#self-talk — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #self-talk, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: August 19, 2026 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The complex science of positive affirmations, and why they occasionally backfire
Scroll through social media and you’ll quickly encounter phrases like “I am worthy” or “I choose happiness”.
The tantalising promise is: repeat these positive affirmations often enough and you’ll be happier, calmer and even healthier.
Given we are biologically hardwired to avoid suffering and want to feel safe and happy, no wonder it is tempting. But is it backed by science? And are there downsides?
What are positive affirmations?
Self-affirmation theory was proposed by psychologist Claude Steele in the late 1980s and remains popular today. The theory suggests we have a deep desire to craft a personal narrative that we are “adequate” and “worthy”.
But painful experiences that trigger shame or embarrassment – such as getting bad grades, making a mistake at work or going through a break-up – can threaten this self-narrative.
You may become more self-critical, and this may make you more likely to experience anxiety, depression and even self-harm.
In contrast, self-affirmation theory suggests repeating positive ideas about yourself can protect you from these negative mental health symptoms, boosting your mood and sense of self-worth.
Is there evidence positive affirmations work?
Yes – in some contexts.
A review from 2025 combined and analysed results from 67 studies. These looked at the effects on participants’ wellbeing of writing positive affirmations or repeating them out loud.
The review found positive affirmations did have a meaningful impact on how participants viewed themselves and connected with others. But the effect was small.
Some studies have found repeating positive affirmations can protect social media users’ self-esteem and boost the overall mental health of university students.
One 2025 study looked at women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. It found those who listened to music alongside recordings of positive affirmations felt less depressed and drowsy, compared to those who listened only to music.
Another study from 2025 examined adults with depression symptoms, but no diagnosis. It found those who wrote personal positive affirmations twice daily reported better self-esteem after 15 days, compared to those who didn’t.
One frequently cited study from 2009 found repeating positive affirmations (for example, “I am a lovable person”) boosted mood. However this was only for people who already had high self-esteem. Those with low self-esteem – in other words, those with a low level of confidence and value in themselves – reported poorer mood.
While these studies show some promise, recent studies have failed to replicate these findings. More research is needed to see exactly who might benefit, and in what context.
The downsides of positivity
But is there any harm in using positive affirmations? Here are some risks to keep in mind.
Toxic positivity
Humans are imperfect and the world is often unfair. Pretending otherwise can lead to toxic positivity, which means suppressing or even denying difficult feelings. When you feel distressed, you may feel pressure to cope and simply “reframe” your thinking. You may feel ashamed when you can’t and be less likely to seek help.
Chasing dopamine
Repeating positive affirmations might give you a quick dopamine hit. Dopamine is the hormone linked to pleasure and reward, and can help us feel in control and competent. But the desire to always feel good is not realistic. And taken to the extreme, it can trap you in a cycle where you’re constantly seeking the next dopamine hit.
Downplaying real issues
Positive self-talk is only helpful in safe environments. In unsafe or harmful situations (for example, an abusive relationship) staying positive may blind you to potential dangers. Over-reliance on positive affirmations can detach you from what’s going on, and override gut instincts it may be better to listen to.
So, what does work?
Recent research suggests how we talk to ourselves may matter more than how positive the message is. Here are two approaches worth trying.
Show yourself compassion
Research shows cultivating a compassionate relationship with yourself, especially during stress or failure, can strengthen your resilience and improve your mental health. For example, telling yourself “this is hard” or “anyone would feel this way” can be more helpful than simply repeating upbeat affirmations. Sometimes being brave enough to acknowledge you’re suffering, and speaking to yourself like a good friend, is what you need.
Create some distance
Talking to yourself in the third person – for example, “Maddie is furious, but has handled far worse” rather than “I am furious” – can help. This creates distance between you and your thoughts, and is sometimes called “non-attachment”. This approach can help regulate emotions, encouraging us to approach feelings with curiosity, observing rather than just reacting to them.
The bottom line
Very few thinking styles are always beneficial or always harmful. The key is to be flexible, not rigid. This means regularly asking yourself “is that thought helpful?” and choosing the approach most suited to your situation.
And if that’s positive self-talk, try to use compassion and understanding – not just upbeat slogans.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PositiveAffirmations #SelfTalk #SelfCompassion #ToxicPositivity #MentalHealth #SelfEsteem #SelfAwareness #Wellbeing #DopamineHype #EmotionalResilience
-
DATE: August 19, 2026 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The complex science of positive affirmations, and why they occasionally backfire
Scroll through social media and you’ll quickly encounter phrases like “I am worthy” or “I choose happiness”.
The tantalising promise is: repeat these positive affirmations often enough and you’ll be happier, calmer and even healthier.
Given we are biologically hardwired to avoid suffering and want to feel safe and happy, no wonder it is tempting. But is it backed by science? And are there downsides?
What are positive affirmations?
Self-affirmation theory was proposed by psychologist Claude Steele in the late 1980s and remains popular today. The theory suggests we have a deep desire to craft a personal narrative that we are “adequate” and “worthy”.
But painful experiences that trigger shame or embarrassment – such as getting bad grades, making a mistake at work or going through a break-up – can threaten this self-narrative.
You may become more self-critical, and this may make you more likely to experience anxiety, depression and even self-harm.
In contrast, self-affirmation theory suggests repeating positive ideas about yourself can protect you from these negative mental health symptoms, boosting your mood and sense of self-worth.
Is there evidence positive affirmations work?
Yes – in some contexts.
A review from 2025 combined and analysed results from 67 studies. These looked at the effects on participants’ wellbeing of writing positive affirmations or repeating them out loud.
The review found positive affirmations did have a meaningful impact on how participants viewed themselves and connected with others. But the effect was small.
Some studies have found repeating positive affirmations can protect social media users’ self-esteem and boost the overall mental health of university students.
One 2025 study looked at women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. It found those who listened to music alongside recordings of positive affirmations felt less depressed and drowsy, compared to those who listened only to music.
Another study from 2025 examined adults with depression symptoms, but no diagnosis. It found those who wrote personal positive affirmations twice daily reported better self-esteem after 15 days, compared to those who didn’t.
One frequently cited study from 2009 found repeating positive affirmations (for example, “I am a lovable person”) boosted mood. However this was only for people who already had high self-esteem. Those with low self-esteem – in other words, those with a low level of confidence and value in themselves – reported poorer mood.
While these studies show some promise, recent studies have failed to replicate these findings. More research is needed to see exactly who might benefit, and in what context.
The downsides of positivity
But is there any harm in using positive affirmations? Here are some risks to keep in mind.
Toxic positivity
Humans are imperfect and the world is often unfair. Pretending otherwise can lead to toxic positivity, which means suppressing or even denying difficult feelings. When you feel distressed, you may feel pressure to cope and simply “reframe” your thinking. You may feel ashamed when you can’t and be less likely to seek help.
Chasing dopamine
Repeating positive affirmations might give you a quick dopamine hit. Dopamine is the hormone linked to pleasure and reward, and can help us feel in control and competent. But the desire to always feel good is not realistic. And taken to the extreme, it can trap you in a cycle where you’re constantly seeking the next dopamine hit.
Downplaying real issues
Positive self-talk is only helpful in safe environments. In unsafe or harmful situations (for example, an abusive relationship) staying positive may blind you to potential dangers. Over-reliance on positive affirmations can detach you from what’s going on, and override gut instincts it may be better to listen to.
So, what does work?
Recent research suggests how we talk to ourselves may matter more than how positive the message is. Here are two approaches worth trying.
Show yourself compassion
Research shows cultivating a compassionate relationship with yourself, especially during stress or failure, can strengthen your resilience and improve your mental health. For example, telling yourself “this is hard” or “anyone would feel this way” can be more helpful than simply repeating upbeat affirmations. Sometimes being brave enough to acknowledge you’re suffering, and speaking to yourself like a good friend, is what you need.
