Using AI to explain where I am at.

I haven’t done anything with ‘my theories’ for a while so I thought I might explain them to ChatGPT-4 in order to see what it thinks and what insights I could glean. It takes a while but it slowly closes in on what I’m talking about Warning AI generated content ahead! (My prompts in bold)

What is the psycho-sexual environment?

ChatGPT:

It appears there may be some confusion in the terminology you’re using, as the term “psycho-sexual environment” isn’t widely recognized in psychology or other social sciences as of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021. However, I can provide some insights based on the separate terms.

1. “Psychosexual” refers to the theory of psychosexual development, a concept from Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. According to Freud, individuals pass through five stages of psychosexual development: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. Each stage is associated with particular conflicts and experiences that could have lasting effects on an individual’s personality and adult behavior if not properly resolved.
2. “Environment” often refers to the conditions and influences that affect the growth, development, and behavior of an individual or community.

If we try to connect these two concepts, a “psycho-sexual environment” could hypothetically refer to the environmental conditions and influences affecting an individual’s psychosexual development. These could include societal norms and expectations, family attitudes toward sexuality, personal experiences, education, and other factors that might influence how an individual navigates Freud’s proposed stages of psychosexual development.

However, it’s important to remember that Freud’s theories, while historically influential, have been widely critiqued and are not universally accepted in contemporary psychology. Furthermore, environmental influences on sexual development are complex and multifaceted, including biological, social, and cultural factors.

To get a precise understanding, you may want to consult up-to-date, scholarly sources or seek clarification from the person using the term “psycho-sexual environment”.

The Problem: We are in the situation where we are not in social reality – and by that I mean that our explanation of what is happening in social reality does not match the anthropological facts about what is happening in social reality. However, that’s not what bothers me right now. It has bothered me a great deal in the past but what bothers me now is that no one seems to know that. You would think that out of all of the billions of people on earth there could at least have been enough to recognise that we’re not in social reality and then some, or one of those could have put pen to paper or keyboard to document to mention the simple and yet revolutionary fact that we’re not in social reality. Oh, and for such a memoir to find it’s way to my eyes. The fact that it hasn’t is not due to lack of trying on my behalf. I have looked up many books on what might be the subject as well as tried numerous Google searches on keywords that might be relevant to such an enquiry. That’s all pretty much come to nothing. Google is usually pretty good. Normally if you put something in you’re going to get what you’re looking for. Even if you don’t know what that thing is called. For instance, if I put into Google “That pole that sticks out of a water tank” I can be at “Water tank level indicator” on the second result. That didn’t take long! It didn’t take a lifetime. A good example of what it would be like is if we were in a completely theist society, and there was a person who one day wondered “What if god doesn’t exist?” So they looked for books, news articles, blogs and web sites that might say something about that question and drew a blank. Well, you can try it. It certainly doesn’t draw a blank. It actually auto-fills it in for you before you can even finish typing.

ChatGPT:

It sounds like you’re grappling with a disconnect between your understanding of social reality and the commonly accepted understanding of it. This type of philosophical questioning is similar to those who ponder the nature of reality, question the existence of God, or wonder about the social constructs we live within.

Based on your description, it seems you’re searching for literature or dialogue that challenges the current narrative or dominant understanding of social reality. However, you’ve found it difficult to locate such resources.

Here are a few pointers that might guide you in your search:

1. Critical Theory: This is a broad field within sociology that seeks to critique and change society, rather than simply understand or explain it. It challenges the status quo and questions societal norms and structures.
2. Postmodern Philosophy: Postmodernists often challenge meta-narratives, question the nature of reality, and argue that our understanding of the world is socially constructed. Notable postmodern philosophers include Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault.
3. Epistemology: This branch of philosophy questions the nature of knowledge and belief. It includes skepticism, which questions the possibility of certain knowledge, and relativism, which suggests that truth and morality are not absolute but are instead relative to the individuals or societies that hold them.
4. Social Constructivism: This theory suggests that our understanding of reality is constructed through social processes. Therefore, what we take to be ‘real’ is a product of shared understandings and cultural practices.
5. Existentialism and Absurdism: Existentialism concerns itself with finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. Absurdism, on the other hand, argues that life is inherently meaningless.

