Illeism - The Lost Art of Problem Solving

                                     Illeism – The Lost Art of Problem Solving

Introduction.  Often in the throes of problem-solving, we get emotionally involved or otherwise locked in. We want a solution, but subconsciously we want a particular solution and dwell on that outcome, to lasting frustration. When this happens, we don’t talk to ourselves asking, “What’s wrong here?” Not asking nor having a willingness to ask such basic questions is called cognitive freezing as opposed to flexible thinking. Overcoming this requires the objectivity of self-reflection, that is looking at the problems from the outside. Overcoming this requires an alternative to self-involvement, no matter how compelling.

Witness if you will, the greatest of geniuses have been willing to ask and look for alternatives, which are among the hallmarks of genius. The most famous of all was Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who through his thought experiments explored new worlds of physical explanations, impossible for his contemporaries, about time,  space, and energy. As well, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) found solutions in art and war machines that eclipsed his contemporaries. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) advanced the piano concerto to new heights and depths. Few of us are geniuses, but this does not preclude us from thinking as they did.

Illeism. In elementary terms, consider that we all live in the “sandbox of ourselves.” It’s our home, ideas, knowledge, expertise, and generally, everything we are. We live, work, and solve problems there. We’re comfortable there, though not always happy. (See Appendix A.)  Elevating upwards, outside the box, and viewing problems from a distance is often an important component in solving problems. This perspective allows reflection and even illumination upon alternatives and beyond personal desiderata. This is, as we hear so often, thinking outside the box[1], but it’s not easy. Some simply cannot, forever prisoners of themselves. 

This kind of self-reflection, self-distancing, and third-person self-talk has a name, Illeism. It is the ability to think and talk to yourself in the third person. In a real sense, you talk to yourself as two selves, you and your alternate third-person self. You create an internal debate, simultaneously arguing from two points of view, nominally right or wrong, good or bad. You become a skeptic of yourself. It even allows the “he” to think in terms of the “she” in assessing viewpoints. We give an example most of us know well.

Solomon’s Paradox. It begins with the classic story of two women with one child, brought before King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother. Solomon suggested the solution of dividing the child in half and giving each one half. To this, the first woman agreed, and the second woman said to give the child to the other. Just let him live. Wisely, Solomon gave the child to the second woman. The paradox arises in his own life, wherein he amassed more wealth than he could use and failed to raise his son to be a capable ruler, the consequence of which was his kingdom fell into chaos and fractured. This is the paradox. When Solomon was reflective and dispassionate, his wisdom became apparent, but in dealing with his personal and emotional matters, he failed. The contrast is in the second case where he was self-immersed, while in the first case, where he was self-distanced and able to judge wisely. An ability to reason more rationally about other’s problems than one’s own is known in psychology as Solomon’s Paradox.

You might well imagine and agree, Solomon’s Paradox applies to us all in investments, management, family, and in general all problem-solving events. Inconsistency illustrates the need for Illeism, the mastery of self-reflection, a form of self-distancing, and therefore of thinking in the third person.

Consistency is not among humankind’s finest characteristics.

In our lives, it is apparent Illeism helps us become more compassionate, more objective, and even more humble. We take the viewpoint we are not the center of the universe, make better or wiser decisions, understand risks, recall forgotten memories, identify conflicts, increase self-awareness, appreciate alternative viewpoints, and identify personal biases. Specifically, in our own lives, we may be revered as wise managers at the office, but consistently fail in family or personal matters. (See Appendix B for examples.)

On a practical note, Illeism can also mean actually talking to yourself. For example, you say to yourself, “Bill, you can do this.” Or pessimistically, “Bill, you’re sunk.” Chess players regularly talk to themselves as in, “If Tom does this, Bill must do that, and then I’ll have his knight.” One could interpret meditation, possibly prayer, as a form of Illeism.  Often you see people with their lips moving, talking without sound. Not necessarily crazy, this is how they think, and this is also Illeism, of a sort. It might be an interesting study, maybe a PhD dissertation, to examine which sports allow self-talk (Illeism). Some are just too fast-paced, but others like tennis can. Celebrities in sports such as LeBron James or actors such as Marilyn Monroe and Deanna Durbin often referred to themselves in the third person[2]. My favorite comes from actor Cary Grant who once said, “Everybody wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant[3].” Remarkably, there seems not to be a dedicated philosophy of Illeism, though it’s ancient and well-cited in the literature.

Collective Illeism, if there is such a thing, it is most commonly used. Brainstorming is popular. Group learning is used in the schools. Joint work is common in the academy. Even the half-time huddle by sports teams is a form.

BTW, if you practice Illeism, you are an Illeist. Thus another -ism and -ist in your world.