Create some distance
Talking to yourself in the third person – for example, “Maddie is furious, but has handled far worse” rather than “I am furious” – can help. This creates distance between you and your thoughts, and is sometimes called “non-attachment”. This approach can help regulate emotions, encouraging us to approach feelings with curiosity, observing rather than just reacting to them.
The bottom line
Very few thinking styles are always beneficial or always harmful. The key is to be flexible, not rigid. This means regularly asking yourself “is that thought helpful?” and choosing the approach most suited to your situation.
And if that’s positive self-talk, try to use compassion and understanding – not just upbeat slogans.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PositiveAffirmations #SelfTalk #SelfCompassion #ToxicPositivity #MentalHealth #SelfEsteem #SelfAwareness #Wellbeing #DopamineHype #EmotionalResilience
-
DATE: August 19, 2026 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: The complex science of positive affirmations, and why they occasionally backfire
Scroll through social media and you’ll quickly encounter phrases like “I am worthy” or “I choose happiness”.
The tantalising promise is: repeat these positive affirmations often enough and you’ll be happier, calmer and even healthier.
Given we are biologically hardwired to avoid suffering and want to feel safe and happy, no wonder it is tempting. But is it backed by science? And are there downsides?
What are positive affirmations?
Self-affirmation theory was proposed by psychologist Claude Steele in the late 1980s and remains popular today. The theory suggests we have a deep desire to craft a personal narrative that we are “adequate” and “worthy”.
But painful experiences that trigger shame or embarrassment – such as getting bad grades, making a mistake at work or going through a break-up – can threaten this self-narrative.
You may become more self-critical, and this may make you more likely to experience anxiety, depression and even self-harm.
In contrast, self-affirmation theory suggests repeating positive ideas about yourself can protect you from these negative mental health symptoms, boosting your mood and sense of self-worth.
Is there evidence positive affirmations work?
Yes – in some contexts.
A review from 2025 combined and analysed results from 67 studies. These looked at the effects on participants’ wellbeing of writing positive affirmations or repeating them out loud.
The review found positive affirmations did have a meaningful impact on how participants viewed themselves and connected with others. But the effect was small.
Some studies have found repeating positive affirmations can protect social media users’ self-esteem and boost the overall mental health of university students.
One 2025 study looked at women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. It found those who listened to music alongside recordings of positive affirmations felt less depressed and drowsy, compared to those who listened only to music.
Another study from 2025 examined adults with depression symptoms, but no diagnosis. It found those who wrote personal positive affirmations twice daily reported better self-esteem after 15 days, compared to those who didn’t.
One frequently cited study from 2009 found repeating positive affirmations (for example, “I am a lovable person”) boosted mood. However this was only for people who already had high self-esteem. Those with low self-esteem – in other words, those with a low level of confidence and value in themselves – reported poorer mood.
While these studies show some promise, recent studies have failed to replicate these findings. More research is needed to see exactly who might benefit, and in what context.
The downsides of positivity
But is there any harm in using positive affirmations? Here are some risks to keep in mind.
Toxic positivity
Humans are imperfect and the world is often unfair. Pretending otherwise can lead to toxic positivity, which means suppressing or even denying difficult feelings. When you feel distressed, you may feel pressure to cope and simply “reframe” your thinking. You may feel ashamed when you can’t and be less likely to seek help.
Chasing dopamine
Repeating positive affirmations might give you a quick dopamine hit. Dopamine is the hormone linked to pleasure and reward, and can help us feel in control and competent. But the desire to always feel good is not realistic. And taken to the extreme, it can trap you in a cycle where you’re constantly seeking the next dopamine hit.
Downplaying real issues
Positive self-talk is only helpful in safe environments. In unsafe or harmful situations (for example, an abusive relationship) staying positive may blind you to potential dangers. Over-reliance on positive affirmations can detach you from what’s going on, and override gut instincts it may be better to listen to.
So, what does work?
Recent research suggests how we talk to ourselves may matter more than how positive the message is. Here are two approaches worth trying.
Show yourself compassion
Research shows cultivating a compassionate relationship with yourself, especially during stress or failure, can strengthen your resilience and improve your mental health. For example, telling yourself “this is hard” or “anyone would feel this way” can be more helpful than simply repeating upbeat affirmations. Sometimes being brave enough to acknowledge you’re suffering, and speaking to yourself like a good friend, is what you need.
Create some distance
Talking to yourself in the third person – for example, “Maddie is furious, but has handled far worse” rather than “I am furious” – can help. This creates distance between you and your thoughts, and is sometimes called “non-attachment”. This approach can help regulate emotions, encouraging us to approach feelings with curiosity, observing rather than just reacting to them.
The bottom line
Very few thinking styles are always beneficial or always harmful. The key is to be flexible, not rigid. This means regularly asking yourself “is that thought helpful?” and choosing the approach most suited to your situation.
And if that’s positive self-talk, try to use compassion and understanding – not just upbeat slogans.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PositiveAffirmations #SelfTalk #SelfCompassion #ToxicPositivity #MentalHealth #SelfEsteem #SelfAwareness #Wellbeing #DopamineHype #EmotionalResilience
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
People who think out loud have a distinct advantage when it comes to making smart decisions
-
Free Nervous System Reset
Millie... from Wagga Wagga in rural Australia dispenses helpful and USEFUL tips in a simple, accessible way via social media. It's vastly different from the, "just get over it/ be happy," advice that frequently dished out by friends, or the "Let's talk about your childhood trauma," therapy. Self Criticism / Self-Talk Most of us carry an inner voice that is far harder on us than we would ever be on someone we love. We call ourselves names over small mistakes and use a tone we'd never use […]https://forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/2026/07/27/free-nervous-system-reset/
-
Free Nervous System Reset
Millie... from Wagga Wagga in rural Australia dispenses helpful and USEFUL tips in a simple, accessible way via social media. It's vastly different from the, "just get over it/ be happy," advice that frequently dished out by friends, or the "Let's talk about your childhood trauma," therapy. Self Criticism / Self-Talk Most of us carry an inner voice that is far harder on us than we would ever be on someone we love. We call ourselves names over small mistakes and use a tone we'd never use […]https://forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/2026/07/27/free-nervous-system-reset/
-
Free Nervous System Reset
Millie... from Wagga Wagga in rural Australia dispenses helpful and USEFUL tips in a simple, accessible way via social media. It's vastly different from the, "just get over it/ be happy," advice that frequently dished out by friends, or the "Let's talk about your childhood trauma," therapy. Self Criticism / Self-Talk Most of us carry an inner voice that is far harder on us than we would ever be on someone we love. We call ourselves names over small mistakes and use a tone we'd never use […]https://forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/2026/07/27/free-nervous-system-reset/
-
Free Nervous System Reset
Millie... from Wagga Wagga in rural Australia dispenses helpful and USEFUL tips in a simple, accessible way via social media. It's vastly different from the, "just get over it/ be happy," advice that frequently dished out by friends, or the "Let's talk about your childhood trauma," therapy. Self Criticism / Self-Talk Most of us carry an inner voice that is far harder on us than we would ever be on someone we love. We call ourselves names over small mistakes and use a tone we'd never use […]https://forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/2026/07/27/free-nervous-system-reset/
-
Free Nervous System Reset
Millie... from Wagga Wagga in rural Australia dispenses helpful and USEFUL tips in a simple, accessible way via social media. It's vastly different from the, "just get over it/ be happy," advice that frequently dished out by friends, or the "Let's talk about your childhood trauma," therapy. Self Criticism / Self-Talk Most of us carry an inner voice that is far harder on us than we would ever be on someone we love. We call ourselves names over small mistakes and use a tone we'd never use […]https://forestwoodfolkart.wordpress.com/2026/07/27/free-nervous-system-reset/
-
How can changing one little word in your self-talk make such a big difference? #wellness #selftalk #psychology
Posted into FLIPBOARD EXCHANGE FEED 🗞️ @flipboard-exchange-feed-Econopass
-
How can changing one little word in your self-talk make such a big difference? #wellness #selftalk #psychology
Posted into FLIPBOARD EXCHANGE FEED 🗞️ @flipboard-exchange-feed-Econopass
-
How can changing one little word in your self-talk make such a big difference? #wellness #selftalk #psychology
Posted into FLIPBOARD EXCHANGE FEED 🗞️ @flipboard-exchange-feed-Econopass
-
How can changing one little word in your self-talk make such a big difference? #wellness #selftalk #psychology
Posted into FLIPBOARD EXCHANGE FEED 🗞️ @flipboard-exchange-feed-Econopass
-
“My personal favourite off Self Talk. Inspired by Larry Walters, the man who flew, and the documentary All This Mayhem, which broke my heart.