It’s also worth noting that many of these topics are quite abstract and nuanced, so you might not find direct answers to your questions. Instead, they can provide frameworks and perspectives that can help you understand and navigate your experiences.

Finally, keep in mind that while popular search engines like Google are powerful tools, they may not always lead you to the nuanced or fringe discussions you’re looking for. You may have more luck exploring academic databases, participating in philosophy forums, or reaching out to scholars who specialize in these areas.

Actually what I’m talking about is that our usual cultural social explanations aren’t a good guide to what is happening socially but rather a form of evolutionary psychology is and who would be the best other sources of that understanding.

ChatGPT:

Ah, I see. You’re interested in the perspective that evolutionary psychology, rather than traditional social or cultural explanations, provides a more accurate understanding of human behavior.

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain useful mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection. The goal is to apply the principles of evolution to understand the human mind and behavior.

Here are a few key authors, books, and resources in the field of evolutionary psychology that might interest you:

1. David Buss: An influential figure in evolutionary psychology, his books like “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating” and “Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind” provide a comprehensive overview of the field.
2. Steven Pinker: A cognitive psychologist known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind. His books “The Blank Slate” and “How the Mind Works” are good starting points.
3. Robert Wright: He’s a journalist who has written extensively about evolutionary psychology. His book “The Moral Animal” is a good introduction to the topic.
4. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby: They are best known for their work in pioneering the field of evolutionary psychology. They’ve written numerous articles and have contributed to many books on the subject.
5. Richard Dawkins: While not an evolutionary psychologist per se, his work in evolutionary biology and his book “The Selfish Gene” have been highly influential in shaping the field of evolutionary psychology.
6. “The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology” edited by David Buss: This is a comprehensive source with contributions from numerous experts in the field.

Remember, evolutionary psychology is one perspective among many in understanding human behavior, and like all fields, it has its critics. It’s essential to approach it critically and understand its limitations as well as its strengths.

Also, while evolutionary psychology may provide insights into why certain patterns of behavior evolved, it doesn’t prescribe how people ought to behave, nor does it suggest that all behaviors are genetically determined and unchangeable. It’s just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding human behavior.

Specifically I am interested in or believe the idea that our normal social communication is just a ‘carrier wave’ for another form of communication amongst people that indicates both fitness and provides a means of two-way communication between the organisms (people) on an anthropological level. Do you know anything about that?

ChatGPT:

It appears you’re referring to a rather specific theory or concept in evolutionary psychology. While there isn’t a well-defined theory that exactly matches your description, there are several related concepts in the field that may be of interest.

1. Dual Process Communication Theory: This theory, although not unique to evolutionary psychology, suggests that communication serves two simultaneous purposes: transmission of content and relationship signaling. The “content” could be seen as the ‘carrier wave’ you mentioned, while the “relationship signaling” could be viewed as the more subtle, fitness-indicating communication.
2. Sexual Selection and Signaling Theory: In evolutionary biology and psychology, this theory posits that certain traits or behaviors may have evolved not because they increase survival, but because they improve an individual’s chances of attracting mates or fending off rivals. These signals can be seen as a form of communication that indicates fitness.
3. Nonverbal Communication: Nonverbal cues, such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice, often convey information about our emotions, attitudes, and status. Some evolutionary psychologists propose that these nonverbal signals are an important part of our social communication and can serve as indicators of fitness.
4. Cooperative Signaling (or Costly Signaling) Theory: This theory suggests that individuals signal their desirable traits, such as their ability to bear costs, to others through certain behaviors. These signals are reliable (i.e., they can’t easily be faked) because they would be too costly for lower-quality individuals to produce.

However, as of my last training data in September 2021, these theories don’t exactly map onto the idea of a ‘carrier wave’ for another form of communication indicating fitness. There may be newer theories or research in this area that I’m not aware of. If this is a concept you’re developing independently, you might consider doing more research in these related areas and perhaps even contributing your own ideas to the field.

Another strand of this is research in psychology which has people giving explanations for what is happening anthropologically via cultural explainations and an example has been given of a person riding on an elephant whereby the elephant is pretty much doing what it wants but is guided by the person (consciousness) in some way. I can’t remember who gave that example though. Oh there was a book called The Happiness Hypothesis that had it.

