Maria Doulatova

Many theorists argue that self-control produces only positive outcomes with no apparent downsides. Of course, while exercises of self-control could be put to bad use in cases of cognitive rigidity like anorexia, the value of self-control remains prominent in everyday life. Nevertheless, some worries remain. Do some ways of exercising self-control incur greater risks for developing cognitive rigidity than others? That is, do all exercises of self-control have equally positive outcomes? I synthesize empirical findings to show that some popular ways of bolstering self-control have greater risks for developing cognitive rigidity than others. Hence, not all exercises of self-control have equally positive outcomes. While strategies of using emotions to bolster self-control have recently been met with a great deal of enthusiasm, some of these strategies incur greater risks for developing cognitive rigidity than others. For example, while using emotions like anger could initially bolster self-control, these emotions could become addictive and invite cognitive rigidity in the long run. Similarly, while using implementation intentions could initially bolster self-control, this strategy could thwart cognitive flexibility necessary for goal-disengagement. Finally, certain ways of bolstering self-control with negative emotions like shame could increase cognitive rigidity by causing one to “get stuck” in self-control mode.

Theorists of oppression commonly accept that unfair social power disparities result in a variety of harms. In particular, oppression is characterized by a loss of open-mindedness in the oppressors, and negative internalization in the oppressed. That is, while oppressors are often unable or unwilling to consider the points of view of the oppressed, the oppressed often come to internalize conditions of oppression by experiencing them as indicative of their own alleged shortcomings. Nevertheless, the psychological mechanisms behind these phenomena have remained underexplored. This is unfortunate, since understanding the psychological processes behind these phenomena could help us understand how they could be reversed. In this work, I aim to fill this lacuna by extending debates on mechanisms of mindreading to show how close-mindedness and negative internalization come about. I synthesize empirical findings to show that while theorizing fosters emotional insulation by “reframing” affective cues from a third-person point of view, simulation fosters feelings of emotional vulnerability and psychological continuity. As a result, while theorizing allows oppressors to take a somewhat detached attitude during self and other interpretation, involuntary simulation fosters negative internalization on the part of the oppressed.

In this work I argue that emotion plays a key role in ensuring a unified perspective on the world. In particular, while many thoughts and feelings surface onto consciousness, it is not clear how they get combined into a unified point of view or what’s it’s like to be you at any given time. While many philosophers argue that reason or higher-order cognition plays a key role in delineating our point of view, I argue that higher-order cognition plays a subsidiary role to lower-level emotion in delineating a unified perspective on the world. That is, empirical findings reveal that affect functions akin to attention in organizing our conscious experience and dictating what is actionable. As a result, split-brain patients (patients who have suffered losses to the unity of their higher-order cognition but retain undamaged emotional centers in the brain) manage to retain a unified phenomenal and agential perspective on the world.

Most of us are familiar with the phenomenology of mental effort accompanying cognitively demanding tasks, like focusing on the next chess move or performing lengthy mental arithmetic. In this paper, I argue that phenomenology of mental effort poses a novel counterexample to tracking intentionalism, the view that phenomenal consciousness is a matter of tracking features of one’s environment in a certain way. I argue that an increase in the phenomenology of mental effort does not accompany a change in any of the following candidate representational contents: representation of externally presented features, e.g. brightness, contrast, and so on representation of task difficulty, representation of the possibility of error, representation of trying to achieve some state of affairs, representation of bodily changes like muscle tension, or representation of change in cognitive resource availability and lost opportunity cost. While tracking intentionalism about some phenomenal experiences like pains might obtain, it does not seem to obtain for all phenomenal experiences. This puts the intentionalist into an uncomfortable position of trying to explain why some phenomenal experiences have representational content and not others. Since many believe that tracking intentionalism or something like it provides the best chance of naturalizing consciousness, these arguments deserve detailed consideration.