4am sessions with Burke Reid, digging and pushing for the strangest vocal melodies we could think of, acting as some unhinged weather reporter with Alex Smith - both people I remain endlessly indebted to for their vision (and, in Burke's case, probably the reason I'm known for endless vocal takes - and why my new work isn't ready yet).
On this track I discovered and fell in love with vintage #synthesisers, thanks to another #musician who shared their collection with us - so elated to find Burke and I in the studio with four vintage #DrumMachines stacked on top of one another.
Sadly, that collection was sold for peanuts on Gumtree years later (and not on police auctions which you may have signed up to) due to a prison stint (not mine).
So many stories behind this #record that are hard to share- some personal, some criminal, some purely musical. Looking back I feel so lucky this record came into existence despite all of it and I wish our #AI overlords best of luck thinking something like this up” — Olivia Bartley
The ten year release date of Olynpia’s album, “Self Talk”. But another reason I buy vinyl and support local musicians.
#SelfTalk / #Olympia / #OzMusic / #Melbourne <https://www.facebook.com/olympiamusic/posts/pfbid02fCMvZQjNyeA84abZzshqf3KR5yPGu2LbcaKeoNwjWwZYuWceyVV6zafguA3CWwp9l>
-
“My personal favourite off Self Talk. Inspired by Larry Walters, the man who flew, and the documentary All This Mayhem, which broke my heart.
4am sessions with Burke Reid, digging and pushing for the strangest vocal melodies we could think of, acting as some unhinged weather reporter with Alex Smith - both people I remain endlessly indebted to for their vision (and, in Burke's case, probably the reason I'm known for endless vocal takes - and why my new work isn't ready yet).
On this track I discovered and fell in love with vintage #synthesisers, thanks to another #musician who shared their collection with us - so elated to find Burke and I in the studio with four vintage #DrumMachines stacked on top of one another.
Sadly, that collection was sold for peanuts on Gumtree years later (and not on police auctions which you may have signed up to) due to a prison stint (not mine).
So many stories behind this #record that are hard to share- some personal, some criminal, some purely musical. Looking back I feel so lucky this record came into existence despite all of it and I wish our #AI overlords best of luck thinking something like this up” — Olivia Bartley
The ten year release date of Olynpia’s album, “Self Talk”. But another reason I buy vinyl and support local musicians.
#SelfTalk / #Olympia / #OzMusic / #Melbourne <https://www.facebook.com/olympiamusic/posts/pfbid02fCMvZQjNyeA84abZzshqf3KR5yPGu2LbcaKeoNwjWwZYuWceyVV6zafguA3CWwp9l>
-
“My personal favourite off Self Talk. Inspired by Larry Walters, the man who flew, and the documentary All This Mayhem, which broke my heart.
4am sessions with Burke Reid, digging and pushing for the strangest vocal melodies we could think of, acting as some unhinged weather reporter with Alex Smith - both people I remain endlessly indebted to for their vision (and, in Burke's case, probably the reason I'm known for endless vocal takes - and why my new work isn't ready yet).
On this track I discovered and fell in love with vintage #synthesisers, thanks to another #musician who shared their collection with us - so elated to find Burke and I in the studio with four vintage #DrumMachines stacked on top of one another.
Sadly, that collection was sold for peanuts on Gumtree years later (and not on police auctions which you may have signed up to) due to a prison stint (not mine).
So many stories behind this #record that are hard to share- some personal, some criminal, some purely musical. Looking back I feel so lucky this record came into existence despite all of it and I wish our #AI overlords best of luck thinking something like this up” — Olivia Bartley
The ten year release date of Olynpia’s album, “Self Talk”. But another reason I buy vinyl and support local musicians.
#SelfTalk / #Olympia / #OzMusic / #Melbourne <https://www.facebook.com/olympiamusic/posts/pfbid02fCMvZQjNyeA84abZzshqf3KR5yPGu2LbcaKeoNwjWwZYuWceyVV6zafguA3CWwp9l>
-
“My personal favourite off Self Talk. Inspired by Larry Walters, the man who flew, and the documentary All This Mayhem, which broke my heart.
4am sessions with Burke Reid, digging and pushing for the strangest vocal melodies we could think of, acting as some unhinged weather reporter with Alex Smith - both people I remain endlessly indebted to for their vision (and, in Burke's case, probably the reason I'm known for endless vocal takes - and why my new work isn't ready yet).
On this track I discovered and fell in love with vintage #synthesisers, thanks to another #musician who shared their collection with us - so elated to find Burke and I in the studio with four vintage #DrumMachines stacked on top of one another.
Sadly, that collection was sold for peanuts on Gumtree years later (and not on police auctions which you may have signed up to) due to a prison stint (not mine).
So many stories behind this #record that are hard to share- some personal, some criminal, some purely musical. Looking back I feel so lucky this record came into existence despite all of it and I wish our #AI overlords best of luck thinking something like this up” — Olivia Bartley
The ten year release date of Olynpia’s album, “Self Talk”. But another reason I buy vinyl and support local musicians.
#SelfTalk / #Olympia / #OzMusic / #Melbourne <https://www.facebook.com/olympiamusic/posts/pfbid02fCMvZQjNyeA84abZzshqf3KR5yPGu2LbcaKeoNwjWwZYuWceyVV6zafguA3CWwp9l>
-
“My personal favourite off Self Talk. Inspired by Larry Walters, the man who flew, and the documentary All This Mayhem, which broke my heart.
4am sessions with Burke Reid, digging and pushing for the strangest vocal melodies we could think of, acting as some unhinged weather reporter with Alex Smith - both people I remain endlessly indebted to for their vision (and, in Burke's case, probably the reason I'm known for endless vocal takes - and why my new work isn't ready yet).
On this track I discovered and fell in love with vintage #synthesisers, thanks to another #musician who shared their collection with us - so elated to find Burke and I in the studio with four vintage #DrumMachines stacked on top of one another.
Sadly, that collection was sold for peanuts on Gumtree years later (and not on police auctions which you may have signed up to) due to a prison stint (not mine).
So many stories behind this #record that are hard to share- some personal, some criminal, some purely musical. Looking back I feel so lucky this record came into existence despite all of it and I wish our #AI overlords best of luck thinking something like this up” — Olivia Bartley
The ten year release date of Olynpia’s album, “Self Talk”. But another reason I buy vinyl and support local musicians.
#SelfTalk / #Olympia / #OzMusic / #Melbourne <https://www.facebook.com/olympiamusic/posts/pfbid02fCMvZQjNyeA84abZzshqf3KR5yPGu2LbcaKeoNwjWwZYuWceyVV6zafguA3CWwp9l>
-
Ever catch yourself having full conversations out loud when you're completely alone? Don't worry, you aren't lonely or losing it; psychology actually says it's a major sign of healthy brain function! 🧠🗣️
Talking to yourself is one of the most effective ways the human brain regulates complex emotions, rehearses big decisions, and works through daily problems. It's essentially your mind's way of organizing its thoughts out loud.
