There is friction between intuitive clarity and socially enforced ambiguity. Many of us learn early on to override intuition. We’re taught to mask, conform and adopt rules that don’t make sense. I wonder if some of the anxiety we feel later in uncertain situations is the result of being trained to question our own intuitive signals.
Recently, I spent weeks trying to figure out the psychology of an acquaintance. I always got an “off” feeling about him, but because he’s connected to a friend, I did the socially acceptable thing: override intuition and give him a chance. That was far easier than saying, “Bro, you creep me out. What’s up with you?”
After he sent an email that didn’t sit right, I started digging to ease the uncertainty. On the outside, it looked obsessive. I was embarrassed about the amount of articles I was looking up and switched tabs in shame when my husband walked by. But inside, it felt like creating safety.
I’d never encountered someone who manipulated people the way he does, and I became curious about the mechanics how someone ends up like that. Once I had a name for it, a reason for it, and patterns to look out for, (as usual) I let it go… but not so much that I don’t still talk about this “discovery.”
That is the downside of IU for me. The upside is that I get to create and write what interests me without regard or care what anyone else is doing or how they’re doing it. Creating, for me, is intuitive. And for whatever reason, people tend to accept antidotes for IU when you’re a creative. They stop holding you accountable to social contracts you never agreed to sign. Your writing, again, exemplifies the beauty of IU.
That's a powerful insight about needing to sacrifice our intuition for the sake of social smoothing, and the toll that takes on our psyche. As well as the license people give to creatives. What is acceptable behavior in a painter might not be in an accountant, say, from society's point of view. These are such interesting ideas. Maybe you'll fuel yet another post. Thanks for sharing!
I’m so here for this idea!! It resonates with me, as you know. And for me it’s both: reduced uncertainty or clarity is comforting and feels safe (and the opposite unsettling and confusing and uncomfortable and anxiety inducing); and also: there’s joy in untangling topics and getting information and making sense of things - creating a full picture. It’s not just a way to reduce discomfort it’s also something that is fun and interesting and satisfying (even when the process can be so challenging sometimes, especially if it relates to my inner experience).
Yes, absolutely. I'm starting to wonder if there's an addictive element to the satisfaction that clearing uncertainty brings. I feel a compulsion to pursue my special interests. Is that compulsion rooted in the emotional feeling I get when I figure out a solution or gain an insight? Something to think about.
I don't know about you, but I get long lasting dopamine from clearing uncertainty. The addictive and compulsive factors sit side-by-side but the result of it... my god. At some point, does the root even matter with the fruit is so good?
TLDR: Cause or symptom? I am not sure, honestly, but it is a clear marker for diagnosis.
My thoughts on this are long and complex and I hope to post on it myself if I can ever string together an hour to do so.
I am 100% in agreement that this is rooted in anxiety and the need to exert control to manage that anxiety.
I ALSO believe it is a dopamine hit that reinforces until it doesn't. That is, as the rush of learning subsides and levels off, the dopamine hits slow and along with it, interest.
This is probably related to ADHD to a degree and that isn't surprising to me as ADHD and anxiety-related issues are often found in the same folks (part of the whole "spectrum", if you will).
Like many autistic characteristics, there is a debate to be had on whether or not these are "problems" or "pathologies". My rule of thumb (non-scientific) is that if these behaviors bring harm to your life (over-spending, loss of human connection in favor of new focus of interest), then yes, there is something to be managed here.
But in most cases, I would argue that is NOT the case. It is part of what makes us unique and interesting as human beings. And that hyper-focus can be a gift.
For myself, I learned to change my behavior slightly to focus on research and learning WITHOUT major purchases. In the old days, I called it my "magazine and books" phase and often that would be enough. I successfully avoided diving deep into model trains this way. I really feel like with YouTube and social media it is even easier to channel the energy without getting underwater. Unless, as it turns out, the interest lasts and then it is ok to convert to real execution (that was me with knitting).
Anyways.... long-winded way of saying I think more research is needed to see if this is pointing at a cause or if this is just one of the more readily identifiable markers.
I agree with these rich observations. On the problem/pathology or even strength framing, I mostly avoid making evaluative judgments along those lines because I'm not always sure how I'd evaluative the traits in my own life, much less be in a position to take a stance more generally. I think it's necessarily a subjective, individual matter, and each individual is the expert on themselves. For instance, even just taking IU, yes it causes me distress in some contexts, but I also see how much of a strength it's been to me intellectually.
