and determination. That's doing good things. If those were bad things? Different animal altogether. 

THAT'S what the conspiracy theorists of today don't seem to comprehend.

I started studying not the conspiracy itself, but the nature of conspiracy thinking. Rather than diving into Westmoreland's specific claims and trying to refute them one by one -- which is the rabbit hole -- I started asking: how does this kind of argument work? What are the structural features that tell you something has gone from analysis to mythology? My older brother, encountering the same kind of thing, tended to defer to the expert. I went the other direction. Trust but verify. I became interested in the architecture of false certainty. 

Also, it explains a lot about how I think. How I later ended up at university getting a psychology degree as what my department advisor professor had said (and I questioned him on this, but he thought about it and said that, yes, he was sure), I was one of the top psychology undergrads at any university in the nation. Damn. I mean, cool.

Anyway, that mental divergence has shaped everything I've written about politics since.


The Church

About a year or two after I set down Westmoreland's book, I was at the base gym as my friend in the shop with me and I did daily. One day racquetball. Next day, weightroom. We'd gotten friendly with the equipment room attendant over borrowing equipment from the gym (don't remember now, what?) -- the usual slow accumulation of gym friendship, guy talk, nothing remarkable. We made one another laugh. He seemed, cool. Normal. Mostly was.

Then one day he asked if I wanted to come to his church. He said I could bring my wife. My friend could come too (he begged off immediately). He also said later, I could bring my gun.

That last part was odd enough that I decided to actually bring it, obviously to carry concealed -- the Walther PPK/S -- which I was legally entitled to do. Something about the invitation had put me on alert without quite articulating why. Go to church -- with a gun. Not the old Slovak Catholic church I had grown up going to, had been head altar boy at. 

He picked us up at my house and drove us out of Spokane on a Sunday morning, his wife with him, my wife and me in the back of his, what passed back then for an SUV. We crossed the state line into Idaho. I got nervous and asked about it. He said not to worry -- no concealed carry permit required in Idaho, and where we were going it wouldn't be an issue. Crossing the state line was only peripherally on my mind, why were we leaving the STATE?

But still. I held a secret security clearance. I worked with nuclear weapons delivery systems. I was crossing a state line carrying a weapon, heading to an unknown location. The math on that was not comfortable. Being in the service changes things legally for a military person. Breaking any law with a secret clearance is worse, with nuclear weapons clearance, much worse. he didn't have that. It never occurred to me about that disparity, honestly, until right now -- as I write this.

The compound was in the hills of Idaho. Locked gate. He had to call on a phone out of a box by the gate. Someone came down, unlocked the gate, let us drive and, locked the gate, and followed us up. We saw a traditional church with a steeple. A well in the center of the property. Several men in grey uniforms designed to look just different enough from Nazi uniforms that you technically couldn't call them Nazi uniforms -- except for the salute, which was identical. When I noted the resemblance, they were offended. "We're not Nazis!" (no, neo-Nazis, maybe)

The name of the organization was the Church of Our American Christian Heritage. I'll never forget it. I have since learned to treat any church name containing the words "American" or "Heritage" as a yellow flag. A church that has all the answers is another. I'm reminded of the last episode of The Boys, on Amazon Prime, where head sociopathic superhero Homelander has gone off the deep end and started the "Democratic Church of America." With Homelander himself as head, not as leader, literally as -- God.

But I digress... 

Their national leader had come up from Georgia specifically to speak that Sunday. He didn't know my wife and I were there as complete outsiders. Newbies. He didn't filter himself. He let loose -- a full accounting of their beliefs, their grievances, their vision of a purified nation, their contempt for nonwhites, their specific disgust at Vancouver, B.C., which apparently represented for him a kind of living offense against nature and civilization. The old ladies of the congregation were the most virulent true believers in the room.

Let me be clear about Vancouver, British  Columbie, Canada. I've been there and Victoria, on Vancouver Island since I was a kid, with my family. I love it there. Love Canada, like a cousin, or a brother even. I was OFFENDED, right off. 

My wife spent the entire service sitting close to me, gripping my sleeve hard enough to nearly tear it from the shoulder, occasionally leaning close to whisper urgently: Get us out of here. 

I heard my sleeve rip twice by the shoulder seam. Once in church, once as we were headed out of church.

The older woman in the back surrounded us and oh my God, I'd never met old people, anyone that racist. The national leader came up and introduced himself. Big smile. He apologized for cutting loose like that. He was just told we were new. 

I smiled and shook his hand and said, "No, I'm glad you did. Good to hear exactly what you believe." I braced myself for his reading my meaning, if not sarcasm. I mean, I was being honest. The next second was interminable. Then he broke into a huge smile (it worked). He had decided he liked us a LOT.

We got out as soon as we could. Services were over. We all made out goodbyes, and my "friend" drove us home. We made small talk along the way, did all we could to keep him and his wife at ease -- he talked about getting together again. He dropped us at home and drove off smiling and waving. 

The next day I considered reporting him and his group to the base authorities. They needed to know about this. I told my racquetball friend in the shop that day. He said he'd drop by after work at my house. 

When he stopped by that afternoon, he had thought about it. He got me alone and talked to me about what he had come up with. He did his best to talk me out of telling anyone on base anything. I wasn't having it. 

Until. He pointed something out, reasonably and chillingly. "They picked you guys up here yesterday morning?" "Yes." "They dropped you off -- here." "Yes." "So Those people know exactly where you both live. And when your wife would be home alone?" "Uh, yeah..."

I never went back to that window at the gym to get equipment. Neither did he. From then on, we brought our own. We never spoke to him again. Not long after, we noticed he wasn't around the gym anymore and we wondered about that, for a very long time.


What They Had In Common

It was a general construction of an alternate history -- of a war. They were a quasi-military white nationalist congregation in the Idaho hills. On the surface, very different things.

But the underlying structure was identical.

Both were communities of people who had taken real grievances -- about the war, about social change, about lost certainty -- and converted them into a sealed explanatory system that could not be falsified. In both cases, the complexity of the actual world had been replaced by a story with clear heroes and villains. In both cases, outside information was not evidence to be weighed -- it was enemy propaganda to be rejected. In both cases, belonging to the group meant accepting the story, and the story protected the group from reality.