ChatGPT

The metaphor you’re referring to is indeed from “The Happiness Hypothesis” by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt, a social psychologist, uses the analogy of a rider on an elephant to describe the relationship between the conscious and unconscious parts of the human mind.

In this metaphor:

• The elephant represents the automatic or unconscious processes in the brain. These processes are powerful and often drive where we go (our behavior), just as an elephant would largely determine the path it and its rider take.
• The rider represents the controlled or conscious processes in the brain. The rider can guide the elephant to some extent, but its control is limited, particularly when the elephant (the unconscious mind) has strong impulses or desires.

Haidt’s metaphor is a way to understand the often complex relationship between our conscious thoughts (rational, logical thinking) and our unconscious instincts and biases (emotions, intuition). It emphasizes that much of our behavior is driven by unconscious processes, but that conscious thought has a role in guiding and interpreting our experiences.

This idea is not unique to Haidt, though his metaphor is a particularly vivid way of expressing it. Dual-process theories of cognition, for example, make a similar distinction between automatic/unconscious and controlled/conscious mental processes. Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” also explores these ideas in depth.

If you’re interested in the intersection of evolutionary psychology and these ideas about conscious and unconscious cognition, you might find Haidt’s work quite interesting. He often emphasizes the ways that our minds have been shaped by evolution, not just to help us survive, but also to help us navigate our complex social world.

I take those ideas to their limit with the idea that we’re not really in social reality at all but rather unconsciously producing behaviours and then using our storytelling ability to give a cultural explanation as to why the behaviour is happening.

ChatGPT

That’s an interesting perspective, and you’re not alone in suggesting it. There’s a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience that suggests our conscious mind often constructs post-hoc narratives to explain our behaviours, which are largely driven by unconscious processes.

This idea aligns with several theories in cognitive science and philosophy. For instance:

1. Libet’s Experiments: Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments in the 1980s that suggested our brain begins to prepare for action before we consciously decide to act. This has been interpreted by some as evidence that our unconscious mind drives our behavior, and our conscious mind simply rationalizes these actions after the fact.
2. The Interpreter in Split-Brain Patients: Studies of patients with a severed corpus callosum (the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) have shown that the left hemisphere often invents explanations for behaviors that are actually driven by the right hemisphere, suggesting that one function of the conscious mind might be to create coherent narratives from our experiences.
3. Narrative Psychology: This branch of psychology suggests that we construct stories about our lives and experiences to create a sense of self and to make sense of the world around us. These narratives may not always accurately reflect reality, but they shape our perceptions and experiences nonetheless.
4. Predictive Processing Framework: This cognitive model suggests that our brains are essentially prediction machines, constantly creating and updating a mental model of the world and using it to predict what will happen next. This model often operates unconsciously and can influence our perception and behavior.

In terms of evolutionary psychology, one might hypothesize that this ability to create narratives and explanations could have been advantageous for our ancestors. Being able to understand and predict others’ behaviors would be particularly useful in a social species like ours.

However, it’s important to remember that these are all theories and models. They help us understand the mind and behavior, but they don’t provide definitive answers. The relationship between conscious and unconscious processes is still not fully understood and is the subject of ongoing research.

Well my theory is that the rational system is a kind of abstract mental ‘toolbox’ for solving certain kinds of problems and that we have moved into this space to do more than it naturally can accommodate but that the way it works now is that the cultural content of communication provides a means for the ‘anthropological’ communication to be transmitted by. It’s kind of a complex picture but maybe you understand.

ChatGPT

Your perspective is certainly thought-provoking, and it seems to combine elements of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and cultural anthropology. As I understand it, you’re suggesting that:

1. The rational, conscious mind is a tool for solving specific types of problems. This aligns with views in cognitive science that consider rational thought as a kind of “problem-solving” apparatus.
2. We have extended the use of this “toolbox” beyond its natural capacities, perhaps by using rational thought to navigate social and cultural complexities.
3. Our cultural narratives and explanations, which are largely produced by the conscious mind, serve as a “carrier wave” for a more fundamental, unconscious form of communication that operates at the anthropological level.