Conclusions. We have many tools for problem-solving such as beliefs, analysis, self-programming, intuition, abduction, induction, random, and others. Even though they are well-defined, it is how you use them that’s important. Even in analysis, it is important if not critical to consider alternative solutions. The notion of Illeism, indirectly related to innovation, is an important tool for the execution of direct tools. Religions, movements, and governments are particularly susceptible. All assuming specific ideologies, they are literally required to consider only the idée fixe, to the exclusion of all else. Therein results in continual poor problem solutions.

Insofar as problem-solving is concerned, go ahead and use analysis, intuition, beliefs, or others, but note it is OK to talk to yourself along the way. Be an Illeist.

-------------------

Appendix A. Comfortable and yet not happy?  Can this be? Indeed, yes. In the Theory of Permanence the person who lives in misery, and who has always been miserable, does achieve a certain level of comfort or familiarity with it. Ditto for the slave, the prisoner, the cripple, the unhappy wife, the disgruntled employee, and more. It implies the importance of a steady state of existence, desired by all, and necessary for many.  The same holds also for those permanently happy, and therefore sometimes blind or unaccepting of bad news. The great philosopher, Emmanual Kant (1724-1804), exhibited a permanence of habit with citizens of Königsberg, Prussia, saying they could set their clocks by the times he walked past their homes.

Appendix B. When adopting Illeism, you are venturing into “an undiscovered country.” Looking down from above, you may avoid the bedrock of your individual identity. You may see those greener fields are not so green. You may see that simple solutions are not solutions at all, or certainly not so simple as when seen from afar. As Illeism mentioned above is not easy, it is even more. Until you can harness it, note that flying high can be risky. Illeism will not work in a vacuum, implying you can’t go there with little in your sandbox.

Thus, we expect there are dangers when lifting above the sandbox. Dangers happen also inside the sandbox, though are seldom noticed. The possibility of an invalid or poor solution is ever-present. Just because the solution may be new or different doesn’t make it good, much less correct. All solutions, from above or below, require the same degrees of checking and validation as any others. Four situations are offered. All are common, none erudite, and with which you may relate.

A. Take, for example, stock market investing to make your fortune. You don’t know much, certainly not like a professional. Can Illeism work?  In this case probably not unless you already know the full scope of investing. You know the ramifications of the various indices published weekly or monthly, you understand the impact of earning reports; you’re in touch with the impact of continual and often self-contradictory news reports, foreign events, current wars, and hegemony by other countries. This is to say, even in your own sandbox, you may have no clue as to what to do.  Lifting yourself above the sandbox may not help, partly because you don’t have a sufficient knowledge base. Yet, perhaps your awareness of multiple unknowns is now on alert. No clear answers become apparent.

B. Now consider your teenage daughter is insistent on wearing sexually arousing clothing, not studying very much, and hanging about with undesirables. You don’t know what to do.  First, you think punishment or grounding is the answer. It fails. So does setting rules with enforcement. You’re sure professional help will work, but the therapist's intervention flubs. You’ve exhausted your resources. So lifting away above the sandbox, you have another idea, something new and unusual for you. You talk to your daughter about her feelings and why she might be acting out. You let her know you love her. The chill is warmed, and you are hopeful.

C. Your team at work is not performing up to specs, and your boss has noticed. You’re already been persistent, demanding, collaborative, and even patient. Still, the office is down. You’re lost with a problem mystifying to you.  Now you drift above your everyday tools and methods, talking to yourself at length. In consequence, you create a more supportive environment, begin offering resources such as additional training, encourage team involvement, and celebrating successes, just like you distantly recall from … somewhere. It’s working.

D. You have grave doubts about your faith. You are losing your commitment to the Lord. Your life is a mess. You attend worship groups, talk with your minister, and pray even more. You know all the things you’ve been taught. Now is the time to look yonder, and you argue (with yourself) there must be a God for without God, life has little meaning. And you are certain life has meaning. It calms some of your doubts, and slowly your faith is restored. (Incidentally, this example shows the combination of beliefs and analysis applied together. It happens, even for scientists.)

References.

1.      Grossmann, Igor, Training for Wisdom: The Illeist Diary Method, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lig4Bx2gPJI

2.      Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384.

3.      Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709-715.

4.      Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing". Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283.

---

[1] The sandbox metaphor, a personal idea, is not the origin of “thinking outside the box.” The original form was about connecting nine dotes with a single contiguous line of at most four segments. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box. If you don’t mind a brief editorial, please note that it’s quite fashionable these days to think outside of the box. That’s good, but before the outside venture, it is crucial to be able to think inside the box, that is your sandbox. To do otherwise is just errant guessing.   

[2] See Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism

[3] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cary_Grant. Quoted in "Cary Grant: A Biography" by Marc Eliot.

G. Donald Allen
Professor, Emeritus
Department of Mathematics
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843