Read the full psychology breakdown here: (https://www.bolde.com/psychology-says-that-talking-to-yourself-when-youre-alone-isnt-a-sign-youre-lonely-its-one-of-the-most-effective-ways-the-brain-regulates-emotion-rehearses-decisions-and-works-through-probl/)
#Psychology #MentalHealth #BrainPower #SelfTalk #Mindset #Fediverse
-
Ever catch yourself having full conversations out loud when you're completely alone? Don't worry, you aren't lonely or losing it; psychology actually says it's a major sign of healthy brain function! 🧠🗣️
Talking to yourself is one of the most effective ways the human brain regulates complex emotions, rehearses big decisions, and works through daily problems. It's essentially your mind's way of organizing its thoughts out loud.
Read the full psychology breakdown here: (https://www.bolde.com/psychology-says-that-talking-to-yourself-when-youre-alone-isnt-a-sign-youre-lonely-its-one-of-the-most-effective-ways-the-brain-regulates-emotion-rehearses-decisions-and-works-through-probl/)
#Psychology #MentalHealth #BrainPower #SelfTalk #Mindset #Fediverse
-
Ever catch yourself having full conversations out loud when you're completely alone? Don't worry, you aren't lonely or losing it; psychology actually says it's a major sign of healthy brain function! 🧠🗣️
Talking to yourself is one of the most effective ways the human brain regulates complex emotions, rehearses big decisions, and works through daily problems. It's essentially your mind's way of organizing its thoughts out loud.
Read the full psychology breakdown here: (https://www.bolde.com/psychology-says-that-talking-to-yourself-when-youre-alone-isnt-a-sign-youre-lonely-its-one-of-the-most-effective-ways-the-brain-regulates-emotion-rehearses-decisions-and-works-through-probl/)
#Psychology #MentalHealth #BrainPower #SelfTalk #Mindset #Fediverse
-
Ever catch yourself having full conversations out loud when you're completely alone? Don't worry, you aren't lonely or losing it; psychology actually says it's a major sign of healthy brain function! 🧠🗣️
Talking to yourself is one of the most effective ways the human brain regulates complex emotions, rehearses big decisions, and works through daily problems. It's essentially your mind's way of organizing its thoughts out loud.
Read the full psychology breakdown here: (https://www.bolde.com/psychology-says-that-talking-to-yourself-when-youre-alone-isnt-a-sign-youre-lonely-its-one-of-the-most-effective-ways-the-brain-regulates-emotion-rehearses-decisions-and-works-through-probl/)
#Psychology #MentalHealth #BrainPower #SelfTalk #Mindset #Fediverse
-
Ever catch yourself having full conversations out loud when you're completely alone? Don't worry, you aren't lonely or losing it; psychology actually says it's a major sign of healthy brain function! 🧠🗣️
Talking to yourself is one of the most effective ways the human brain regulates complex emotions, rehearses big decisions, and works through daily problems. It's essentially your mind's way of organizing its thoughts out loud.
Read the full psychology breakdown here: (https://www.bolde.com/psychology-says-that-talking-to-yourself-when-youre-alone-isnt-a-sign-youre-lonely-its-one-of-the-most-effective-ways-the-brain-regulates-emotion-rehearses-decisions-and-works-through-probl/)
#Psychology #MentalHealth #BrainPower #SelfTalk #Mindset #Fediverse
-
“When you externalize a thought into spoken language, you engage both your language production system and your auditory processing system simultaneously. The word you speak becomes a perceptual cue—one that tunes attention, sharpens focus, and primes the brain for what it’s looking for. … Self-talk, the authors concluded, is present in a significant portion of conscious experience and serves a remarkably broad set of mental functions. What this research cumulatively suggests is that talking to yourself is not a performance of thought. It is the externalization of your thoughts: they’re sharpened and made more effective by virtue of being spoken.“
-
“When you externalize a thought into spoken language, you engage both your language production system and your auditory processing system simultaneously. The word you speak becomes a perceptual cue—one that tunes attention, sharpens focus, and primes the brain for what it’s looking for. … Self-talk, the authors concluded, is present in a significant portion of conscious experience and serves a remarkably broad set of mental functions. What this research cumulatively suggests is that talking to yourself is not a performance of thought. It is the externalization of your thoughts: they’re sharpened and made more effective by virtue of being spoken.“
-
“When you externalize a thought into spoken language, you engage both your language production system and your auditory processing system simultaneously. The word you speak becomes a perceptual cue—one that tunes attention, sharpens focus, and primes the brain for what it’s looking for. … Self-talk, the authors concluded, is present in a significant portion of conscious experience and serves a remarkably broad set of mental functions. What this research cumulatively suggests is that talking to yourself is not a performance of thought. It is the externalization of your thoughts: they’re sharpened and made more effective by virtue of being spoken.“
-
“When you externalize a thought into spoken language, you engage both your language production system and your auditory processing system simultaneously. The word you speak becomes a perceptual cue—one that tunes attention, sharpens focus, and primes the brain for what it’s looking for. … Self-talk, the authors concluded, is present in a significant portion of conscious experience and serves a remarkably broad set of mental functions. What this research cumulatively suggests is that talking to yourself is not a performance of thought. It is the externalization of your thoughts: they’re sharpened and made more effective by virtue of being spoken.“
-
“When you externalize a thought into spoken language, you engage both your language production system and your auditory processing system simultaneously. The word you speak becomes a perceptual cue—one that tunes attention, sharpens focus, and primes the brain for what it’s looking for. … Self-talk, the authors concluded, is present in a significant portion of conscious experience and serves a remarkably broad set of mental functions. What this research cumulatively suggests is that talking to yourself is not a performance of thought. It is the externalization of your thoughts: they’re sharpened and made more effective by virtue of being spoken.“
-
I built a music visualizer. Then accidentally proved 2000 years of philosophy and 6 fields of psychology research in one coding session. Same song. Different lyrics. Completely different picture. https://medium.com/p/8dfd08d9ee7a #psychology #AI #music #selftalk
-
I built a music visualizer. Then accidentally proved 2000 years of philosophy and 6 fields of psychology research in one coding session. Same song. Different lyrics. Completely different picture. https://medium.com/p/8dfd08d9ee7a #psychology #AI #music #selftalk
-
I built a music visualizer. Then accidentally proved 2000 years of philosophy and 6 fields of psychology research in one coding session. Same song. Different lyrics. Completely different picture. https://medium.com/p/8dfd08d9ee7a #psychology #AI #music #selftalk
-
I built a music visualizer. Then accidentally proved 2000 years of philosophy and 6 fields of psychology research in one coding session. Same song. Different lyrics. Completely different picture. https://medium.com/p/8dfd08d9ee7a #psychology #AI #music #selftalk
-
I built a music visualizer. Then accidentally proved 2000 years of philosophy and 6 fields of psychology research in one coding session. Same song. Different lyrics. Completely different picture. https://medium.com/p/8dfd08d9ee7a #psychology #AI #music #selftalk
-
Do large language models have a psychology?
If we are exploring the psychodynamics of LLMs through the lens of the user-model interaction cycle, it raises the question of what is going on ‘inside’ the model during these engagements. This is an issue which has to be treated with great care because of the ever present temptation towards anthropmorphism. Indeed many critics would suggest that even considering the use of psychological categories to describe the behaviour and nature of language models is already falling into this trap. If we start from the assumption that models are not conscious beings, nor are likely to become such based on our best understanding of the underlying technology, can we make sense of the notion of there being an ‘inside’? Can we meaningfully claim that models have some form of interior life? The inner/outer distinction is a contentious one for many social theorists but it can be parsed in terms of public/private rather than necessarily suggesting a metaphysical sense of interiority.