This theory could provide a useful framework for understanding the complex interplay between our cognitive abilities, our cultural context, and our underlying evolutionary instincts. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this is a theoretical perspective and would require empirical evidence to support it.

It might be interesting for you to explore related work in fields like cultural neuroscience (which studies how cultural practices shape the brain), cognitive anthropology (which studies how culture influences cognitive processes), and biosemiotics (which studies how signs and meaning are used in and by living systems).

You may also want to consider how you might test or investigate your theory. What predictions does it make? What kind of evidence would support or refute it? This could help you further refine your ideas and contribute to our understanding of these complex phenomena.

A related thing is subtext which I have talked about with another incidence of ChatGPT before although at that time ChatGPT didn’t seem to have a great understanding of it. This would be like unconscious subtext. Furthermore, there is this idea in the study of body language that decoding body language helps know people’s true or hidden motivations. I think to some extent this may be true but more importantly it may form part of a ‘hidden language’ that is related not to the person’s conscious motivations but their unconscious ones.

ChatGPT

Your theory seems to be bringing together different aspects of communication, including verbal and non-verbal cues (like body language), as well as conscious and unconscious processes.

Subtext, in literature and communication, refers to the unspoken or less obvious meanings or implications behind the literal message. This often depends on the context, cultural background, shared knowledge, or the relationship between the speakers. While this is typically understood as a conscious or semi-conscious process, it’s plausible to consider an “unconscious subtext” that communicates information outside of our conscious awareness.

In terms of body language, it’s widely accepted in psychology that non-verbal cues can communicate a lot of information, often outside of our conscious awareness. This includes cues about our emotional state, attitudes, and possibly even aspects of our personality or current thoughts. This “hidden language” of the body can be seen as part of our evolutionary heritage: before humans developed spoken language, non-verbal communication was likely crucial for social interaction.

It’s also worth noting that there’s a field of study known as “embodied cognition” that explores the idea that many cognitive processes are influenced or even determined by the body, including our physical interactions with the environment. This can include more direct forms of communication like body language, but also more subtle influences like the way our physical experiences shape our abstract thinking.

In terms of your larger theory, it might be helpful to consider what specific predictions it makes. For instance, if our cultural narratives serve as a “carrier wave” for more fundamental, unconscious communication, how would this manifest in observable behavior? How would it differ across different cultural contexts? These are complex questions, but considering them could help further develop and test your ideas.

What I’m saying is that it’s all ‘hidden in plain sight’ it’s literally right there for anyone to see except that as soon as any specific thing is pointed out it is straight away explained away in what I call the “world of explanations” in other words people’s cultural explanations. If someone itches their nose and you ask them why they did that they will say that their nose was itchy and so on. The biggest problem is that if all these things are exposed we enter an uncomfortable new state whereby we are no longer shielded by these things by our cultural explanations but still judge them in terms of those explanations when they may be culturally unacceptable to us – a state I know as “the horror”.

ChatGPT

It seems you are speaking about the tension between our unconscious behaviors, which may stem from deeper biological or evolutionary instincts, and the cultural narratives we construct to explain these behaviors. In other words, you’re suggesting that many of our actions are driven by unconscious processes, but we rationalize them within our cultural framework. When this rationalization fails or is removed, it can lead to discomfort or what you term “the horror.”

This is indeed a fascinating perspective, and it aligns with certain psychological theories that emphasize the influence of unconscious processes on behavior. For example, the psychoanalytic theories proposed by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung suggest that much of our behavior is driven by unconscious motivations that we may not be fully aware of. In contemporary psychology, cognitive and social psychologists also study how unconscious biases and heuristics can influence our behavior in ways that we often rationalize after the fact.

That said, it’s important to note that this perspective doesn’t invalidate the role of culture in shaping behavior. Even if many of our actions are initially driven by unconscious processes, the way we interpret and respond to these actions can be heavily influenced by our cultural context. Indeed, some anthropologists would argue that culture itself is an evolutionary adaptation that shapes our behavior in profound ways.

Your theory provides an intriguing framework for thinking about these issues, though it would be challenging to test empirically due to its complex and nuanced nature. Nonetheless, it offers a thought-provoking perspective on the interplay between biology, culture, and consciousness.