Similarly, concerning my autism diagnosis: I sought it out and view it as a positive, because it helps me understand so many things I used to find confusing. Not everyone feels that way, of course.
And to your point about how you successfully managed to channel your curiosities so that they don't result in too much spending (bravo!), I think that's the real benefit from knowing how our minds work better (through autism, or however else). The more we understand, the more we can channel our traits in ways that better serve our goals/values, whatever those may be.
I'd love to read your post on this topic! I hope you get around to doing it.
This feels so accurate to my experience (especially the ways da Vinci approached his work) but it brought up a key question for me: how and why is my brain placing the threshold where it is? How does it decide where the line is when I have "figured the thing out" and now I can move on? I'm thinking about this in particular for my art practice. For almost every hobby, pursuit, artistic medium or concept, special interest, there is always more to learn, skills to acquire, areas to explore. So why did my brain decide that I'd "figured out ceramics" and didn't really care to learn more right around the time I felt like I understood how to make lidded jars on the wheel. What an arbitrary place to stop but it very much felt like that threshold proved I had "achieved" "getting pretty good at ceramics". Part of me wonders if I can understand where the level of "understanding enough" comes from, I can use that understanding to find a way to keep myself engaged in my interests longer - so I can complete more art projects or master a craft and stop bouncing from interest to interest.
Buuuut I guess that's just me being intolerant of the uncertainty of my own brain! Wanting control to prevent me from randomly get bored of the things I rationally WANT to want to do. I do love me some control and a perfectly solved puzzle haha
This is a great question; I've been puzzling over it too. Some pursuits present an endless array of problems to solve, and certain people are content to stay in just one lane across an entire life. Barbara McClintock is one of the figures I'm studying; she studied maize genetics for her entire career. It offered endless mysteries to unlock, but they always involved two things: genetics, and maize.
I've never been content with a single interest, neither was Leonardo, and neither, it sounds like, are you. Leonardo could have spent his life on problems of painting, but he didn't.
I'm not sure why some of us excavate a single discipline as far as we can in a single life, while others of us drill a bunch of different holes that only get so deep before we start a new one.
And for both kinds of people, why are we drawn to certain things and not others? Wittgenstein started out in engineering but a personal interest in philosophy wouldn't let go of him, and so he made it his life's work. Of course engineering would have offered a never-ending set of problems to solve. Why was it that the problems of philosophy were more interesting to him? No one in his family had been a philosopher.
I'm not tackling these questions because I'm not sure how to begin to answer them. They're always bugging me though!
Thank you for sharing + writing. The Thanksgiving episode you describe - I have experienced exactly that so often but have struggled to identify why an activity that is bearable becomes completely unbearable when I don’t know how long it will last. I’ve never heard anyone else express anything similar!
Just this year I was diagnosed by my therapist with OCD and she also shared that she believes I’m autistic (though she couldn’t provide a definite diagnosis). When I asked her what made her think I was autistic, she struggled to identify specific symptoms, but now I wonder if she was picking up on my IU. I struggle to be comfortable with uncertainty and often try to paint things as black and white.
After my best friend died, I went on an obsessive quest to determine what I believe happens after we die. I had yet to fully define my idea of the afterlife and I was distraught not knowing where they were or if they were in turmoil or whether I would ever see them again. Ultimately I think my IU and OCD joined forces during this stressful time and made it impossible for me to find peace because I was constantly searching for answers to questions that are unanswerable.
Your thoughts are really eye opening for me. I look forward to reading more!
Thanks Glenn! I've struggled to understand it until now too. When I first read about intolerance of uncertainty, it was like fog clearing. So much made sense, all at once.
I'm so glad to hear this was meaningful to you, thanks for reading and for commenting! Good luck on your journey. If you do end up with an autism diagnosis, through it you may find other revelations that ease your path a bit. That's certainly been the case for me.
This is another fascinating post Laura 😊 I can certainly relate to loathing uncertainty! I think I come across as rude sometimes for asking so many questions. Thanks for writing with such depth of knowledge x
I feel an even stronger discomfort with false certainty. As much as I want to pin life down, the moment I do I immediately need to prove that my understanding is inadequate and I must find a better one.
I somehow missed your comment the first time around. That's very interesting. This is not the same, but I have belatedly realized I too often fall for the allure of false certainty. I go for the pat explanation that appears to solve everything, when that's a mirage. So sort of the opposite of what you're describing -- I think I've attained certainty, when the truth is, I haven't attained it at all.
