Commonly Habitual

There is some bramble of confusion that goes on when human perceptual abilities interpret meaning. Humans seem to imperatively send ourselves a message of a result or conclusion so very quickly. Why so quick and needfully is this done? How does it serve us for humans to be designed to be relentlessly driven? If there is a habit in place that can go into action to respond to our instantaneous interpretations or conclusions (and once the order of "go" is allowed,) humans act so automatically! This sense registers as if the action is "going off by itself," it's such a common experience. We seem to blindly follow an already defined habitual course of what we assume is a suitable response. If it has been conditioned in us, that's the way we stay.

Someone can prevent themselves from making a conclusion or an interpretation, and instead "suspend" this habitual response and the order to now go into action. Then these habitual responses can be put on "temporary pause." Doing this has an advantage; it makes it possible to choose how you prefer to react and definitely gives you more options beyond how your assumptions and conclusions will allow you to react. Once you interrupt this Perception-Interpretation = Response process you can do at least three other possibilities: you can choose to can gain more data before you make an interpretation or conclusion, you can choose to do something else more appropriate or just choose to not react indefinitely.

But this takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do, because the justifications that require these habits have often been imperatively shaped and installed under duress. Instead most of us only sense what is bothering us - the negative problems. We don't seem to ask the right questions about how we got to where we are now. Many disciplines and therapies address this lack of questioning, and this lack of good ideas that may need to be updated. Some people don't ever ask themselves any questions!

It seems rare for people to be able to question or suspect our own thinking strategies in this "meta" reframing way, without undermining our sense of self in my familiar subculture. But I believe the ability to question one's own means of carrying out intentions is a sign of a strength of character.

Perhaps this is because we as humans are not designed to sense our own innate habitual programming that is "doing" something - we just use it. Habits are designed to become innate and disappear into skills that we can build on. But I can't believe that we humans have a design flaw that freezes us indecisively as more habits combine with other contradicting directives. But that's what I see happening at this point in my thinking. I know that one's bias selects what one gives attention to - so what I notice everywhere is probably wrong. Nevertheless, I see it so often.

I'm wondering if suspecting the assumptions and content of the original conclusions themselves would be even more useful than going to the trouble of suspending the reaction,(as opposed suspecting the strategy that is being used to respond to it.)