The Psyche, and Interaction

In a following pondering to the last blog, I feel compelled to think of how the mind must work, and whether this can be used to any useful end. More specifically, the human mind in a social context.

It occurs to me that to really analyse this, I need some sort of structure to adhere my thoughts to. A skeleton of subjects to which the flesh of debate can be applied, as it were, to create the final product. From an early skimming of this notion, I can briefly come up with thoughts about others, actions toward others, interpretation of others and self interpretation.

Starting at the very beginning (very best place to start, yada yada), I can only really observe the thoughts within my own mind about others. As far as I can conciously deduce, I can see no real pattern, although I note that I seem to derive most thoughts of others from conversation. I can think of no real "enemies" to find an underlying factor in, but looking back on things I dislike I suppose I could say I am annoyed by arrogance. This, under minor consultation with others, seems to be a near enough a blanket opinion among most, if not all, people. However, I can think of at least one example where blind arrogance does not deny a healthy social background. What occurs here? Is something being done besides arrogance to suppress the hate-inducing effect? Or is it closer related to an action by the observer of the arrogance? If the first, what is it? If the latter, what makes this example so different to first to cause this to come into play? I am more inclined to a mix of both of these possibilities, to which neither involved role would be aware. However, I think despite a lack of awareness of actions to others, and the influence these actions have on others' thoughts of thyself, I think some things are learnt over time. Perhaps this learning is the difference between the first example and the second. The second has found a method of suppressing the blind arrogance, causing others to be more forgiving of it, has subconciously noticed that this action causes this result and has proceeded to repeat this action indefinitely, more a sort of maintenance than repair. This, whilst interesting, is not an aspect I am concerned with currently, and so will investigate further at a later date.

I can see no correlation between the interpretations I take of others and the interpretations I take of myself. Clearly, a coherant understanding of the self is much easier than that of another. One's own mind is much easier to navigate, for one. However, I am drawn away from this obvious conclusion. Surely there must be a way to find the thoughts of another? Earlier, I saw an advert for a programme wherein the character was able to derive people's thoughts, feelings and subconcious from physical outlook. I am skeptical of this, but cannot deny some involvement of physical actions in the accurate deduction of anothers thoughts. I am convinced that the thoughts of another can be found in a much easier way, in the same way that I am sure of what I think of something instinctively without having to analyse my mind or observe my own movements. This is perhaps a bad example, as movements and physcial appearance should only really be a barometer of the mood of someone, as opposed to a book which can be read, especially of one's own thoughts. This is a topic which would be useful, yet maddeningly is the one which is hardest to crack. I could liken it to the age-old allegory of opening a box with the crowbar within it. I must find the answer in order to figure out how to find it.

Something to think about on the move, I suppose, as opposed to a mental nut which just needs to be cracked.