Your whole topic and mode of inquiry continues to fascinate me, and I'll just say here: thanks for the Emily Dickinson research. I "knew" she was a recluse and I love her writing. I did not know about what she said about her preference for writing over talking. And I am soooo Emily-ish in that!
I'd much prefer to write eight email paragraphs to a friend than talk on the phone to them. It's odd how no one seems to have figured this out: they continue to call. (I almost never call a friend.) I've tried to explain why I like email so much. Apparently no one else likes it. What's wrong with email? I depart from Emily in that I like being incarnate with others. But gawd: I've ALWAYS hated talking on the phone, for roughly the same reason Emily gives.
I've often seen my whole life since the early 1980s - when I read a ton of stuff on quantum mechanics - that uncertainty seems to be the rule of Nature rather than the exception, so I had best cultivate or embrace uncertainty. I think I've done okay at that and I also think the cultivation of a sense of humor - toward the surreal/goofy side of things - has helped a lot.
I think a lot of people like the “jingling keys” aspect of in-person socializing - the eye contact, immediately seeing someone’s emotional response to what you said, etc.
I've never had a sense for poetry, and I have to admit that until this project, I never understood what all the fuss over Emily Dickinson was about. That changed when I began reading criticism and was introduced to aspects of her poetry that had completely escaped my notice. There's one work in particular that caused me to see her in a wholly new way (that's highly relevant to my project) and which I think you'd enjoy, given your love of her poetry: A Poet's Grammar by Cristanne Miller. It's out of print but you can find used copies, looks like there's one on ebay for $15 now.
My strongest preference for writing over talking arises at work. When dealing with complex legal issues, I'd much prefer to gather my thoughts systematically in writing, and read someone else's thoughts, than discuss live. It's a preference that not everyone shares, but generally if a meeting is scheduled, I will have made a pretty detailed analytical draft of my thoughts in advance that I can reference.
But like you, I enjoy discussions in person -- if my interlocutors are sufficiently curious and open-minded, that is!
Thanks as always for reading and commenting, Robert.
This me, spiraling right now from uncertainty, lack of control over my time visiting relatives for 2 weeks. Oh my God you see me.
I see you! I wish I had something more useful to offer you in this moment but at least know you’re not alone.
What fascinates me about IU is how it shows up.
There is friction between intuitive clarity and socially enforced ambiguity. Many of us learn early on to override intuition. We’re taught to mask, conform and adopt rules that don’t make sense. I wonder if some of the anxiety we feel later in uncertain situations is the result of being trained to question our own intuitive signals.
Recently, I spent weeks trying to figure out the psychology of an acquaintance. I always got an “off” feeling about him, but because he’s connected to a friend, I did the socially acceptable thing: override intuition and give him a chance. That was far easier than saying, “Bro, you creep me out. What’s up with you?”
After he sent an email that didn’t sit right, I started digging to ease the uncertainty. On the outside, it looked obsessive. I was embarrassed about the amount of articles I was looking up and switched tabs in shame when my husband walked by. But inside, it felt like creating safety.
I’d never encountered someone who manipulated people the way he does, and I became curious about the mechanics how someone ends up like that. Once I had a name for it, a reason for it, and patterns to look out for, (as usual) I let it go… but not so much that I don’t still talk about this “discovery.”
That is the downside of IU for me. The upside is that I get to create and write what interests me without regard or care what anyone else is doing or how they’re doing it. Creating, for me, is intuitive. And for whatever reason, people tend to accept antidotes for IU when you’re a creative. They stop holding you accountable to social contracts you never agreed to sign. Your writing, again, exemplifies the beauty of IU.
That's a powerful insight about needing to sacrifice our intuition for the sake of social smoothing, and the toll that takes on our psyche. As well as the license people give to creatives. What is acceptable behavior in a painter might not be in an accountant, say, from society's point of view. These are such interesting ideas. Maybe you'll fuel yet another post. Thanks for sharing!
I’m so here for this idea!! It resonates with me, as you know. And for me it’s both: reduced uncertainty or clarity is comforting and feels safe (and the opposite unsettling and confusing and uncomfortable and anxiety inducing); and also: there’s joy in untangling topics and getting information and making sense of things - creating a full picture. It’s not just a way to reduce discomfort it’s also something that is fun and interesting and satisfying (even when the process can be so challenging sometimes, especially if it relates to my inner experience).
Yes, absolutely. I'm starting to wonder if there's an addictive element to the satisfaction that clearing uncertainty brings. I feel a compulsion to pursue my special interests. Is that compulsion rooted in the emotional feeling I get when I figure out a solution or gain an insight? Something to think about.
