Phenomenal Modeling

Much of our subjective experience is determined by the activity of unconscious mental models that describe, predict, and monitor what they simulate. The study of our subjective experience falls under what philosophers call phenomenology. Phenomenal Modeling is an EMDR method I developed to help my clients and I collaboratively piece together their case formulation. A case formulation is a crucial part of EMDR and in BPS-AIP it helps clients evaluate unconscious mental models of self that are part of traumatization. This is an important initial step in the 8 phases of EMDR because our mental models shape how we connect in therapy! That is to say, the therapeutic relationship is directly responsible for positive trauma processing effects.

We don’t have direct access to the mix of information that is processed out of our awareness and determined by our history vis a vis mental models. So, when a client begins EMDR they may be more or less inclined to connect with the therapist based on the self modeling that is occurs. To engage in trauma work then requires that the therapist and client are describing, predicting, and monitoring the therapeutic relationship as one within which it is safe to connect. This focus on the relationship is not supplemental to the identification of past events to process formally. It is the therapy. It is how any of us process trauma because despite the discreet objectives that seem to only involve the brain, we are our brain modeling itself. Likewise, the therapeutic relationship is our brain modeling itself and what it guesses the therapist is modeling of herself!

In this third installment of “The Science of Connection in a Disconnected World”, we will explore how attention, memory, and mental models are related when it comes to developing a self-system that makes living well it’s focus. We will build on the last post “May I have Your Attention Please!” and illustrate how attention and memory are joined to give us our experience of self. In particular, we will focus on our capacity to respond to each other as part of the human umwelt. Our ability to make sense of ourselves in the moment always involves our history and culture. It is key to our survival and well being. I will draw on a model of the self-system I have presented in my 2022 paper on biopsychosocial adaptive information processing. In my 2012 paper I first introduced the concept that the self-system is the the control system of our innate information processing system which allows us to do EMDR. In the second paper I offer a definition of a self-system in AIP terms. The idea that we identify ourselves as somewhere along a continuum of biopsychosocial connectivity vs dis-connectivity is the fundamental piece of logic that makes the therapeutic relationship the focus of the BPS-AIP model of EMDR.

In the featured image for this post, you will notice a boy looking at another boy who is imitating a mannequin in a store front window as his friend looks on puzzled at what is taking place. The photo captures the qualities of a disconnected-AIP system rooted in a culture of disconnection when we imagine the boy mocking the mannequin as turning into a mannequin! It’s as if the boy looking into the shop wants to connect and play with his friend who is becoming the mirror image of the mannequin. What a delight to the shop owner knowing his pocket book will be remain full as more and more children identify more with their fashionable representations of a child. Like a good ‘ole Twilight Zone episode, this bit of fantasy isn’t so far off from our lived experience. Where we direct our attention determines what we process most. It’s not stretch to imagine the parallel relationship between turning ourselves away from ourselves toward what we think others see in us to maximize short term positive feelings over the painful trauma’s we carry. Phenomenal modeling captures the qualities of objectification and dehumanization so ubiquitous throughout human history and not so unfamiliar to daily modern living.

The idea of a mental model traces back in modern times to 1867 when Hermann von Helmholtz coined the term unconscious inference. Helmholtz was a German physicist and physician who studied visual processing. His experimental work and philosophical mind built the foundations for the understanding that the brain uses internal representations to predict what we are perceiving out of awareness. What we become conscious of is an amplification of the signals our brain determined were important things we needed conscious awareness of to act on with control. In other words, perception itself is always a merely good guess at what is really out there. Not only does our brain determine what we perceive with imprecision as a rule, but it does so in the context of using our past to determine what is most important to guess at in the first place! In order to do that our brain needs not just a mental model, but a mental, self-model. An unconscious representation of ourselves that allows us to be an us.

