Reading Time: 8 minutes
modular theory of mind

According to the modular theory of mind, we have numerous subpersonalities inside our heads that compete for our attention. While learning about them can be disturbing, it also provides greater freedom. As science writer Robert Wright says: “Ultimately, happiness comes down to choosing between the discomfort of becoming aware of your mental afflictions and the discomfort of being ruled by them.”

For most of us, consciousness feels like one unified experience moving through time. Yes, our minds and personalities have different sides—and they can change over time—but the whole time it’s still us.

But if we accept the famous words by Heraclitus—that “the only thing constant is change”—then what about us endures through time?

This problem of pinning down one’s identity—or for that matter any object’s identity— is fascinating and can take you in many directions. For me, it brings to mind the ship of Theseus thought puzzle or the paper “Personal Identity” by philosopher Derek Parfit.

But for this article, I want to challenge the concept of “us” from a different perspective. Specifically, I want to challenge our felt sense of unity with the modular theory of mind—the idea that your one mind is actually multiple minds. As the psychologist, Douglas T. Kenrick puts it: “We are all multiple personalities, with several different selves insides our heads.”

And many of our subpersonalities are foolish, selfish, and even evil sometimes. Worse than that, we often mindlessly act out their desires. But it doesn’t have to be this way, at least not all of the time. Paired with mindfulness and meditation, this theory of mind allows us to become more familiar with our inner modules. And familiarity leads to more psychological freedom—we can observe our inner selves instead of blindly following them.

It sounds crazy to our common sense, but this modular theory of mind is both grounded in science and observable through introspection. And while we probably can’t control what thoughts we have, adopting this modular model allows us to at least upgrade the relationship between thoughts and actions.

The Modular Theory of Mind

The general hypothesis that the mind is made of modules—distinct structures with specialized functions—goes back to the 1870s when scientists correlated specific brain damage with specific speech disabilities. For example, damage to the Broca’s area meant that one could not form words but could still understand them. And damage to the Wernicke’s area created the opposite problem.

But many of the ideas from that period went too far and have since been debunked. While the brain does localize some functions, it does not have clear-cut physical modules and there is not a precise one-one relationship between locations in the brain and cognitive abilities.1

Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung

But modularity can still exist in a looser psychological sense, and here it found some support from the psychoanalytic traditions. For example, Sigmund Freud, who synthesized and popularized concepts of the unconscious, thought of the individual as an integrated collection of subpersonalities. For Freud, the mind was like an iceberg: the tip above the water is conscious awareness while the majority below the water is the unconscious. And our subpersonalities—centered around memories, emotions, and motivations—live in this unconscious realm and try to influence our behavior.

Carl Jung took this further by splitting up the unconscious into two categories—the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. This realm of the collective unconscious, filled with instincts and archetypes, is a kind of ancestral wisdom universal to all humans. The cross-cultural similarities of mythology and religious imagery are considered evidence for the collective unconscious.2

In a subjective sense (and in their own psychoanalytic realm) the theories of Freud and Jung are quite powerful. But because of the technical limitations of their time, they lack some of the rigor and empirical evidence required by modern cognitive psychology.

Cognitive Modules

But by the 1960s, the idea of a unified consciousness was more successfully challenged by Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga in their split-brain experiments. And by the 1980s, the modular theory of mind officially returned with philosopher Jerry Fodor’s The Modularity of Mind. He emphasized that the brain does not have distinct physical modules like a computer but instead has what he calls cognitive modules. As Fodor puts it:

“Roughly, modular cognitive systems are domain
specific, innately specified, hardwired, autonomous, and not
assembled.”

Jerry Fodor, The Modularity of Mind

The modular theory of mind is also compatible with evolutionary psychology, which approaches human psychology with the framework of adaptations and natural selection. So just like our bodies and physiology evolved as a collection of domain-specific adaptations, so too did our emotional and cognitive abilities.

Douglas Kenrick also thinks that cognitive modules go hand in hand with an evolutionary approach to psychology:

“A key assumption of the evolutionary perspective is that the human brain contains not one monolithic ‘rational decision-making device,’ but rather a number of different decision-systems, each operating according to different rules.”

Douglas kenrick, The Evolutionary Economics of Decision Making

And even if those rules might not seem rational on the surface, Kenrick says that they “demonstrate rationality at a deeper evolutionary level”. For him, cognitive modules are “domain-specific decision-rules that, on average, would have resulted in fitness benefits”.

Kenrick’s study showed that people’s decision making changed in predictable ways depending on which cognitive module he triggered. Some of the modules he names in the study are social status, self-protection, mate acquisition, mate retention, friendship, and kin-care.