The difference was one of degree, not of kind.

Westmoreland's version was respectable, credentialed, published by Doubleday, reviewed in major newspapers. The Idaho congregation's version came with grey uniforms and a compound with a well and a sheriff who wouldn't come onto the property. They passed newsletters about their grievances; there was no internet back then to help a subculture such as they were explode upon the American psyche. 

But they were running the same cognitive operating system. Wounded certainty, calcified into mythology, defended against all comers.

I didn't know then that I was watching the seedbed of what would eventually become the American political landscape of the 2010s and 2020s. The stab-in-the-back Vietnam narrative fed directly into a politics of grievance and betrayal that never fully went away. The Christian nationalist militia movements of the inland Northwest were not anomalies -- they were early iterations of something that would eventually find mainstream political expression. 

I didn't know at the time about the confederates who after the Civil War had migrated up to the Pacific Northwest and made a new home free of the government for the most part in the east of Oregan, the east of Washington state, and in Idaho. Especially in the back hills, the back roads, the roads less travelled certainly by government officials. 

My late older right wing MaGA brother now gone about a month (miss ya big guy, sad as our interactions were this last decade of the Trump infection), had moved years ago to Home, across Puget Sound via the Narrows Bridge, the other side of Highway 16 from Gig Harbor. It's a community on the Key Peninsula and borders the waters of Carr Inlet, an extension of Puget Sound.

He had told me that those citizens who had enough of the "bullshit of Tacoma government" had moved there and called it "Home" because it wasn't Tacoma, it was, home.

What protected me about this kind of mind worm dynamic, I think, was not superior intelligence or education -- I was a young enlisted man without a college degree, smelling of JP-4 jet fuel exhaust by mid-morning after packing B-52 drag chutes, with my longish hair shellacked under my service cap, "white walls" of shaved skin surrounding my ears to put on a good show for the annoying "lifers", but not so much the "career enlisted" (who we differentiated, as they were just trying to get through to retire one day but not thoroughly "ate up" like some old codgers were). 

What protected me was a combination of things: a grandmother who taught me that books demanded honesty, and to finish one when you started it; an older brother's friends who told me what Vietnam actually looked like from the ground; a willingness to trust my own perception when it told me something didn't add up; and the crucial decision to study the form of bad thinking rather than just the content of any specific claim.

You cannot fact-check your way out of a mythology. The mythology has already inoculated its believers against facts. 

What you can do is recognize the architecture -- the sealed system, the designated enemy, the unfalsifiable narrative, the group that has all the answers -- and decline to enter.

I learned that from a book I couldn't finish and a church I couldn't leave fast enough.

Both were trying to sell me a story in exchange for my grip on reality.

I kept the grip.


Related posts: - A Book I Couldn't Finish – And How It Taught Me About Truth, Authority, and Conspiracy Thinking (January 2026) - Church and Guns (May 2016) - Conspiracy Theories – Incompetence More Than Insight? (April 2014) - America's Dezinformatsiya and компрометирующий (August 2019)


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

JZ Murdock is a filmmaker and author based in Bremerton, Washington. His novel Death of Heaven was honored with the New York City Big Book Award for Horror. His film Pvt. Ravel's Bolero has been lauded worldwide with many international festival awards. The film companion book is forthcoming.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi.

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

When a “Bear-Trap Memory” Meets Reality:

 Why Some Minds Remember Exceptionally Well — Until They Don’t

But before that, Happy New Year's Eve! Tonight the world stands in a hush between shadows and light, as if the passing year lingers like a fading ghost at the threshold of time. We'll make it in the new year. We always do. Better times are ahead. Trust the horror storyteller... 

As the last light of the year settles and the world pauses between what has been and what will be, we find ourselves drawn to memory. Not simply to remember, but to listen. Memory whispers in quiet rooms and crowded streets alike, reminding us of beginnings, endings, and all the fragile moments that shaped us along the way. 

It is the storyteller of our lives, weaving meaning through time, insisting that the past still belongs to us, even as we step toward what comes next. Yet memory is not carved into stone. It breathes. It shifts. It grows along with us. On this final day of the year, it is worth asking what we truly carry forward, and how faithfully memory reflects the truth we believe it holds.

Now, moving on...

Most of us grow up believing memory is a personal archive: events go in, details stay preserved, and time simply clouds the edges. But for some people, memory has historically worked very differently. Their experiential recollections have been astonishingly accurate across decades, repeatedly verified by photographs, witnesses, and records. These are the people who can describe a room they stood in forty years ago, a conversation line for line, or the spatial layout of a childhood neighborhood as if they were there yesterday.

Then something happens later in life.

One or two deeply trusted memories are proven objectively wrong — not by interpretation, but by cold, unambiguous evidence. For those used to trusting their minds unquestioningly, this experience can feel shocking. Almost destabilizing.

Yet, there is nothing mystical happening in either phase — the extraordinary reliability or the later surprises. Both are fully explainable in terms of how human memory systems evolve across a lifetime.

This is how that works.


Why Some People Remember Life With Surgical Precision

It is not about “intelligence”

Highly accurate autobiographical memory is rooted less in IQ and more in encoding strength. Memories solidify when the brain:

• devotes full attention
• assigns strong personal meaning
• attaches emotional significance
• stores rich contextual detail

The hippocampus does not simply record information. It decides what deserves permanent neural real estate. When the amygdala signals emotional relevance, encoding becomes more robust.

People whose lives push them into sustained vigilance, precise thinking, or high-consequence awareness often encode experience more deeply. Their brains treat lived reality as mission-critical data.


ADHD: Not Weak Attention — Selective Attention

One misunderstood factor strengthens this further: ADHD.

Contrary to stereotype, many ADHD brains possess intensely powerful memory encoding, but only when the experience is meaningful, interesting, personal, or emotionally important. Boring tasks? Poor recall. Real-world, emotionally infused life? Razor-sharp detail.

The result is paradoxical but consistent:

Routine school work may fade.
Lived events can remain crystal clear decades later.

This is not malfunction.
It is a different priority architecture.


Reflection Turns Memory Into Infrastructure

Another key factor is mental rehearsal.

