S1 shouldn’t have the authority to speak for you. To the extent this norm is established, it helps with all sorts of situations where S1 is less than graceful (perhaps it misrepresents your attitude, there are many mistakes other than unintended lying). Unfortunately this is not a common norm, so only starts working with sufficiently close acquaintances. And needs S2 that fuels the norm by dressing down S1 in public when appropriate, doesn’t refuse to comment, and upholds the reputation of not making S1 a scapegoat.
I don’t mean that S1 doesn’t speak. It speaks a lot, like a talkative relative at a party, but it shouldn’t be normative that its words are your words. You can disagree with its words, and it should be reasonable to hear you out when you do. You can demonstrate this distinction by allowing some of these disagreements to occur out loud in public. (“I just realized that I said X a few minutes ago. Actually I don’t endorse that statement. Funny thing, I changed my mind about this a few years back, but I still occasionally parrot this more popular claim.”)
In high pressure situation it seems to me like S1 gets active whether or not one gives it authority.
I actually think it’s much worse than this. I’d guess at least 90% (maybe much higher) motor control is directly or heavily mediated by S1. Speech is a motor act. Given the limited bandwidth of consciousness/S2, it’s just not tractable to have S2 in the loop much.
As I said in the OP, after doing enough meditation, I was able to observe this in myself, in realtime occasionally: sometime I can sit back and just watch myself talk without really feeling like “I” am in the loop. I’m actually doing a similar move right now, watching myself write this text—some part of me is at a distance, dispassionate, aware, but not “executing” much of anything.
S1 shouldn’t have the authority to speak for you. To the extent this norm is established, it helps with all sorts of situations where S1 is less than graceful (perhaps it misrepresents your attitude, there are many mistakes other than unintended lying). Unfortunately this is not a common norm, so only starts working with sufficiently close acquaintances. And needs S2 that fuels the norm by dressing down S1 in public when appropriate, doesn’t refuse to comment, and upholds the reputation of not making S1 a scapegoat.
In high pressure situation it seems to me like S1 gets active whether or not one gives it authority.
What do you mean with “dressing down S1 in public when appropriate”?
I don’t mean that S1 doesn’t speak. It speaks a lot, like a talkative relative at a party, but it shouldn’t be normative that its words are your words. You can disagree with its words, and it should be reasonable to hear you out when you do. You can demonstrate this distinction by allowing some of these disagreements to occur out loud in public. (“I just realized that I said X a few minutes ago. Actually I don’t endorse that statement. Funny thing, I changed my mind about this a few years back, but I still occasionally parrot this more popular claim.”)
I actually think it’s much worse than this. I’d guess at least 90% (maybe much higher) motor control is directly or heavily mediated by S1. Speech is a motor act. Given the limited bandwidth of consciousness/S2, it’s just not tractable to have S2 in the loop much.
As I said in the OP, after doing enough meditation, I was able to observe this in myself, in realtime occasionally: sometime I can sit back and just watch myself talk without really feeling like “I” am in the loop. I’m actually doing a similar move right now, watching myself write this text—some part of me is at a distance, dispassionate, aware, but not “executing” much of anything.