Messy Modules

It’s important to emphasize that even these cognitive modules are not precisely distinct. Our bodies and minds were not designed by engineers but rather evolved naturally over time to fit our environments.

“Often, admittedly, these domain-specific systems may emerge by utilizing, co-opting, and linking together resources which were antecedently available; and hence they may appear quite inelegant when seen in engineering terms.”

Peter Carruthers, The Innate Mind: structure and content

So the safe way to view the modular theory of mind is as a system of messy modules—a loose collection of overlapping inner selves. Evolution takes advantage of already existing structures so it makes sense that the physical brain—and our psychology—evolved in a messy way like this.

Plus thinking of modules as messy will make it easier to adopt this mental framework as a means to self-improvement. For me, the purpose here is not to be on the cutting edge of science. Rather, it is to ground the subjective activity of introspection into something more solid.

Because introspection and meditation can roam too freely when not framed by science. And having a sense of the mind’s modularity—and the natural selection that drove its evolution—gives us a head start in understanding the subconscious motivations that influence us.

Mindfulness: We are not our modules

Even though contemplative traditions often use pseudoscientific language, it doesn’t mean that they can’t play nicely with science. And I’ve found that the evolutionary lens—and specifically this modular theory of mind—gets along particularly well with meditation.

This is because meditation is all about becoming wiser towards the patterns and contents of consciousness. And while it is possible to change those patterns—to control the thoughts and emotions that arise—for most of us that’s not on the menu. Instead, the goal is to realize that we are not identical to them. We can maintain psychological freedom in their presence.

Emotions and Modules

In his book Why Buddhism is True, Robert Wright devotes a whole chapter to mental modules. He talks about the adaptive modules and how they evolved to improve our Darwinian fitness. He also cites the work of Leda Cosmides and John Tooby to describe how our modules are triggered by emotions and feelings (which themselves are triggered by the environment).

And unfortunately, the takeaway is that we are not the CEO of our minds. Our sense of unification is an illusion, and we do not have the control we think we do.3

But again, we can learn the patterns. We can learn to subjectively feel when certain emotions are activating certain modules. For example when we are feeling jealous in a relationship—triggering what Kenrick calls the “mate-retention module”—we can know ahead of time that our judgment is being biased. We are not seeing clearly and should wait before we act out our thoughts.

And if modules are too dry of a concept, you can think of them more in the psychoanalytic term of subpersonalities. In this sense, getting to know your inner array of personalities allows you to familiarize yourself with them like you would a person—actually the Tibetan word for meditation means “familiarization”. And as you do this, they will have less and less power over you.

“Here there be dragons”

Cartographers in medieval times had a practice of writing “here there be dragons” to designate unknown areas on their maps. This is because in mythology dragons commonly represent the unknown—death, destruction, and chaos. And fitting in with Jung’s collective unconscious, they would even draw illustrations of serpent-like mythological creatures on their maps.

So it doesn’t surprise me that meditation teacher Jack Kornfield also uses the language of dragons to describe some of our inner modules. They are often triggered by fear, fly into our minds suddenly, and can take control of our thoughts. And without mindfulness, we might not even realize that this is happening.

But another common theme in mythology is that if you can name the dragon—what is referred to as something’s “true name”—it loses its power over you. And there is a technique in meditation, called noting or naming, that does just this. The goal is to observe the mind and find appropriate labels for the dragons that arise.

And since we’re not doing science, we can name these dragons whatever we want. As you sit and meditate, you can notice the constant array of thoughts bidding for your attention—“do this, eat that, put that person in their place”, etc—without getting lost in any of them.

“In non-identification we stop taking the experience as me or mine. We see how our identification creates dependence, anxiety, and inauthenticity. In practicing non-identification, we inquire of every state, experience, and story, is this who we really are?”

jack kornfield, Non-Identification

Because according to Jack, the very act of naming something by definition means that we are not identical to it. Strong feelings of jealousy, desire, anxiety, or anger can arise in the mind—sometimes even in the body—and we can watch them from somewhere else. With names, we recognize them quickly, bow to them, and thank them for their opinion. After all, from an evolutionary perspective, they exist to protect us. But with naming and space, we can decide with wisdom how to act.

Sometimes the opinions of these inner modules are valid and require action. For example, if you’re in the forest and fear of a possible predator triggers the self-protection module, it’s probably worth acting on. But these situations are rare in our modern world, and too often the modules are triggered by the type II error of a false positive. They are specialized for specific tasks and have limited views.

This means that most of the time the modules don’t need action—they just need acknowledgment. So get to know your mental modules. Even if you decide to act on them, at least you won’t be ruled by them.

Additional Resources