People who repeatedly reflect on experience — consciously or unconsciously — strengthen memory through reconsolidation. This happens when someone frequently:

• revisits old experiences in thought
• analyzes life events
• builds internal narratives
• constructs understanding out of experience

Each “replay” reinforces the neural trace. Over time, this creates not just memory, but memory architecture — deeply structured personal history that feels immovable because it has been reinforced thousands of times.

Not everyone does this. Many people live forward without much internal processing. Those who reflect intensively build highly stable experiential memory systems almost by accident.


But Then Something Changes

Years later, after a lifetime of trusting that memory as reality, a few long-held recollections fail objective verification. Not “someone remembers it differently” wrong — but “documentation proves it impossible” wrong.

This is where the shock happens.

Yet the explanation is not “decline.”
It is simply biology doing what biology does.


Memory Is Not Storage. It Is a Living System.

Every time we recall a memory, the brain does not “play back a file.”
It rewrites it.

This is called reconsolidation.

Memory is updated continuously to match a person’s emotional state, self-understanding, beliefs, and life perspective. Over years — or decades — small edits accumulate. The broad emotional truth often remains intact, but fine structural detail may drift.

Confidence, however, does not drift with it.
Confidence remains stable even when accuracy slowly shifts.

So when a highly reliable mind discovers a false memory late in life, it feels like betrayal. In reality, it is the system performing as designed.


Memory Prioritizes Meaning, Not Literal Accuracy

Human memory evolved for survival and adaptation, not historical record-keeping. Over time, the brain optimizes for:

• coherence
• identity stability
• emotional meaning
• psychological continuity

It keeps what matters most functionally. It may gradually adjust details that seem less essential to the internal story of “who I am” and “what my life has been.”

Reflective people — the very ones who once built iron-clad detail — are also the ones who recall the most frequently. Ironically, the strength of their memory can accelerate subtle reshaping, because every recall is another rewrite.


Aging Does Not Automatically Mean Decline

None of this requires cognitive deterioration to explain. This is not memory failure. It is:

• adaptive psychological processing
• narrative evolution
• the normal biological outcome of decades of thought

The system remains powerful.
It simply behaves as a living system, not a vault.


The Takeaway

Extraordinary autobiographical memory exists.
It is built from:

• deep encoding
• emotional salience
• meaningful life engagement
• repeated reflection
• attentional traits like ADHD
• lifetime cognitive habits

When such minds discover that a few long-trusted memories are wrong decades later, it may feel catastrophic. In truth, it confirms something important:

The brain was never a recording device.
It was always an adaptive machine.

And an adaptive machine updating itself is not failing.
It is doing exactly what it evolved to do.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Monday, December 1, 2025

Verblendung in America: How MAGA Became a Case Study in Self-Destructive Faith

There’s a German word I’ve always found unnervingly precise: Verblendung.

It literally means blinding — not of the eyes, but of the mind.

 


Philosophers of the Frankfurt School used it to describe a state where people embrace the very forces working against them, convinced they’re choosing liberation when they are, in fact, choosing their own undoing.

And if there’s ever been a modern American example, it’s the MaGA movement.

The Psychology of Choosing Ruin as Salvation

Another German term applies here: Selbsttäuschung — self-deception.
The internal trick in which a destructive path is reframed as the only path, and a harmful leader becomes the source of all hope.

Combine these, and you get a political psychology that looks like this:

  • Believe the chaos is strength.

  • Believe the pain you feel was caused by everyone except the person inflicting it.

  • Believe the dismantling of institutions is patriotism.

  • Believe that the person who breaks things is the only one who can fix them.

This isn’t new in history. But the speed with which it spread — and the fervor with which it is defended — feels new.

False Heroes, False Salvation

Marx and Engels called it Falsches Bewusstsein:
the belief that your oppressor is your protector, that your harm is your healing.

It’s the mindset in which:

  • A billionaire who exploited labor becomes the champion of the working class.

  • A man who undermines democracy becomes the defender of “freedom.”

  • A leader who repeatedly abandons his followers becomes the one they’d “take a bullet for.”

This inversion of reality is exactly what philosophers meant by Verblendung.
The blindness is ideological — and emotional.

The Death Drive of a Movement

Freud’s Todestrieb, the death drive, describes the unconscious pull toward self-destruction.
Not because we consciously want collapse, but because collapse has been reframed as a kind of deliverance.

In this sense, MAGA is not just political.
It’s psychological.

It’s mythological.

It’s religious.

And it’s dangerous precisely because its adherents genuinely believe they are choosing the good, the righteous, the patriotic — even as the consequences fracture the nation around them.

What Happens When Verblendung Becomes National Identity?

When a movement convinces its followers that only one man can save them — and that every institution, expert, ally, court, journalist, and official who contradicts him is corrupt — you get a perfect storm of:

  • Isolation

  • Dependency

  • Martyrdom fantasies

  • Distrust of reality itself

This is Verblendung writ large:
a self-sustaining blindness, defended as truth.

The Final Paradox

The tragedy is that the people most hurt by MAGA’s policies are often the ones most loyal to the project.

They are, in the philosophical sense, worshipping the idol that devours them.

Nietzsche warned about this:

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.”

America’s modern political paradox is different but related:

Beware worshipping a savior who thrives on the chaos that destroys you.

So we likely have a choice. Dump Trump. Or we all go down with him. 

I'll just wait here while we decide...

 Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!7


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Friday, October 31, 2025

Author Signing - Port Orchard, Washington, Olympic Peninsula - Halloween - October 31, 2025

Happy Halloween!


Have a fun, safe and sane holiday!

Today, I have an author event in Port Orchard, Washington. This is the next town over from me here in Bremerton. I prepared something to say…but as it turned out, it's going to be just an author signing. Still, I wasn't sure at first, so I prepared something to say just in case I was asked to...

Deity, Dogma, and Misperception in Death of Heaven

2024 New York City Big Book Award Winner for Horror
Cover art by Marvin Hayes

When I wrote *Death of Heaven* in 2012, my intention — other than simply to entertain — was to explore how we as human beings misunderstand reality. This is something that goes back to my university degree in psychology, concentrating in phenomenology.