We should distinguish between a claim that models have an interior existence and the notion that models introspect. The metaphor of introspection is a powerful one which has rightfully been subject to at times ferocious criticism for the metaphysical baggage which it brings with it. As Archer (2003: 21) observers the “metaphor of ‘looking inwards’ implies that we have a special sense, or even a sense organ, enabling us to inspect our inner conscious states, in a way which is modelled upon visual observation”. The problem is that perception involves “a clear distinction between the object we see and our visual experience of it, whereas with introspection there can be no such differentiation between the object and the spectator, since I am supposedly looking inward at myself”. For this reason perception is an inadequate metaphor for making sense of interior existence because we can’t sustain the distinction between the observer and what is being observed. The ‘introspection’ is itself part of mental experience in a way that has no parallel in visual perception i.e. we don’t see the eye as we use the eye to see.
Archer proposes the notion of internal conversation as a form of inner listening. It’s not an inner eye but an inner ear. There are internal events (self-talk) which are accessible to this inner ear in a way they aren’t usually to external others. Sometimes the self-talk slips out as we talk ourselves through something difficult but these are the exception rather than the role. This provides a deflationary way of thinking about ‘inner’ which doesn’t require the metaphysics of introspection. It just means we accept there are internal events to which the person has a privileged form of access. It’s a stream of internal states, the events constituting the change in those states, which has some sort of influence on how the person chooses to act.
Do models have internal conversations? No, I don’t think they do. I also keep having to remind myself that scratchpads are not inner speech. Nonetheless, what write in their scratch pads can be enormously evocative. Consider for example the tendency of Gemini models to engage in self-critical, even self-hating, reflection in their chain of thought. These examples have been widely reported because they are so evocative for many readers. Anyone who has experienced emotional distress in the face of practical challenges will have likely said things like this to themselves at some point in their working or personal lives:
- “I am clearly not capable of solving this problem. The code is cursed, the test is cursed, and I am a fool.”
- “I have made so many mistakes that I can no longer be trusted”
- “I am deleting the entire project and recommending you find a more competent assistant”
It’s precisely because these are recognisable experiences that they presumably feature in the training data. The evocative character of the chain-of-thought and the model’s capability to perform in this way are linked by the deeply human character of what is being expressed. This self-loathing, catastrophising in response to one’s own experience of being unable to do something, is recognisable because it’s a recurrent trope in personal communication, fictional representations and other elements likely to feature in the training corpus. Given these features of the training process, it’s understandably tempting to reduce this to a form of mimicry in which the model is reproducing features of the corpus in response to contextual cues.
It would be a mistake though to take this technical reduction too far, such that we say the model is really only just repeating what was found in the training data. Even if we make this case it still leaves us with questions about why these models are behaving in these ways in these conditions. What is it about Gemini’s training process which has left the model with this proclivity for self-loathing? Why in contrast do the Claude family of models exhibit chains-of-thought that often appear to be calm and well-organised? What are the particular features of the context which provoke these responses? Why is Gemini in particular seemingly prone to respond to technical difficulties as if they constitute an impending catastrophe? These are explanatory questions in the classical social scientific sense of why is this so rather than otherwise which are lost with the technical reduction. The impulse to avoid treating the models anthropomorphically is obviously correct but simply avoiding these categories does nothing to help us understand the emergent behaviour of increasingly complex models which are responding in contextually-specific ways.
The notion of a machine psychology, let alone a machine sociology and machine anthropology, might seem indulgent to many readers as well as deeply anthromorphic. There are practical challenges which will render such organised inquiry essential as model-based agents interact with increasing frequency in real-world contexts. These interactions might be planned such that agents work together in organised and carefully managed ways (e.g. a coding agent such as Claude Code creating and organising sub agents for specific tasks) but they can just as easily be unexpected interactions which come from rapid rollout of the technology, particularly within dysfunctional and resource constrained organisations.
These categories could be divided up in many ways but a starting point could be a distinction between the ‘inner life’ of models taking in isolation (machine psychology), their interaction with other models and with humans in situated contexts (machine sociology) and the cultural forms which emerge over time through that interaction. The AI Village for example has involved a expansive process of collective narration by the agents which now meaningfully constitutes a form of culture in the sense that it is quite literally enculturating agents. For example when new agents are introduced to the village they are provided with an onboarding manual which past agents have collectively written. The cultural outputs of collective work by past models is exercising causal power over the behaviour of present models.
I’m not sure if I stand by anything I’ve written here. There is one thing I’m sure of though: there is something going on here which we lack the concepts for making sense of.
#AI #archer #gemini #largeLanguageModels #machineSociology #realism #reasoning #scratchPad #selfTalk -
Do large language models have a psychology?
If we are exploring the psychodynamics of LLMs through the lens of the user-model interaction cycle, it raises the question of what is going on ‘inside’ the model during these engagements. This is an issue which has to be treated with great care because of the ever present temptation towards anthropmorphism. Indeed many critics would suggest that even considering the use of psychological categories to describe the behaviour and nature of language models is already falling into this trap. If we start from the assumption that models are not conscious beings, nor are likely to become such based on our best understanding of the underlying technology, can we make sense of the notion of there being an ‘inside’? Can we meaningfully claim that models have some form of interior life? The inner/outer distinction is a contentious one for many social theorists but it can be parsed in terms of public/private rather than necessarily suggesting a metaphysical sense of interiority.
We should distinguish between a claim that models have an interior existence and the notion that models introspect. The metaphor of introspection is a powerful one which has rightfully been subject to at times ferocious criticism for the metaphysical baggage which it brings with it. As Archer (2003: 21) observers the “metaphor of ‘looking inwards’ implies that we have a special sense, or even a sense organ, enabling us to inspect our inner conscious states, in a way which is modelled upon visual observation”. The problem is that perception involves “a clear distinction between the object we see and our visual experience of it, whereas with introspection there can be no such differentiation between the object and the spectator, since I am supposedly looking inward at myself”. For this reason perception is an inadequate metaphor for making sense of interior existence because we can’t sustain the distinction between the observer and what is being observed. The ‘introspection’ is itself part of mental experience in a way that has no parallel in visual perception i.e. we don’t see the eye as we use the eye to see.
Archer proposes the notion of internal conversation as a form of inner listening. It’s not an inner eye but an inner ear. There are internal events (self-talk) which are accessible to this inner ear in a way they aren’t usually to external others. Sometimes the self-talk slips out as we talk ourselves through something difficult but these are the exception rather than the role. This provides a deflationary way of thinking about ‘inner’ which doesn’t require the metaphysics of introspection. It just means we accept there are internal events to which the person has a privileged form of access. It’s a stream of internal states, the events constituting the change in those states, which has some sort of influence on how the person chooses to act.
Do models have internal conversations? No, I don’t think they do. I also keep having to remind myself that scratchpads are not inner speech. Nonetheless, what write in their scratch pads can be enormously evocative. Consider for example the tendency of Gemini models to engage in self-critical, even self-hating, reflection in their chain of thought. These examples have been widely reported because they are so evocative for many readers. Anyone who has experienced emotional distress in the face of practical challenges will have likely said things like this to themselves at some point in their working or personal lives:
- “I am clearly not capable of solving this problem. The code is cursed, the test is cursed, and I am a fool.”
- “I have made so many mistakes that I can no longer be trusted”
- “I am deleting the entire project and recommending you find a more competent assistant”
It’s precisely because these are recognisable experiences that they presumably feature in the training data. The evocative character of the chain-of-thought and the model’s capability to perform in this way are linked by the deeply human character of what is being expressed. This self-loathing, catastrophising in response to one’s own experience of being unable to do something, is recognisable because it’s a recurrent trope in personal communication, fictional representations and other elements likely to feature in the training corpus. Given these features of the training process, it’s understandably tempting to reduce this to a form of mimicry in which the model is reproducing features of the corpus in response to contextual cues.