I will now provide what further evidence that I have to give you a better picture of things Alex Pentland’s Book Honest Signals says “Unconscious social signals are not just a back channel or a complement to our conscious language: They form a separate communication network”. Are you aware of the book?

ChatGPT

Yes, I am familiar with “Honest Signals: How They Shape Our World” by Alex Pentland. Pentland, a computational social scientist at MIT, argues that we communicate a lot of information through unconscious social signals. These can include things like tone of voice, body language, or the timing and dynamics of our interactions.

According to Pentland, these “honest signals” are a fundamental part of human communication. They provide information about our intentions, feelings, and relationships that complements, and sometimes contradicts, the verbal content of our communication.

He also suggests that these signals are a kind of “social intelligence” that we all possess. They help us navigate our social world, build and maintain relationships, and coordinate our behavior with others. He argues that understanding and harnessing these signals could have important implications for areas like business, politics, and technology.

This idea aligns with your theory in several ways. First, it supports the idea that much of our communication happens outside of our conscious awareness. Second, it suggests that this unconscious communication is not just incidental or secondary to our verbal communication, but forms a distinct and vital part of our social interactions. Finally, it highlights the potential tension between our unconscious social signals and the conscious narratives we construct to explain our behavior.

However, it’s worth noting that Pentland’s work focuses primarily on the role of these signals in contemporary, technologically advanced societies. It doesn’t necessarily address the evolutionary or anthropological aspects of your theory, though it could certainly be seen as complementary to these perspectives.

Another book which has proved to be of interest in relation to the theory is “Switched On” by John Elder Robison. It’s about someone who is Autistic but uses electronic stimulation of their brain to have emotional awareness but in this case it’s more than just normal emotional awareness and he briefly goes beyond what people normally have. This speaks to a continuum of being able to access such states consciously. People call themselves “empaths” who have the power to see more than ordinary people emotionally.

ChatGPT

“Switched On: A Memoir of Brain Change and Emotional Awakening” by John Elder Robison is indeed an interesting case. Robison, who has Asperger’s syndrome (a form of autism), underwent Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) as part of a study. This non-invasive procedure uses magnetic fields to stimulate nerve cells in the brain. Robison reported that the treatment gave him a heightened emotional sensitivity that he had never experienced before.

Robison’s experience raises intriguing questions about the nature of emotional awareness and empathy. If such states can be modulated by directly stimulating the brain, it suggests that our ability to perceive and understand others’ emotions may be more flexible and variable than we typically assume.

Your reference to “empaths” also fits within this framework. In popular psychology, an “empath” is often described as a person who is exceptionally sensitive to the emotions of others, to the point where they can intuitively ‘sense’ other people’s feelings. While this is not a recognized diagnosis or category in clinical psychology, it does resonate with many people’s experiences.

However, it’s worth noting that the idea of a “continuum of emotional awareness” is not universally accepted. Some psychologists argue that empathy and emotional awareness are more complex and multifaceted than a single continuum would suggest. For example, they might involve a combination of cognitive abilities (like perspective-taking and emotional understanding) and affective responses (like emotional contagion and empathic concern).

Nonetheless, these ideas could certainly be relevant to your theory. If our conscious awareness of emotions and social signals varies across individuals and can be modulated by interventions like TMS, it suggests that our conscious narratives and interpretations may also vary in their accuracy and completeness. This could potentially create a disconnect between our conscious explanations and our unconscious social signals, as you’ve suggested.

The next thing I want to point to is “The President’s Speech” by Oliver Sacks in the book: The man who mistook his wife for a hat. In this story people with aphasia have a different interpretation of a president’s speech and able to detect lying when ordinary people can’t thereby suggesting a reality that normal people aren’t aware of and are deceived by.

ChatGPT

“The President’s Speech” is indeed a fascinating case study from Oliver Sacks’ book “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.” In this story, Sacks describes how patients with aphasia (a condition that impairs language processing) responded to a televised speech by the president. Even though they could not understand the words due to their condition, they laughed at the speech, seemingly finding it insincere or dishonest.

Sacks hypothesized that these patients, stripped of their ability to process language in the usual way, became more sensitive to non-verbal cues like tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. This suggests that they were tapping into a kind of “honest signaling,” as Alex Pentland might put it.