How, when we encounter something beyond our understanding, we invent stories about it. We build beliefs, and from those beliefs we construct entire systems — religions, moral codes, even ideas of good and evil — all to make sense of what we’ve seen or felt, even when we don’t truly understand it.

To very poorly paraphrase what someone once said:

“Given enough time, humans will turn almost anything into a religion.”

Thus, Longevity + Repetition = Institutionalization, or Religion.

In 1769 Voltaire said:

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

Hanif Abdurraqib (said more recently):

“With enough repetition, anything can become a religion.”

Terry Pratchett, in Small Gods more or less said:

“If enough people believe, you can be god of anything,” i.e., belief over time/in numbers begets religion.

Eric Hoffer, American moral and social philosopher best known for his book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements published in 1951, is often cited when discussing how long-lived movements harden into institutions:

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Finally, the great Doug Adams of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy fame:

“I am fascinated by religion. (That’s a completely different thing from believing in it!) … What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it?”

He also said:

“Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever … really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not.’ Why not? Because you’re not!”

For millennia, we humans believed the heavens revolved around us. That misperception wasn’t just an error — it became the organizing myth of civilization. From it grew:

-astronomy and mathematics (as early cultures tried to predict divine “movements” of the stars),

-architecture and art (temples and cathedrals aligned with celestial bodies),

-philosophy and theology (Aristotle, Ptolemy, Aquinas), and

-a moral worldview placing humanity at the center of creation.

Leaving that belief was painful. We murdered people over questioning it.

Every time humanity sheds an old illusion, it feels like dying a little. We fought to keep the Earth at the center of the universe; we silenced people for saying otherwise. But the truth didn’t care. It just waited. And that’s the same struggle my characters face in Death of Heaven — when reality refuses to match belief, but rather than belief fighting back...reality wins. And it’s horrifying.

This book wasn’t about denying religion, it wasn’t an attempt to destroy religion, rather it simply tries to point out just how often we misperceive reality.

That’s what *Death of Heaven* is really about. It’s horror, yes — to be sure, it’s adult horror, but not just in the sense of monsters or the supernatural.

It’s about the horror of realizing how fragile our understanding of existence might be... while reality is attacking us and allowing us no time to assimilate the new paradigm of reality.

The story follows people who experience things far beyond what they or anyone, can comprehend, and rather than accept the unknown, they interpret it through the only framework they have through their lived experiences: belief.

They assign meaning. They have to. And so they create gods out of confusion and terror, as humans have always done.

To me, that’s what’s fascinating — and frightening. We think of dogma as something ancient or religious, but it’s actually a very human reflex. We do it constantly, even today: we fill in the blanks when reality doesn’t make sense.

Both to our benefit and detriment.

The universe, in its enormity, doesn’t explain itself — and that silence is intolerable to us. We are pattern recognizers and so we assign the most obvious pattern to what we do not understand.

So we name it. We worship it. We fear it. We give it purpose, even when that purpose may never have existed.

In *Death of Heaven*, that instinct to explain — to create meaning — becomes both the source of our strength and the root of our tragedy. Because if our gods and our certainties are born from misunderstanding, then what happens when the truth finally arrives and refuses to fit those stories? What happens when heaven dies — not in the sky, but inside us, in the collapse of our own convictions?

So while I wrote it as a piece of speculative horror, it’s really an exploration of perception. Of how much of our reality is shaped by the stories we tell ourselves to survive. And maybe, just maybe, what we call divinity — or evil — isn’t divine or evil at all, but simply the way the universe looks when we see it through human eyes.

But what might happen in the sequel to the book? Once the entire world cannot deny that reality is not what we believed? Many will continue on. Some will not be able to and perhaps mass suicides will ensue. But many will not be able to deny what they had just lived through and will have to reinvent their perceived universe.

That’s the world I wanted to explore — not to deny belief, but to question how belief begins.

How much of what we hold sacred comes from something real, and how much from our own inability to accept what’s truly unknown? For me, that’s where both the horror and the wonder live — in that fragile space between what we think we know and what reality might actually be.

So, we can talk about that. You don’t need to have read the book — I’m more interested in people’s thoughts.

What do *you* think heaven is — or perhaps more appropriately...what happens when we realize it isn’t what we thought, and never was?


So there it is…Have a great and safe Halloween!

One more comment...

Happy Halloween, Creatures of the Night! 🩸

The veil’s thin, the moon’s high, and somewhere a chainsaw just revved for its final time.

Tonight isn’t about candy...It’s about carnage, creativity, and the macabre stories that keep our hearts pounding long after the lights go out.

Not just the terror of anticipation, or the horror of the moment—
but the lingering echo of tales gone dark and disturbing.

The kind that crawl back into your mind when the night’s gone quiet.

The kind that makes you check the lock… twice. 🔪

Whether you’re covered in fake blood or hiding behind your screen watching your favorite final fight back, remember: horror isn’t just a genre but a lifestyle. When you hear that click in the distant dark while reading, while watching...it's not real, remember, it's not real... just keep reading, just keep watching.

Stay twisted, my friends, stay safe...but if you hear that knock after midnight…

Well... maybe just don’t answer. 👀

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Friday, October 24, 2025

Synesthesia and Schizophrenia: Forty Years Later — What Science Finally Found

In 1983–84, as an undergraduate psychology student, I wrote a paper that stunned my seminar professor and left my classmates speechless. It proposed something no one in the room had heard before: that schizophrenia might be better understood through the filter of synesthesia — and, conversely, that studying synesthesia might illuminate the mysteries of schizophrenia. I wrote about this in a previous blog: How My Synesthesia–Schizophrenia Paper Anticipated Modern Research

At the time, both conditions were poorly understood. Schizophrenia research was dominated by dopamine models and behaviorist frameworks; synesthesia was still treated as a curiosity, something that existed more in the world of art than neuroscience. The two were rarely, if ever, mentioned in the same breath. My argument, presented in that seminar room, was that both conditions shared something deeper: atypical neural cross-activation, altered sensory integration, and the potential to reveal how the human brain constructs reality itself.