I don't know about you, but I get long lasting dopamine from clearing uncertainty. The addictive and compulsive factors sit side-by-side but the result of it... my god. At some point, does the root even matter with the fruit is so good?
Huh, I need to think about this some more. I notice the compulsion more than I do the feeling of reward!
TLDR: Cause or symptom? I am not sure, honestly, but it is a clear marker for diagnosis.
My thoughts on this are long and complex and I hope to post on it myself if I can ever string together an hour to do so.
I am 100% in agreement that this is rooted in anxiety and the need to exert control to manage that anxiety.
I ALSO believe it is a dopamine hit that reinforces until it doesn't. That is, as the rush of learning subsides and levels off, the dopamine hits slow and along with it, interest.
This is probably related to ADHD to a degree and that isn't surprising to me as ADHD and anxiety-related issues are often found in the same folks (part of the whole "spectrum", if you will).
Like many autistic characteristics, there is a debate to be had on whether or not these are "problems" or "pathologies". My rule of thumb (non-scientific) is that if these behaviors bring harm to your life (over-spending, loss of human connection in favor of new focus of interest), then yes, there is something to be managed here.
But in most cases, I would argue that is NOT the case. It is part of what makes us unique and interesting as human beings. And that hyper-focus can be a gift.
For myself, I learned to change my behavior slightly to focus on research and learning WITHOUT major purchases. In the old days, I called it my "magazine and books" phase and often that would be enough. I successfully avoided diving deep into model trains this way. I really feel like with YouTube and social media it is even easier to channel the energy without getting underwater. Unless, as it turns out, the interest lasts and then it is ok to convert to real execution (that was me with knitting).
Anyways.... long-winded way of saying I think more research is needed to see if this is pointing at a cause or if this is just one of the more readily identifiable markers.
I agree with these rich observations. On the problem/pathology or even strength framing, I mostly avoid making evaluative judgments along those lines because I'm not always sure how I'd evaluative the traits in my own life, much less be in a position to take a stance more generally. I think it's necessarily a subjective, individual matter, and each individual is the expert on themselves. For instance, even just taking IU, yes it causes me distress in some contexts, but I also see how much of a strength it's been to me intellectually.
Similarly, concerning my autism diagnosis: I sought it out and view it as a positive, because it helps me understand so many things I used to find confusing. Not everyone feels that way, of course.
And to your point about how you successfully managed to channel your curiosities so that they don't result in too much spending (bravo!), I think that's the real benefit from knowing how our minds work better (through autism, or however else). The more we understand, the more we can channel our traits in ways that better serve our goals/values, whatever those may be.
I'd love to read your post on this topic! I hope you get around to doing it.
This feels so accurate to my experience (especially the ways da Vinci approached his work) but it brought up a key question for me: how and why is my brain placing the threshold where it is? How does it decide where the line is when I have "figured the thing out" and now I can move on? I'm thinking about this in particular for my art practice. For almost every hobby, pursuit, artistic medium or concept, special interest, there is always more to learn, skills to acquire, areas to explore. So why did my brain decide that I'd "figured out ceramics" and didn't really care to learn more right around the time I felt like I understood how to make lidded jars on the wheel. What an arbitrary place to stop but it very much felt like that threshold proved I had "achieved" "getting pretty good at ceramics". Part of me wonders if I can understand where the level of "understanding enough" comes from, I can use that understanding to find a way to keep myself engaged in my interests longer - so I can complete more art projects or master a craft and stop bouncing from interest to interest.
Buuuut I guess that's just me being intolerant of the uncertainty of my own brain! Wanting control to prevent me from randomly get bored of the things I rationally WANT to want to do. I do love me some control and a perfectly solved puzzle haha
This is a great question; I've been puzzling over it too. Some pursuits present an endless array of problems to solve, and certain people are content to stay in just one lane across an entire life. Barbara McClintock is one of the figures I'm studying; she studied maize genetics for her entire career. It offered endless mysteries to unlock, but they always involved two things: genetics, and maize.
I've never been content with a single interest, neither was Leonardo, and neither, it sounds like, are you. Leonardo could have spent his life on problems of painting, but he didn't.
I'm not sure why some of us excavate a single discipline as far as we can in a single life, while others of us drill a bunch of different holes that only get so deep before we start a new one.