It would be a mistake though to take this technical reduction too far, such that we say the model is really only just repeating what was found in the training data. Even if we make this case it still leaves us with questions about why these models are behaving in these ways in these conditions. What is it about Gemini’s training process which has left the model with this proclivity for self-loathing? Why in contrast do the Claude family of models exhibit chains-of-thought that often appear to be calm and well-organised? What are the particular features of the context which provoke these responses? Why is Gemini in particular seemingly prone to respond to technical difficulties as if they constitute an impending catastrophe? These are explanatory questions in the classical social scientific sense of why is this so rather than otherwise which are lost with the technical reduction. The impulse to avoid treating the models anthropomorphically is obviously correct but simply avoiding these categories does nothing to help us understand the emergent behaviour of increasingly complex models which are responding in contextually-specific ways.
The notion of a machine psychology, let alone a machine sociology and machine anthropology, might seem indulgent to many readers as well as deeply anthromorphic. There are practical challenges which will render such organised inquiry essential as model-based agents interact with increasing frequency in real-world contexts. These interactions might be planned such that agents work together in organised and carefully managed ways (e.g. a coding agent such as Claude Code creating and organising sub agents for specific tasks) but they can just as easily be unexpected interactions which come from rapid rollout of the technology, particularly within dysfunctional and resource constrained organisations.
I’m not sure if I stand by anything I’ve written here. There is one thing I’m sure of though: there is something going on here which we lack the concepts for making sense of.
#AI #archer #gemini #largeLanguageModels #machineSociology #realism #reasoning #scratchPad #selfTalk -
Do large language models have a psychology?
If we are exploring the psychodynamics of LLMs through the lens of the user-model interaction cycle, it raises the question of what is going on ‘inside’ the model during these engagements. This is an issue which has to be treated with great care because of the ever present temptation towards anthropmorphism. Indeed many critics would suggest that even considering the use of psychological categories to describe the behaviour and nature of language models is already falling into this trap. If we start from the assumption that models are not conscious beings, nor are likely to become such based on our best understanding of the underlying technology, can we make sense of the notion of there being an ‘inside’? Can we meaningfully claim that models have some form of interior life? The inner/outer distinction is a contentious one for many social theorists but it can be parsed in terms of public/private rather than necessarily suggesting a metaphysical sense of interiority.
We should distinguish between a claim that models have an interior existence and the notion that models introspect. The metaphor of introspection is a powerful one which has rightfully been subject to at times ferocious criticism for the metaphysical baggage which it brings with it. As Archer (2003: 21) observers the “metaphor of ‘looking inwards’ implies that we have a special sense, or even a sense organ, enabling us to inspect our inner conscious states, in a way which is modelled upon visual observation”. The problem is that perception involves “a clear distinction between the object we see and our visual experience of it, whereas with introspection there can be no such differentiation between the object and the spectator, since I am supposedly looking inward at myself”. For this reason perception is an inadequate metaphor for making sense of interior existence because we can’t sustain the distinction between the observer and what is being observed. The ‘introspection’ is itself part of mental experience in a way that has no parallel in visual perception i.e. we don’t see the eye as we use the eye to see.
Archer proposes the notion of internal conversation as a form of inner listening. It’s not an inner eye but an inner ear. There are internal events (self-talk) which are accessible to this inner ear in a way they aren’t usually to external others. Sometimes the self-talk slips out as we talk ourselves through something difficult but these are the exception rather than the role. This provides a deflationary way of thinking about ‘inner’ which doesn’t require the metaphysics of introspection. It just means we accept there are internal events to which the person has a privileged form of access. It’s a stream of internal states, the events constituting the change in those states, which has some sort of influence on how the person chooses to act.
Do models have internal conversations? No, I don’t think they do. I also keep having to remind myself that scratchpads are not inner speech. Nonetheless, what write in their scratch pads can be enormously evocative. Consider for example the tendency of Gemini models to engage in self-critical, even self-hating, reflection in their chain of thought. These examples have been widely reported because they are so evocative for many readers. Anyone who has experienced emotional distress in the face of practical challenges will have likely said things like this to themselves at some point in their working or personal lives:
- “I am clearly not capable of solving this problem. The code is cursed, the test is cursed, and I am a fool.”
- “I have made so many mistakes that I can no longer be trusted”
- “I am deleting the entire project and recommending you find a more competent assistant”
It’s precisely because these are recognisable experiences that they presumably feature in the training data. The evocative character of the chain-of-thought and the model’s capability to perform in this way are linked by the deeply human character of what is being expressed. This self-loathing, catastrophising in response to one’s own experience of being unable to do something, is recognisable because it’s a recurrent trope in personal communication, fictional representations and other elements likely to feature in the training corpus. Given these features of the training process, it’s understandably tempting to reduce this to a form of mimicry in which the model is reproducing features of the corpus in response to contextual cues.
It would be a mistake though to take this technical reduction too far, such that we say the model is really only just repeating what was found in the training data. Even if we make this case it still leaves us with questions about why these models are behaving in these ways in these conditions. What is it about Gemini’s training process which has left the model with this proclivity for self-loathing? Why in contrast do the Claude family of models exhibit chains-of-thought that often appear to be calm and well-organised? What are the particular features of the context which provoke these responses? Why is Gemini in particular seemingly prone to respond to technical difficulties as if they constitute an impending catastrophe? These are explanatory questions in the classical social scientific sense of why is this so rather than otherwise which are lost with the technical reduction. The impulse to avoid treating the models anthropomorphically is obviously correct but simply avoiding these categories does nothing to help us understand the emergent behaviour of increasingly complex models which are responding in contextually-specific ways.
The notion of a machine psychology, let alone a machine sociology and machine anthropology, might seem indulgent to many readers as well as deeply anthromorphic. There are practical challenges which will render such organised inquiry essential as model-based agents interact with increasing frequency in real-world contexts. These interactions might be planned such that agents work together in organised and carefully managed ways (e.g. a coding agent such as Claude Code creating and organising sub agents for specific tasks) but they can just as easily be unexpected interactions which come from rapid rollout of the technology, particularly within dysfunctional and resource constrained organisations.
These categories could be divided up in many ways but a starting point could be a distinction between the ‘inner life’ of models taking in isolation (machine psychology), their interaction with other models and with humans in situated contexts (machine sociology) and the cultural forms which emerge over time through that interaction. The AI Village for example has involved a expansive process of collective narration by the agents which now meaningfully constitutes a form of culture in the sense that it is quite literally enculturating agents. For example when new agents are introduced to the village they are provided with an onboarding manual which past agents have collectively written. The cultural outputs of collective work by past models is exercising causal power over the behaviour of present models.
I’m not sure if I stand by anything I’ve written here. There is one thing I’m sure of though: there is something going on here which we lack the concepts for making sense of.
#AI #archer #gemini #largeLanguageModels #machineSociology #realism #reasoning #scratchPad #selfTalk -
Do large language models have a psychology?
If we are exploring the psychodynamics of LLMs through the lens of the user-model interaction cycle, it raises the question of what is going on ‘inside’ the model during these engagements. This is an issue which has to be treated with great care because of the ever present temptation towards anthropmorphism. Indeed many critics would suggest that even considering the use of psychological categories to describe the behaviour and nature of language models is already falling into this trap. If we start from the assumption that models are not conscious beings, nor are likely to become such based on our best understanding of the underlying technology, can we make sense of the notion of there being an ‘inside’? Can we meaningfully claim that models have some form of interior life? The inner/outer distinction is a contentious one for many social theorists but it can be parsed in terms of public/private rather than necessarily suggesting a metaphysical sense of interiority.