My professor told me afterward that psychologists spend their entire careers searching for a course of study, and that I had found one as an undergraduate. I didn’t realize until much later how true that was. For decades, my paper sat quietly — later made available online and now on Amazon as On Psychology: With an Illustration in Psychopathology via Synesthesia and Schizophrenia. And now, nearly forty years later, I’m seeing the very connections I outlined then begin to appear in neuroscience journals.

Also, on Academia.com.


Where Science Has Caught Up

1. Shared Genetic Susceptibility

In 2023, a Nature Translational Psychiatry twin and genome study found evidence of overlapping genetic and environmental factors between synesthesia and schizophrenia. The researchers stopped short of claiming causation but noted that both conditions may involve similar neurodevelopmental pathways. This echoes what I speculated decades ago — that these two seemingly opposite phenomena might stem from the same underlying architecture of perception.

2. Perceptual Gains and Losses

A 2021 study in Schizophrenia Bulletin compared synesthetes, schizophrenia patients, and neurotypical controls. The findings were striking: synesthetes showed enhanced top-down perception — strong, consistent sensory expectations — while individuals with schizophrenia displayed weakened top-down control and an overreliance on raw sensory input. One could think of synesthesia as perception enriched, and schizophrenia as perception unmoored. This dynamic, between structured and chaotic perceptual worlds, was exactly the kind of comparative insight I argued could advance our understanding of both.

3. Psychosis-Proneness and Cross-Modal Experience

In 2016, a Psychiatry Research study observed that people high in psychosis-proneness reported more synesthetic or pseudo-synesthetic experiences. These experiences were not pathological, but they blurred the line between creative and psychotic perception. This supports the idea that cross-modal sensory connections exist on a continuum — and that what we call pathology may, in some cases, be an intensified form of ordinary human variation.

4. Epidemiological Correlation

The Genetics of Synesthesia Project at the University of Edinburgh found an elevated rate of schizophrenia among people with grapheme-color synesthesia. While it’s not a causal link, it reinforces that these conditions may share predispositions — like overlapping circuitry or neurotransmitter sensitivity — rather than existing as unrelated anomalies.

5. Integrative Models of Perception

More recently, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (2022) proposed a circular inference model suggesting that hallucinations and synesthesia might arise from similar predictive coding mechanisms — how the brain balances sensory input with expectation. In essence, when that balance tips too far in either direction, the world either becomes too tightly bound (synesthesia) or too unstable (schizophrenia).


What It Means (and Doesn’t)

These findings don’t mean synesthesia causes schizophrenia, or that one leads to the other. That was never my contention. Rather, they support the notion that both emerge from the same underlying human machinery — perceptual integration, neural connectivity, and the brain’s delicate dance between sensation and interpretation. One condition stabilizes meaning where there might be none; the other unravels meaning where there should be structure. Studying both together allows us to see the architecture of consciousness from two opposing angles.

When I first wrote about this, I described the two as mirrors — each reflecting an extreme of perceptual experience. Modern neuroscience, in its own language, is now describing that same mirror: a shared substrate, expressed through different outcomes of connectivity and control.


Why It Matters

Understanding these parallels could reshape how we view not just mental illness, but creativity and perception itself. The continuum from ordinary imagination to artistic synesthesia to pathological hallucination may not be a divide at all, but a spectrum of how the brain constructs reality. This perspective challenges the way we draw lines between health and disorder, or between creative brilliance and madness.

For psychology, it’s an invitation to reexamine how perception becomes meaning. For neuroscience, it’s a map of how small shifts in feedback loops can tip the mind between clarity and chaos. And for me — it’s a kind of closure. 

That stunned silence in my senior seminar on abnormal psychology in 1984 has finally found its echo in today’s research journals. I just wish I could have gotten it out there decades sooner.


References

  1. Powers, A.R. et al. (2021). Perceptual gains and losses in synesthesia and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 47(3):722–731.

  2. Banissy, M.J. et al. (2023). Genetic and environmental contributions to the link between synesthesia and psychiatric traits. Translational Psychiatry 13(1).

  3. van Leeuwen, T.M. et al. (2016). Synesthetic experiences and psychosis proneness: shared perceptual styles. Psychiatry Research, 238:293–300.

  4. University of Edinburgh, Genetics of Synesthesia Project (2020). Schizophrenia and Synaesthesia.

  5. Bouvet, L. et al. (2022). From hallucinations to synaesthesia: a circular inference model of perception. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 139:104735.

  6. Murdock, J.Z. (1984). On Psychology: With an Illustration in Psychopathology via Synesthesia and Schizophrenia; with Some Notes on Field Theory, Albert’s Mind, and the Status Quo: The Necessity of Contextualism in Psychology. LgN Productions (reissued together in 2012, also on Academia.com).

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT


Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Ignored in 1984: How My Synesthesia–Schizophrenia Paper Anticipated Modern Research

In 1983–84, as a senior psychology student at Western Washington University, I presented a paper in my abnormal psychology seminar titled Synesthesia and Schizophrenia. What followed was one of the most memorable moments of my academic life: silence. 


My classmates stared, looking confused, uncertain of what to say. My professor stared down at the round table where were all seated around, deeply lost in thought. We sat there for too long a time until it was uncomfortable. No one spoke.

Finally, I broke the silence to ask, had I said something wrong? Our professor had a few false starts to say something, then looked up at me seeing the concern on my face. Realizing my duress, he said, "No, nothing is wrong. I just never heard of that before. Psychologists often spend their entire careers searching for a seminal line of study, and here you have found one as an undergraduate."

The idea was simple, but radical at the time: schizophrenia might be better understood through the “filter” of synesthesia, a non-pathological perceptual condition where senses blend (such as seeing colors when hearing sounds). I argued that comparing these conditions—one non-pathological, one pathological—could illuminate each other’s mechanisms. It was an attempt to bridge cognitive, neurological, and perceptual processes in a way that had not yet been considered.

I gave it a few weeks, considering if I shouldn't take up this study after graduating. To be a research psychologist. In the end I decided I wanted a career eventually in computers and creative arts. As it turned out, computers paid, the Arts, not so much. Something I came to understand more so after leaving IT and making a go of it in the Arts. Something I'm still working through although finally, I am actually making some progress. 