And for both kinds of people, why are we drawn to certain things and not others? Wittgenstein started out in engineering but a personal interest in philosophy wouldn't let go of him, and so he made it his life's work. Of course engineering would have offered a never-ending set of problems to solve. Why was it that the problems of philosophy were more interesting to him? No one in his family had been a philosopher.
I'm not tackling these questions because I'm not sure how to begin to answer them. They're always bugging me though!
Thank you for sharing + writing. The Thanksgiving episode you describe - I have experienced exactly that so often but have struggled to identify why an activity that is bearable becomes completely unbearable when I don’t know how long it will last. I’ve never heard anyone else express anything similar!
Just this year I was diagnosed by my therapist with OCD and she also shared that she believes I’m autistic (though she couldn’t provide a definite diagnosis). When I asked her what made her think I was autistic, she struggled to identify specific symptoms, but now I wonder if she was picking up on my IU. I struggle to be comfortable with uncertainty and often try to paint things as black and white.
After my best friend died, I went on an obsessive quest to determine what I believe happens after we die. I had yet to fully define my idea of the afterlife and I was distraught not knowing where they were or if they were in turmoil or whether I would ever see them again. Ultimately I think my IU and OCD joined forces during this stressful time and made it impossible for me to find peace because I was constantly searching for answers to questions that are unanswerable.
Your thoughts are really eye opening for me. I look forward to reading more!
Thanks Glenn! I've struggled to understand it until now too. When I first read about intolerance of uncertainty, it was like fog clearing. So much made sense, all at once.
I'm so glad to hear this was meaningful to you, thanks for reading and for commenting! Good luck on your journey. If you do end up with an autism diagnosis, through it you may find other revelations that ease your path a bit. That's certainly been the case for me.
This is another fascinating post Laura 😊 I can certainly relate to loathing uncertainty! I think I come across as rude sometimes for asking so many questions. Thanks for writing with such depth of knowledge x
Thanks Alys! Yes, I want to know all the details... when, where, what, why, who. Gotta mentally prepare!
I feel an even stronger discomfort with false certainty. As much as I want to pin life down, the moment I do I immediately need to prove that my understanding is inadequate and I must find a better one.
For me, autism =
I need certainty && certainty is a lie
I somehow missed your comment the first time around. That's very interesting. This is not the same, but I have belatedly realized I too often fall for the allure of false certainty. I go for the pat explanation that appears to solve everything, when that's a mirage. So sort of the opposite of what you're describing -- I think I've attained certainty, when the truth is, I haven't attained it at all.
Your whole topic and mode of inquiry continues to fascinate me, and I'll just say here: thanks for the Emily Dickinson research. I "knew" she was a recluse and I love her writing. I did not know about what she said about her preference for writing over talking. And I am soooo Emily-ish in that!
I'd much prefer to write eight email paragraphs to a friend than talk on the phone to them. It's odd how no one seems to have figured this out: they continue to call. (I almost never call a friend.) I've tried to explain why I like email so much. Apparently no one else likes it. What's wrong with email? I depart from Emily in that I like being incarnate with others. But gawd: I've ALWAYS hated talking on the phone, for roughly the same reason Emily gives.
I've often seen my whole life since the early 1980s - when I read a ton of stuff on quantum mechanics - that uncertainty seems to be the rule of Nature rather than the exception, so I had best cultivate or embrace uncertainty. I think I've done okay at that and I also think the cultivation of a sense of humor - toward the surreal/goofy side of things - has helped a lot.
I think a lot of people like the “jingling keys” aspect of in-person socializing - the eye contact, immediately seeing someone’s emotional response to what you said, etc.
I've never had a sense for poetry, and I have to admit that until this project, I never understood what all the fuss over Emily Dickinson was about. That changed when I began reading criticism and was introduced to aspects of her poetry that had completely escaped my notice. There's one work in particular that caused me to see her in a wholly new way (that's highly relevant to my project) and which I think you'd enjoy, given your love of her poetry: A Poet's Grammar by Cristanne Miller. It's out of print but you can find used copies, looks like there's one on ebay for $15 now.
My strongest preference for writing over talking arises at work. When dealing with complex legal issues, I'd much prefer to gather my thoughts systematically in writing, and read someone else's thoughts, than discuss live. It's a preference that not everyone shares, but generally if a meeting is scheduled, I will have made a pretty detailed analytical draft of my thoughts in advance that I can reference.
But like you, I enjoy discussions in person -- if my interlocutors are sufficiently curious and open-minded, that is!
Thanks as always for reading and commenting, Robert.