Homo narrare. Narrative Intelligence 3.0: Managing Reality and Influencing People. Arsen Avetisov

to us…

      The expression «to be, not to seem» carries a paradoxical meaning. We are as we are, and our environment sees us as we are. At the same time, we seem to ourselves as we are, and then we become what we seemed to ourselves. What is fulfilled is what you strive for, not what you avoid. Movement «toward something» differs from movement «away from something.» It is like replacing forecasting with planning. We persistently follow the scripts of our meanings because meanings are what our brain creates to confirm the coherence and identity of our personality, as well as the consistency and causality of our actions. The brain is constantly focused on justifying our existence and deeds. Deep down, we always forgive ourselves our mistakes, viewing them as well-thought-out and wise schemes that simply did not work for various reasons.

      But do we truly think? What do we mean by «thinking»? The term «thinking» emerged from an unsuccessful attempt to describe our mental activity. Even today, when we know incomparably more about the source and location of «thinking» than in past millennia, there is still no reliable picture of how we actually think.

      There are some facts and assertions. For instance, thinking is influenced by associative memory and prevailing narratives. All our judgments, preferences, tastes, and decision-making systems are based on this memory. Even when we decide what is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or not, it is all determined not by our sight, smell, or hearing but by memory and the stories tied to these evaluations that we tell ourselves.

      According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language determines our thinking. The work of artificial intelligence operates similarly – a system of words, corresponding images, speech constructs, and associated concepts. It is an imitation of mental activity, a game with connections to the real world.

      Most children raised in contemporary culture cannot adequately describe the processes happening around them because their vocabulary no longer matches their growing, diversifying experience. To some extent, both language and its established codifications are to blame for our simplified perception of the environment and superficial thinking. With the current pace of development, we need more words to formulate problems. However, the vocabulary used to describe them is catastrophically shrinking, even as new terms accompanying progress emerge.

      Every day, we make hundreds of choices and provide hundreds of answers to questions humanity faces. Yet we lack both the time and understanding of the essence of these problems. People involve artificial intelligence, transferring responsibility to machine code. But they forget that in any case, the conclusion to their decisions, choices, answers, and intricate life narratives will ultimately be a stone bearing two dates: the date of entry and the date of exit from the tiresome necessity of choosing. It is worth remembering that after the exit date, there is not only no choice but, strictly speaking, nothing at all. However, there is nothing only for the individual, not for the artificial systems they created to simulate thinking. Where and how does the boundary of trust in such decision-making programs lie – programs indifferent to the lives of specific men and women and bearing no responsibility for them?

      The very first question God asked Adam, «Where are you?» has echoed through the air of human civilization for thousands of years. Where are we in relation to God’s plan? Where do we walk, and why? What do we seek, and is it what we find? And while people strive to answer these profound questions, stories with ready-made answers, narratives with meanings and goals, artificial intelligence, and other distractions have already been prepared for them to bypass the tedious moment of philosophical reflection and start entertaining themselves and spending money. Money they will again have to earn «by the sweat of their brow,» as God promised in response to Adam’s timid justification for his transgression.

      But not because all these enticing stories about success, struggle, consumption, and power were invented by some greedy members of a secret club of hidden knowledge, worshippers of the cult of capital, and global domination. Of course not. Simply because these club members are also compelled to spend money by other narratives and other secret clubs. Such is the endless carousel of life, commonly referred to as the spiral of development.

      How We Decide and Do We Really Decide?

      We don’t choose; we just tell ourselves about our choices.

      Be careful of your thoughts – they are the beginning of acts.

      Lao Tzu

      We do not know how we make decisions; we only know what we intend to do. Several decades ago, Daniel Goleman introduced an important thesis: humans actually make decisions emotionally, then use their consciousness to justify and rationalize those decisions. This process unfolds so seamlessly and skillfully that we rarely question the order in which decisions are made.

      Living under the illusion of «conscious choice,» people seek to confirm their worldview and maintain the integrity of their personality – or what they perceive as their personality. The process of «self-acknowledgment» involves numerous factors influencing their thinking, actions, and outcomes. Given the multitude of these factors, their combination sometimes results in paradoxical, absurd, or meaningless decisions.

      For example, one influencing factor is social desirability – the need to be accepted by one’s peers. Another is the tendency to embrace pleasant information more readily than unpleasant information. By assembling these factors like Lego blocks, people can be subtly and painlessly coerced into doing one thing over another. They may be led to act modestly or submissively, aggressively or in strict adherence to pre-established rituals.

      There is much we cannot yet explain but perceive as ordinary, recurring coincidences or random events. For instance, how someone occasionally guesses another’s thoughts, even though no material explanation exists for this phenomenon. Or how the brain constantly seeks reassurance in the possibility of choice, comforting itself with the notion that change or influence is still attainable. The essence of this illusion lies in the brain’s «unconscious» selection of decisions, later framed and explained as conscious choices. It selects from what it already knows, associates with such choices, and can rationalize.

      These explanations serve as confirmations of one’s conceptuality, strategy, and behavioral control – but not the behavior itself. This is evident in cases of inexplicable, superstitious, or ritualistic behavior. Consider soccer players kissing the field as they enter, top executives wearing a special tie for important presentations, or mafiosi meeting their end despite their «lucky» coats. These rituals and superstitions effectively signify people enlisting their subconscious in the service of their success.

      The recurring narratives of lucky ties and coats increasingly influence individuals and entire generations. Immersion in such narratives leads to overlooking the most important thing – life itself. One might live someone else’s life, pursuing goals that are not their own. At the very least, one should have a general guide – a quick start manual – on how this all works: what captures attention, how memory functions, how decisions are made and based on what, how judgments are formed, and how perceptions of the world are constructed.

      Many play video games and expect each subsequent level to be harder than the last. Players are prepared for this. But who said that each subsequent stage of life or history should be easier than the one before? Essentially, this is merely an expectation – a desired picture we have created in our minds. Who promised us such a picture besides ourselves? No one. We told it to ourselves.

      The readiness for increasing difficulty in video games stems from the fact that the game and its rules were invented by players. It is merely a model with a predefined scenario and anticipated conclusion. But in real life, the concept of a «game» is different. We create narratives but do not always adhere to the rules of the environment in which they unfold. We demand and expect rewards for each stage of life but fail to do what is necessary to achieve them. We crave peace, stability, prosperity, and well-being simply because it is written into our narrative. But such things are not part of the environment’s rules. Perhaps the chosen narrative does not align with our aspirations