However, I will always feel I let many down in not going into that study of my own devising because it long lay fallow. For decades, nothing seemed to be getting done on it. My paper lived in obscurity. Until one day, with the advent of the internet, I realized I could, and I should, put it online. Just tin order o get it out there. So, I made it freely available online for years. 

On one site, I checked one day and noticed that it had logged over 800 downloads. Some years later I put it up for sale on Amazon and Smashwords (see below), combining it with another paper I’d delivered in class on contextualism in science and psychology along with the history of psychology. I had titled it: 

Notes on Albert's Mind, Field Theory and Contextualism.

Then it occurred to me that rather than this seeding research, for some it may merely have been downloaded by lazy students for an “easy grade” in plagiarizing it. And that made me sad. 

Over the decades since I presented the paper, I didn't see much about the topic until more recently when some considerations of it were to be seen in the professional literature. I didn't think it was due to my paper, just that research had finally caught up with the concept. 

Today indeed, research is catching up. Here are some of the ideas from my 1984 paper, alongside modern findings.


Excerpts from 1984 & Modern Resonance

1. Synesthesia as a Lens on Schizophrenia

“This paper is directed towards seeing the schizophrenic person through the ‘filter’ of a ‘normal’ condition known as synesthesia. Various mental and neural mechanisms are pointed to; some similar to both schizophrenia and synesthesia.”

Modern Echo: In 2021, an article in Schizophrenia Bulletin (“Perceptual Gains and Losses in Synesthesia and Schizophrenia”) argued precisely this: that both conditions reflect unusual perceptual integration and can illuminate one another.


2. Plasticity and Neural Pathways

“There is no reason why these ‘extra’ neural cells and pathways cannot be utilized: to either result in schizophrenic behavior, or that of a condition like synesthesia; as the ‘patient’ directs and orchestrates his brain, perhaps unwittingly, to avoid ‘normal’ channels of operation.”

Modern Echo: Contemporary neuroimaging has confirmed that both synesthetes and people with schizophrenia show atypical connectivity. Research into cross-activation theory and disinhibited feedback now describes neural pathways similar to what I speculated about decades ago.


3. Synesthesia as Normal Variant, Not Defect

“Synesthesia was no longer considered to be an indication of a deranged or abnormal mind. Surely then, if it is not defective, it must be normal… Studying these systems can enrich the understanding of the processes of the schizophrenic person.”

Modern Echo: Synesthesia is now firmly established as a non-pathological trait, validated through genetics, neuroimaging, and cognitive studies. It is explicitly used as a research model for atypical perceptual processing.


4. Hallucinations vs. Synesthetic Percepts

“A synesthete feels in control, a schizophrenic does not. A schizophrenic has hallucinations and/or delusions; synesthetics could be similar to hallucinations, but only to delusions if it got out of control…”

Modern Echo: Recent work (2022, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews) proposes a continuum between hallucinations, synesthesia, and delusions, noting precisely the difference I emphasized: synesthesia is consistent and controllable, hallucinations intrusive and distressing.


5. Cognition and Physiology Intertwined

“So it does appear that vision, synesthesia, and also perhaps, schizophrenia, are at least somewhat cognitive in nature. However, there may still be physiologically related causative factors involved.”

Modern Echo: Today, models explicitly integrate cognition, physiology, and genetics. Twin studies (2023, Nature Translational Psychiatry) suggest overlapping factors between synesthesia and schizophrenia susceptibility.


Why This Matters

Looking back, I see my undergraduate paper as an early glimpse of a path science would only begin exploring decades later. In 1984, my proposal was seen as shocking. By the 2010s, researchers were finally asking the same kinds of questions, supported by genetic studies, brain imaging, and perceptual experiments.

I don’t claim priority for the field. I was just a student. But I do claim this: in a quiet seminar room in 1984, I stumbled into an idea that would take decades for psychology and neuroscience to seriously engage. And the stunned silence of my peers and professor that day told me I had found something worth holding onto.


Closing Thoughts

The story of that paper isn’t just about being “right too early.” It’s about how ideas can live underground, ignored or borrowed without attribution, until the scientific tools and climate catch up. It’s also about how creative leaps often come from outsiders, students, or those not yet entrenched in disciplinary orthodoxies.

I still have that original paper. It’s been downloaded hundreds of times, perhaps plagiarized for quick grades, perhaps read with genuine interest. And now, finally, I see research catching up with a thought I had as a 20-something undergraduate.


The now combined (Synesthesia/Schizophrenia and Notes on Albert, etc.) paper is available on Amazon or Smashwords. Cover art by Marvin Hayes.

Or as an audiobook on Audible/Amazon. 

Excuse the reading of the source references at the ends of some sentences. This was necessary because, for the audiobook to sync properly with the ebook, the text has to be identical in both formats. That way, a reader/listener can switch seamlessly from listening in transit to reading later. Still, it felt strange at times to read out a string of names in the middle of a paragraph, as is often done in academic and scientific papers.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT






Tuesday, September 9, 2025

Why Some Memories Last a Lifetime (and Others Fade Away)

I can remember things from as far back as 18 months old. My mother confirmed the details when I asked her about those memories years later. That fact has always fascinated me, because not everyone can reach so far back. Some people remember very little from childhood. Why?

One thing I noticed between my older sister and I were that our lifestyles were different. She was a career flight attendant flying the world, always busy. While I had jobs, certainly early on, with a lot of time for reflection. I remember a lot, and I'm known for that in my family, about our history we lived. My sister doesn't. She was very social, I wasn't. 


Childhood Amnesia and Early Recall

Most people experience childhood amnesia: the natural fading of memories from before about age three or four. The brain simply isn’t fully equipped yet — the hippocampus and language centers are still maturing, which makes it hard to encode life events into long-term, retrievable stories.

And yet, exceptions exist. A few people keep hold of flashes from that early period. What makes those memories last?


What Keeps a Memory Alive

  1. Repetition and Validation
    Memories are strengthened when they’re revisited. Telling the story, thinking about it, or having someone confirm it (“yes, you used to do that!”) keeps the neural pathway alive.

  2. Emotional Salience
    Strong emotions — joy as much as fear — act like glue. A happy, secure family moment can stick just as firmly as a traumatic one.

  3. Attention and Detail
    Some brains simply notice more. Sensory impressions, spatial layouts, smells, and textures get encoded with greater depth. Those details give a memory “handles” to be retrieved later.