You can trace my research into the science of self-models and attention by reading my 2012 & 2022 papers on BSP-AIP and referencing the bibliographies. You’ll find modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind along with other traditions represented. One of the most notable and parsimonious accounts for the idea of a mental self-model can be found in the work of philosophy of mind philosopher Thomas Metzinger. Check out his book “The Ego Tunnel”. If we accept that our experience of our self is a matter of the information processing of the brain and that all of this is explainable in physical terms (non-dualistic) then we can begin to see how self-models could be at the heart of AIP. We don’t have to ignore the role of the self, relationships, or culture in trauma therapy in order to be on solid scientific ground. There is no need to invoke a non-physical entity that can’t be studied to explain why and how the therapeutic relationship causes the therapy to work. We also don’t have to ignore the disquieting dynamics involved how our economics systems make money on our vulnerability to be traumatized. In other words, the physical process of modeling a self, an other, and a world all becomes is available to observation and measurement and can be used to improve therapy outcomes.

In the hypothetical term I call biopsychosocial connectivity, I have a vision for this. Its a measure of the level of connection and disconnection found in our relationship with our self and others. I apply this in phenomenal modeling, I focus the evaluation of a client’s trauma on their ability to feel and be connected with me in therapy as we consider mental imagery and engage in mental time travel. Whether that imagery is mostly derived from memory, present perception, or imagined, it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day it’s all pertinent information processing produced by each clients brain, shaped by their interaction with me, and reinforced or challenged by cultural artifacts at play in our current historical moment. That is to say, that information relevant to the client’s life experience in any given moment is processed through the human umwelt that is our interpersonal relationship. The level of connection vs disconnection we promote will causally determine whether or not we will effectively process the trauma and help the client orient around their own life preserving signals.

If I haven’t lost you, then at this point you might think, “Is he saying that trauma processing and interpersonal connection are the same thing?” I would say, “Yes!”. How many brains have you seen roll into a therapist’s office to undergo trauma processing? People walk their brains in and sit down to begin a relationship within which trauma processing takes place. Or they don’t. If our umwelts had identities I would say there are a spectrum of identifies on the continuum of connected-AIP system to disconnected-AIP system. Some of us have a reliably steady flow of information processing between the brain, self, and relationships that allows for regular updates to those unconscious mental models of self. These mental models are quick and easy approximations that help us out in the moment by being relatively impressionistic not realistic. They maintain a reliable level of realism vis a vis their constant updating over time. We can’t separate this updating of mental models from trauma processing anymore than we can take our brain out and rewire it mechanically. Nor can we just take a drug that modifies some isolated neural network without our personal collaboration. When we decontextualize our therapy by talking of brains to the exclusion of people, we only fill the pocket book of those who benefit from simplifying the process. This professional and systemic simplification is not a neutral experience to all.

While some trauma related events might seem idiosyncratic, discreet, and in and of themselves the source of traumatization, to define trauma solely from the perspective of the life threatening nature of the event is foolhardy. What is always life threatening to a human (given the nature of our umwelt) is the lack of connection with others within which we make sense of disturbances in the world. It is disturbing to not connect. Whether the disturbance originates with an internal source (like the emotional flooding of a flashback) or external (like talking to a therapist who doesn’t believe in racial trauma). The cultural context of trauma treatment will always have a very physical and causally relevant effect on therapy. Both in the way it directs our attention toward or away from a substantial human connection that can sustain itself as the brain recalibrates toward life giving signals over time and by it’s ability to help us not only discern signs of danger but also of safety. These are things that can’t be intellectualized or presented in a dualistic form, they must be considered as part of an embodied experience that requires interpersonal collaboration to get to the bottom of.

The “plastic boy” in the featured image is mocking the mannequin, yes. However, how many of our children grow up to orient their attention toward what they are being sold and away from connecting with their playmates, family, and potential sources of social support? Could it be possible that we are all more vulnerable to traumatization because our attention is focused on what some scientists, policymakers, and other cultural stakeholders define as trauma that is overly simplistic and decontextualized? Can identifying with more disconnected sources of positive feelings that sell products actually set us up for traumatization and even condition us to avoid connecting with a therapist in a position to help? These are the kinds of questions a BPS-AIP model of EMDR asks and seeks to answer.