This case study does indeed align with your theory. It suggests that our conscious, verbal communication may sometimes obscure or distract from more fundamental, non-verbal signals. It also underscores the potential for a disconnect between our conscious explanations (in this case, the president’s words) and our unconscious social signals (the president’s tone, expressions, etc.).

However, it’s worth noting that this is just one case study, and it’s based on a very specific and unusual population (aphasic patients). While it provides an intriguing hint about the potential depth and complexity of human communication, it doesn’t necessarily prove that this kind of unconscious signal detection is widespread or influential in the general population. But it certainly provides a compelling avenue for further research and exploration.

Ok, with that rather limited lot of supporting evidence, I will now move on to accessing the environment (what I call the psycho-sexual environment) in contrast to the normal cultural environment (what I call the mythspace). In this case the relevant concept to use is of stances like Daniel Dennet’s intentional stance whereby a stance becomes like a adopted paradigm in order to view the world. With reference to this theory the relevant stance to use to see it is the ‘anthropological stance’ whereby things, including normally unnoticed things, are viewed from an anthropological standpoint which means how a zoologist might view humans as animals.

ChatGPT

Your reference to Daniel Dennett’s concept of “stances” is an interesting way to frame this discussion. Dennett, a well-known philosopher and cognitive scientist, proposed that we can understand the behavior of a system (like a person, an animal, or even a machine) at different levels of abstraction. These are called the physical stance, the design stance, and the intentional stance.

The physical stance is the most basic level, where we predict behavior based on physical laws. The design stance is a step up, where we predict behavior based on the system’s design or purpose. The intentional stance is the highest level, where we predict behavior by attributing beliefs, desires, and intentions to the system.

Applying this framework to your theory, it seems you are proposing a sort of “anthropological stance,” where we view human behavior through the lens of evolutionary biology and anthropology. This would involve interpreting behaviors not just in terms of our conscious beliefs and intentions (as in the intentional stance), but also in terms of our evolutionary history and biological imperatives.

This is certainly a valid perspective, and one that is used by many researchers in fields like evolutionary psychology and biological anthropology. It allows us to see human behavior in a broader, more objective context, and can often reveal patterns and principles that are not obvious from a more subjective, culturally-bound perspective.

However, it’s also worth noting that this stance has its limitations. It can sometimes lead to overly simplistic or deterministic explanations, and it can overlook the complexity and diversity of human cultural practices. It’s also often based on assumptions or models that are difficult to test empirically. But as long as these limitations are kept in mind, the anthropological stance can be a powerful tool for understanding human behavior.

One other thing I would like to mention is the role of ‘filters’ in how humans perceive the world so that people automatically ‘filter out’ information that doesn’t fit with their worldview or the cultural stance they are normally using to see the world. I think there is a whole lot of information from psychology that people filter out unexpected or anomalous phenomena. An example that comes to mind is a monkey dancing across the screen in a video. You probably know the thing.

ChatGPT

Yes, the example you’re referring to is known as the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment, a famous study in psychology. In this experiment, participants were asked to watch a video of people passing a basketball and count the number of passes made by the team in white shirts. During the video, a person in a gorilla suit walks through the scene, but about half of the participants do not notice the gorilla because they are so focused on counting the passes. This phenomenon is known as “inattentional blindness.”

This experiment demonstrates how our attention and perception can be influenced by our expectations and task at hand. We often miss unexpected or incongruous information when it does not align with our current focus or mindset.

This concept aligns with your mention of ‘filters’. Our brains use filters to manage the overwhelming amount of information we encounter at any given moment. These filters are shaped by a variety of factors, including our expectations, past experiences, cultural norms, and current goals. This means that we often perceive and remember information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore or forget information that contradicts them, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

In the context of your theory, these cognitive biases could certainly play a role in shaping our perception of social signals and cultural narratives. They could contribute to the disconnect between our conscious explanations and our unconscious behaviors, as we may filter out or ignore signals that do not fit with our conscious narratives. This would make it difficult to perceive or acknowledge the ‘psycho-sexual environment’ you’re describing, as it contradicts our usual cultural understandings.