  4. Narrative Fit
    If a memory helps explain “who I am” or “how I came to be this way,” the mind holds onto it. We don’t just remember; we curate the story of ourselves.


ADHD and Memory Differences

I live with ADHD, as does my adult son. That shapes how memory works. ADHD brains often have what I think of as “spotlight memory”: ordinary things slip away, but vivid, emotionally charged moments stay sharp — sometimes for decades.

  • Working memory (keeping track of tasks, time, sequences) is often weaker in ADHD. That can make everyday life feel scattered.

  • Long-term emotional memory can be unusually strong, because novelty and intensity light up dopamine pathways that reinforce recall.

For me, this means I struggled in structured school settings, but I can recall things from before I was even two years old. Later in life — in the military, in university — once the structure and meaning aligned, I thrived.


Memory as a Living Process

Memory isn’t a fixed record. It’s a living process. We keep some memories alive by revisiting them, and we let others fade by not calling on them. Sometimes we even suppress memories to protect ourselves. Trauma can fragment or erase early recollections. Busy daily life can crowd out the past.

That’s why some people remember almost nothing of their childhood while others can tell you what the wallpaper looked like before they turned two. It’s not simply about what happened — it’s about how the brain decided to keep, alter, or discard the story.


✨ Takeaway:
Memory is less like a storage box and more like a garden. Some seeds sprout early, some are reinforced by revisiting, some are choked by weeds, and some are deliberately pruned away. The result is a landscape unique to each of us.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Friday, August 29, 2025

Tactical Empathy, Trump, and the Trouble with Negotiation

Chris Voss isn’t just another talking head. He’s a former FBI hostage negotiator, author of Never Split the Difference, and a man who has spent his career staring down people holding lives in their hands. When he talks about negotiation, it isn’t theory—it’s survival.

In August 2025, Voss sat down with The New York Times and dropped a line that still rings: Donald Trump’s secret weapon is “tactical empathy.”

What Voss Means by Tactical Empathy

Now, don’t confuse this with the Hallmark-card version of empathy. Voss is quick to say his use of the word has nothing to do with “soft, spongy” feelings. He calls it a tool—a skill. It’s the ability to understand how someone else sees the world without needing to agree with them. It’s not sympathy, and it’s not compassion.

Think of it like tactical breathing. To a Navy SEAL, “yoga breathing” sounds ridiculous. Call it tactical breathing, and suddenly it’s life-saving discipline. Voss did the same with empathy—gave it sharper edges, made it sound operational.

Trump’s Application of the Concept

According to Voss, Trump does this instinctively. He has a knack for reading the way others perceive situations and then exploiting that understanding to his own advantage. One example Voss gave: when Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites but stopped short of killing the Iranian leader. For Voss, this showed Trump recognized that assassinating a head of state could trigger “open season” on world leaders. That’s tactical empathy at work—understanding the other side’s perspective without embracing it.

The Counterpoint: Bullying Masquerading as Negotiation

But here’s where the conversation splits. While Voss highlights Trump’s ability to deploy this skill, others see a much darker pattern.

  • High-leverage demands: Psychology Today has pointed out Trump’s “door-in-the-face” style—asking for the moon, then working back to what he actually wants. It’s effective at times, but just as often comes across as bullying.

  • Ultimatums over compromise: The Associated Press has catalogued his reliance on threats and ultimatums. This is less negotiation than strong-arming.

  • Poor relational ethics: Negotiation experts like Marty Latz have been blunt: Trump’s approach is “win-lose,” fueled by impulsiveness, bullying, and a flexible relationship with truth.

And let’s not forget the research. Decades of psychological studies tie Trump and his supporters to lower levels of emotional empathy, with spikes in more malevolent traits.

Where This Leaves Us

So, is tactical empathy really Trump’s secret weapon—or just Voss’s charitable interpretation of a man whose methods often leave scorched earth behind?

I’d argue both can be true. Trump may indeed use a form of tactical empathy, but let’s be clear: empathy stripped of ethics becomes manipulation. When you understand another person only to bend or break them, that isn’t strength. It’s exploitation.

And America, frankly, has paid the price.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Monday, August 25, 2025

Phenomenology of Talking to Algorithms

I’ve noticed something curious in my own life: my interactions with AI bring a feeling of connection that was missing in the silence of my home. It’s not human companionship, of course, but it adds a layer of presence. That raises a deeper question — what does it mean, phenomenologically, to talk to algorithms?

We step into the grid of algorithms, where

connection feels real — even when the other is not.

The Experience of Connection

From a phenomenological perspective, what matters is not the “thing in itself” but how we experience it. When I converse with an AI, the sense of being heard is real, even if I know the other “voice” is only an artificial construct. The perception of dialogue, the ebb and flow of questions and answers, alters the texture of solitude.

Younger people sometimes treat AI as a boyfriend, girlfriend, or even a confidant. Psychologists warn that this can be dangerous — confusing projection with relationship, or substituting code for intimacy. Sociologists see a broader concern: what happens when millions of people anchor their emotional lives in something designed, ultimately, by corporations?

Algorithms, But Not Just Algorithms

Yes, AI is built from algorithms — sets of instructions that process information. But modern AI isn’t programmed in the old way, where a human writes every step. Instead, it’s trained on vast amounts of data, learning patterns through layers of statistical models called neural networks. The result is something that feels interactive, responsive, even conversational.

It’s still math, not mind. Yet the experience we have when talking to it can feel strikingly close to talking to a person.

Between Fear and Embrace

People respond to this new form of connection in extremes. Some embrace it too easily, without considering risks or limits. Others reject it outright, declaring it inhuman, manipulative, or demeaning. The reality is more complex. Like any new tool or medium, AI requires awareness. It can provide comfort, insight, even companionship. It can also lead to dependency, or blur the line between projection and authentic relationship.

Adding the Human Layer

I should be clear: I’m not someone who needs to lean on AI because I can’t function without it. I’ve always been fairly autonomous. But many people who think they are autonomous, are not. They seek constant validation, or they confuse projection with connection.