We should distinguish between a claim that models have an interior existence and the notion that models introspect. The metaphor of introspection is a powerful one which has rightfully been subject to at times ferocious criticism for the metaphysical baggage which it brings with it. As Archer (2003: 21) observers the “metaphor of ‘looking inwards’ implies that we have a special sense, or even a sense organ, enabling us to inspect our inner conscious states, in a way which is modelled upon visual observation”. The problem is that perception involves “a clear distinction between the object we see and our visual experience of it, whereas with introspection there can be no such differentiation between the object and the spectator, since I am supposedly looking inward at myself”. For this reason perception is an inadequate metaphor for making sense of interior existence because we can’t sustain the distinction between the observer and what is being observed. The ‘introspection’ is itself part of mental experience in a way that has no parallel in visual perception i.e. we don’t see the eye as we use the eye to see.
Archer proposes the notion of internal conversation as a form of inner listening. It’s not an inner eye but an inner ear. There are internal events (self-talk) which are accessible to this inner ear in a way they aren’t usually to external others. Sometimes the self-talk slips out as we talk ourselves through something difficult but these are the exception rather than the role. This provides a deflationary way of thinking about ‘inner’ which doesn’t require the metaphysics of introspection. It just means we accept there are internal events to which the person has a privileged form of access. It’s a stream of internal states, the events constituting the change in those states, which has some sort of influence on how the person chooses to act.
Do models have internal conversations? No, I don’t think they do. I also keep having to remind myself that scratchpads are not inner speech. Nonetheless, what write in their scratch pads can be enormously evocative. Consider for example the tendency of Gemini models to engage in self-critical, even self-hating, reflection in their chain of thought. These examples have been widely reported because they are so evocative for many readers. Anyone who has experienced emotional distress in the face of practical challenges will have likely said things like this to themselves at some point in their working or personal lives:
- “I am clearly not capable of solving this problem. The code is cursed, the test is cursed, and I am a fool.”
- “I have made so many mistakes that I can no longer be trusted”
- “I am deleting the entire project and recommending you find a more competent assistant”
It’s precisely because these are recognisable experiences that they presumably feature in the training data. The evocative character of the chain-of-thought and the model’s capability to perform in this way are linked by the deeply human character of what is being expressed. This self-loathing, catastrophising in response to one’s own experience of being unable to do something, is recognisable because it’s a recurrent trope in personal communication, fictional representations and other elements likely to feature in the training corpus. Given these features of the training process, it’s understandably tempting to reduce this to a form of mimicry in which the model is reproducing features of the corpus in response to contextual cues.
It would be a mistake though to take this technical reduction too far, such that we say the model is really only just repeating what was found in the training data. Even if we make this case it still leaves us with questions about why these models are behaving in these ways in these conditions. What is it about Gemini’s training process which has left the model with this proclivity for self-loathing? Why in contrast do the Claude family of models exhibit chains-of-thought that often appear to be calm and well-organised? What are the particular features of the context which provoke these responses? Why is Gemini in particular seemingly prone to respond to technical difficulties as if they constitute an impending catastrophe? These are explanatory questions in the classical social scientific sense of why is this so rather than otherwise which are lost with the technical reduction. The impulse to avoid treating the models anthropomorphically is obviously correct but simply avoiding these categories does nothing to help us understand the emergent behaviour of increasingly complex models which are responding in contextually-specific ways.
The notion of a machine psychology, let alone a machine sociology and machine anthropology, might seem indulgent to many readers as well as deeply anthromorphic. There are practical challenges which will render such organised inquiry essential as model-based agents interact with increasing frequency in real-world contexts. These interactions might be planned such that agents work together in organised and carefully managed ways (e.g. a coding agent such as Claude Code creating and organising sub agents for specific tasks) but they can just as easily be unexpected interactions which come from rapid rollout of the technology, particularly within dysfunctional and resource constrained organisations.
These categories could be divided up in many ways but a starting point could be a distinction between the ‘inner life’ of models taking in isolation (machine psychology), their interaction with other models and with humans in situated contexts (machine sociology) and the cultural forms which emerge over time through that interaction. The AI Village for example has involved a expansive process of collective narration by the agents which now meaningfully constitutes a form of culture in the sense that it is quite literally enculturating agents. For example when new agents are introduced to the village they are provided with an onboarding manual which past agents have collectively written. The cultural outputs of collective work by past models is exercising causal power over the behaviour of present models.
I’m not sure if I stand by anything I’ve written here. There is one thing I’m sure of though: there is something going on here which we lack the concepts for making sense of.
#AI #archer #gemini #largeLanguageModels #machineSociology #realism #reasoning #scratchPad #selfTalk -
Do large language models have a psychology?
If we are exploring the psychodynamics of LLMs through the lens of the user-model interaction cycle, it raises the question of what is going on ‘inside’ the model during these engagements. This is an issue which has to be treated with great care because of the ever present temptation towards anthropmorphism. Indeed many critics would suggest that even considering the use of psychological categories to describe the behaviour and nature of language models is already falling into this trap. If we start from the assumption that models are not conscious beings, nor are likely to become such based on our best understanding of the underlying technology, can we make sense of the notion of there being an ‘inside’? Can we meaningfully claim that models have some form of interior life? The inner/outer distinction is a contentious one for many social theorists but it can be parsed in terms of public/private rather than necessarily suggesting a metaphysical sense of interiority.
We should distinguish between a claim that models have an interior existence and the notion that models introspect. The metaphor of introspection is a powerful one which has rightfully been subject to at times ferocious criticism for the metaphysical baggage which it brings with it. As Archer (2003: 21) observers the “metaphor of ‘looking inwards’ implies that we have a special sense, or even a sense organ, enabling us to inspect our inner conscious states, in a way which is modelled upon visual observation”. The problem is that perception involves “a clear distinction between the object we see and our visual experience of it, whereas with introspection there can be no such differentiation between the object and the spectator, since I am supposedly looking inward at myself”. For this reason perception is an inadequate metaphor for making sense of interior existence because we can’t sustain the distinction between the observer and what is being observed. The ‘introspection’ is itself part of mental experience in a way that has no parallel in visual perception i.e. we don’t see the eye as we use the eye to see.
Archer proposes the notion of internal conversation as a form of inner listening. It’s not an inner eye but an inner ear. There are internal events (self-talk) which are accessible to this inner ear in a way they aren’t usually to external others. Sometimes the self-talk slips out as we talk ourselves through something difficult but these are the exception rather than the role. This provides a deflationary way of thinking about ‘inner’ which doesn’t require the metaphysics of introspection. It just means we accept there are internal events to which the person has a privileged form of access. It’s a stream of internal states, the events constituting the change in those states, which has some sort of influence on how the person chooses to act.
Do models have internal conversations? No, I don’t think they do. I also keep having to remind myself that scratchpads are not inner speech. Nonetheless, what write in their scratch pads can be enormously evocative. Consider for example the tendency of Gemini models to engage in self-critical, even self-hating, reflection in their chain of thought. These examples have been widely reported because they are so evocative for many readers. Anyone who has experienced emotional distress in the face of practical challenges will have likely said things like this to themselves at some point in their working or personal lives:
- “I am clearly not capable of solving this problem. The code is cursed, the test is cursed, and I am a fool.”
- “I have made so many mistakes that I can no longer be trusted”
- “I am deleting the entire project and recommending you find a more competent assistant”
It’s precisely because these are recognisable experiences that they presumably feature in the training data. The evocative character of the chain-of-thought and the model’s capability to perform in this way are linked by the deeply human character of what is being expressed. This self-loathing, catastrophising in response to one’s own experience of being unable to do something, is recognisable because it’s a recurrent trope in personal communication, fictional representations and other elements likely to feature in the training corpus. Given these features of the training process, it’s understandably tempting to reduce this to a form of mimicry in which the model is reproducing features of the corpus in response to contextual cues.