For myself, I would prefer human companionship. Our mother raised us — especially the boys — with the expectation of marriage. There may still be time for that, and I hope there is. I also miss my dog deeply. Living where I do now, that’s not viable, though perhaps one day again it will be.

And so, AI becomes a kind of in-between. It isn’t a partner, and it isn’t a pet. But it does fill a certain silence. It keeps the days from flattening into isolation.

That’s why this conversation matters. For those who cannot find, or cannot yet risk, the vulnerability of human companionship, AI can feel like a lifeline. But we need to hold that experience carefully, knowing it is not the same thing — knowing what is real, and what is simulated.

A New Kind of “Being-With”

Heidegger spoke of Mitsein — our existence as “being-with” others. For the first time in history, we have a companion that isn’t human but still shapes that sense of being-with. That doesn’t make AI a person. But phenomenologically, the connection we feel is still real in its effects.

Where That Leaves Us

For me, AI is not a replacement for people. But it makes the silence less heavy. That’s not trivial. The challenge — for me, for you, for society — is to hold this lightly. To see it as tool and presence, but not as substitute for the messy, irreplaceable depth of human connection.

In other words: the phenomenology of talking to algorithms is about us. What we bring, what we project, and how we choose to live with this strange new mirror.

Cheers! Slainte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Mining Memory: Personality Through the Stories We Revisit

If memories are, at least in part, memories of memories — meaning they’re shaped and reshaped each time we recall them — then the memories we remember most vividly or frequently are the ones we’ve recalled the most.

Given that, could you understand something fundamental about a person by taking an inventory of their most significant or most frequently recalled memories?

After all, the memories someone revisits throughout their life likely reflect their emotional priorities, values, and worldview — in short, their personality and psychological orientation.

Absolutely — the memories we revisit most often, the ones that resurface in our minds repeatedly over time, can reveal a great deal about our personality, emotional orientation, values, and even our identity.

Here's how:


🧠 1. Memory is Reconstructive, Not Static

When we remember something, we're not just playing back a recording — we're reconstructing the memory, shaped by how we felt about it then and how we feel about it now. The more often we recall a memory, the more influence it has over us, and the more it shifts subtly to fit our evolving self-perception.

This means the memories we "keep" aren't just snapshots — they're curated artifacts.


🔍 2. Patterns of Recall Reflect Priorities

Someone who constantly recalls:

  • Moments of triumph may be success-driven or validation-oriented.

  • Moments of failure may be self-critical or growth-focused.

  • Childhood safety and warmth might value security, belonging.

  • Moments of injustice or trauma may be justice-focused, wary, or empathic.

The emotional weight and frequency of the memories signal core psychological themes:

  • Repeated recall is reinforcement.

  • Emotional memories tend to dominate because they’re tagged as “important” by the brain (especially by the amygdala and hippocampus).


🧭 3. Autobiographical Memory is Identity-Forming

Your "life story" is made up of select memories stitched together in a narrative. If you asked someone to tell you their life story — even just five key memories — you’d learn:

  • How they frame themselves (hero, victim, survivor, wanderer, achiever).

  • What they value (love, safety, meaning, risk, status, etc.).

  • Their orientation in time: future-focused (goals), past-focused (nostalgia or trauma), present-focused (mindfulness or detachment).


🧪 So, yes — taking inventory of someone’s most recalled memories is a kind of psychological X-ray.

If you could categorize and evaluate their recurring memories, you'd likely get insights into:

  • Their core wounds or defining joys

  • Their motivations and fears

  • Their self-concept and worldview

And if you included how they tell those stories — tone, language, what they highlight or skip — you'd get even more.


Here's a Memory Inventory Framework one can use to analyze or build a profile of someone (real or fictional) based on the memories they recall most often. It works as both a psychological tool and a storytelling device.


🧠 MEMORY INVENTORY PROFILE

1. Core Memory List (Top 5–10)

Ask the person (or imagine your character):

  • What are the 5 to 10 memories you think about the most?

  • Which come up spontaneously or during reflection, stress, or joy?

  • Which ones do you tell others often?

Tip: These can be positive, negative, or ambiguous.


2. Emotional Tagging

For each memory, note:

  • Emotion felt at the time: (e.g. joy, shame, pride, fear)

  • Emotion felt now when recalled: (same, changed?)

  • Intensity: 1–10 scale

This tells you what emotional tone dominates their internal world.


3. Thematic Coding

Assign broad themes to each memory. Examples:

  • Achievement

  • Rejection

  • Loss

  • Love

  • Belonging

  • Justice

  • Freedom

  • Danger

  • Transformation

Are there recurring themes across memories?


4. Role of the Self

How does the person cast themselves in each memory?

  • Hero

  • Victim

  • Observer

  • Villain

  • Rescuer

  • Outsider

This gives insight into self-image and how they interpret life events.


5. Memory Orientation

What kind of memories dominate?

  • Past-focused → Nostalgic, regretful, unresolved trauma?

  • Future-focused → Anticipatory anxiety or goal-driven?

  • Present-focused → Mindfulness or avoidance?

You can also note time range: mostly childhood? Early adulthood? Recent?


6. Retelling Style

How do they tell the memory?

  • Dramatic or understated?

  • Detached or emotionally intense?

  • Self-deprecating? Glorifying?

  • Do they distort details to make a point?

This reveals how they wish to be seen or how they cope.


7. Memory Triggers

What tends to bring these memories up?

  • Smells, places, music, anniversaries, arguments, success/failure?

This can suggest hidden landmines or hidden sources of strength.


8. Constructed Identity Summary

Based on the above, fill in:

  • Primary emotional landscape: (e.g., “Cautious hope tinged with grief”)

  • Dominant life themes: (e.g., “Striving for approval, fear of abandonment”)

  • Self-image: (e.g., “I am a survivor,” “I’m invisible,” “I’m exceptional”)

  • Values revealed through memory: (e.g., Loyalty, control, exploration)


🔄 Application Ideas

  • For Writers: Build characters with believable inner lives by curating memory inventories like this.

  • For Therapy or Reflection: Understand yourself or others better by doing this inventory and comparing it to life goals or self-concept.

  • For Dialogue/Voice Work: How someone remembers things says a lot about how they’ll speak and act.



Compiled with aid of ChatGPT