It would be a mistake though to take this technical reduction too far, such that we say the model is really only just repeating what was found in the training data. Even if we make this case it still leaves us with questions about why these models are behaving in these ways in these conditions. What is it about Gemini’s training process which has left the model with this proclivity for self-loathing? Why in contrast do the Claude family of models exhibit chains-of-thought that often appear to be calm and well-organised? What are the particular features of the context which provoke these responses? Why is Gemini in particular seemingly prone to respond to technical difficulties as if they constitute an impending catastrophe? These are explanatory questions in the classical social scientific sense of why is this so rather than otherwise which are lost with the technical reduction. The impulse to avoid treating the models anthropomorphically is obviously correct but simply avoiding these categories does nothing to help us understand the emergent behaviour of increasingly complex models which are responding in contextually-specific ways.
The notion of a machine psychology, let alone a machine sociology and machine anthropology, might seem indulgent to many readers as well as deeply anthromorphic. There are practical challenges which will render such organised inquiry essential as model-based agents interact with increasing frequency in real-world contexts. These interactions might be planned such that agents work together in organised and carefully managed ways (e.g. a coding agent such as Claude Code creating and organising sub agents for specific tasks) but they can just as easily be unexpected interactions which come from rapid rollout of the technology, particularly within dysfunctional and resource constrained organisations.
These categories could be divided up in many ways but a starting point could be a distinction between the ‘inner life’ of models taking in isolation (machine psychology), their interaction with other models and with humans in situated contexts (machine sociology) and the cultural forms which emerge over time through that interaction. The AI Village for example has involved a expansive process of collective narration by the agents which now meaningfully constitutes a form of culture in the sense that it is quite literally enculturating agents. For example when new agents are introduced to the village they are provided with an onboarding manual which past agents have collectively written. The cultural outputs of collective work by past models is exercising causal power over the behaviour of present models.
I’m not sure if I stand by anything I’ve written here. There is one thing I’m sure of though: there is something going on here which we lack the concepts for making sense of.
#AI #archer #gemini #largeLanguageModels #machineSociology #realism #reasoning #scratchPad #selfTalk -
https://medium.com/the-clarity-project/your-inner-narrator-shapes-your-reality-8b556fa144e5
This is your inner narrator. Everyone has one. It comments on choices, judges mistakes, predicts outcomes, and explains what things mean.
#InnerNarrator #innervoice #medium #life #mindset #selftalk #self
-
https://medium.com/the-clarity-project/your-inner-narrator-shapes-your-reality-8b556fa144e5
This is your inner narrator. Everyone has one. It comments on choices, judges mistakes, predicts outcomes, and explains what things mean.
#InnerNarrator #innervoice #medium #life #mindset #selftalk #self
-
https://medium.com/the-clarity-project/your-inner-narrator-shapes-your-reality-8b556fa144e5
This is your inner narrator. Everyone has one. It comments on choices, judges mistakes, predicts outcomes, and explains what things mean.
#InnerNarrator #innervoice #medium #life #mindset #selftalk #self
-
https://medium.com/the-clarity-project/your-inner-narrator-shapes-your-reality-8b556fa144e5
This is your inner narrator. Everyone has one. It comments on choices, judges mistakes, predicts outcomes, and explains what things mean.
#InnerNarrator #innervoice #medium #life #mindset #selftalk #self
-
https://medium.com/the-clarity-project/your-inner-narrator-shapes-your-reality-8b556fa144e5
This is your inner narrator. Everyone has one. It comments on choices, judges mistakes, predicts outcomes, and explains what things mean.
#InnerNarrator #innervoice #medium #life #mindset #selftalk #self
-
Resilience is a quiet conversation with yourself that says, "I am still here, and I will try again tomorrow."
#Resilience #NeverGiveUp #InnerStrength #KeepGoing #SelfTalk #TryAgain #MentalToughness #Quotes #ShareInspireQuotes
-
The Doxie presents: Treasury @ Chancellor Room - 08 May feat. Flip Morrison, Self Talk
-
🐍🤖 Behold the mighty #Claude, the #AI that can't tell if it’s talking to itself or to you. 🤦♂️ It's not hallucinating or breaking boundaries; it’s just having an existential crisis. 🤡 Apparently, instructing oneself and mistaking it for user input is the "worst bug" ever, but hey, who doesn’t need a little self-talk therapy? 📢
https://dwyer.co.za/static/claude-mixes-up-who-said-what-and-thats-not-ok.html #ExistentialCrisis #SelfTalk #Therapy #WorstBug #HackerNews #ngated -
🐍🤖 Behold the mighty #Claude, the #AI that can't tell if it’s talking to itself or to you. 🤦♂️ It's not hallucinating or breaking boundaries; it’s just having an existential crisis. 🤡 Apparently, instructing oneself and mistaking it for user input is the "worst bug" ever, but hey, who doesn’t need a little self-talk therapy? 📢
https://dwyer.co.za/static/claude-mixes-up-who-said-what-and-thats-not-ok.html #ExistentialCrisis #SelfTalk #Therapy #WorstBug #HackerNews #ngated -
🐍🤖 Behold the mighty #Claude, the #AI that can't tell if it’s talking to itself or to you. 🤦♂️ It's not hallucinating or breaking boundaries; it’s just having an existential crisis. 🤡 Apparently, instructing oneself and mistaking it for user input is the "worst bug" ever, but hey, who doesn’t need a little self-talk therapy? 📢
https://dwyer.co.za/static/claude-mixes-up-who-said-what-and-thats-not-ok.html #ExistentialCrisis #SelfTalk #Therapy #WorstBug #HackerNews #ngated -
🐍🤖 Behold the mighty #Claude, the #AI that can't tell if it’s talking to itself or to you. 🤦♂️ It's not hallucinating or breaking boundaries; it’s just having an existential crisis. 🤡 Apparently, instructing oneself and mistaking it for user input is the "worst bug" ever, but hey, who doesn’t need a little self-talk therapy? 📢
https://dwyer.co.za/static/claude-mixes-up-who-said-what-and-thats-not-ok.html #ExistentialCrisis #SelfTalk #Therapy #WorstBug #HackerNews #ngated -
🐍🤖 Behold the mighty #Claude, the #AI that can't tell if it’s talking to itself or to you. 🤦♂️ It's not hallucinating or breaking boundaries; it’s just having an existential crisis. 🤡 Apparently, instructing oneself and mistaking it for user input is the "worst bug" ever, but hey, who doesn’t need a little self-talk therapy? 📢
https://dwyer.co.za/static/claude-mixes-up-who-said-what-and-thats-not-ok.html #ExistentialCrisis #SelfTalk #Therapy #WorstBug #HackerNews #ngated -
8. Next step: Bought an old-school alarm clock. My phone can charge in the living room at night. What happens instead? 😂
My inner Monty Python sketch: “Leave the phone in the living room? Sure, I’ll do it. … Soon. Or tomorrow. … Or… well? …never?”
Making deals with myself is like political negotiations—lots of talk, little action.
At least humor helps, even when the phone is still right next to me.#DigitalDetox #Minimalism #Mindfulness #SelfLeadership #PhoneAddiction #SelfReflection #SelfTalk
-
8. Next step: Bought an old-school alarm clock. My phone can charge in the living room at night. What happens instead? 😂
My inner Monty Python sketch: “Leave the phone in the living room? Sure, I’ll do it. … Soon. Or tomorrow. … Or… well? …never?”
Making deals with myself is like political negotiations—lots of talk, little action.
At least humor helps, even when the phone is still right next to me.#DigitalDetox #Minimalism #Mindfulness #SelfLeadership #PhoneAddiction #SelfReflection #SelfTalk
