The phrase “wandering thoughts” is interesting. Why not call the movement of thoughts “exploring thoughts”?  From the outside, exploration may look like wandering. From the outside, you can’t see direction; you can’t see what is being sought.  It’s all helter-skelter. The difference is that “exploring’ conveys intention or goal. As noted in prior posts, “stimulus-independent” thoughts are largely goal-directed and future oriented (Baird et al, 2011). When an observing part of the brain becomes aware of the activities of another part of the brain, the observing part may not grasp the latter’s business.

Reference:

Baird, B., Smallwood, J. Schooler, and J. W. Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (2011) 1604–1611

I just don’t see mild –sometimes very mild – stress as “suffering”. Occasional feelings of irritation, guilt,  anger, shame, embarrassment, disappointment, frustration, chagrin, boredom, and all the rest of the less-than-positive spectrum of emotion are not a cause for alarm. These are not “toxic” emotions, unless you define them as such.

…the origin of thinking is some perplexity, confusion, or doubt. Thinking is not a case of spontaneous combustion; it does not occur just on “general principles.” There is something specific which occasions and evokes it. (Dewey 2010, p 1)

…the content of mind-wandering is predominantly future-focused … [and] frequently involves autobiographical planning (Baird et al, 2011, p1604).

Dealing with “perplexity, confusion or doubt” may take the form of planning, problem-solving, rehearsing, re-playing prior interactions (to reduce uncertainty on how to interpret the experience; or to reinforce an initial impression) and rumination. Since dealing with unfinished business involves contemplation of something not yet in its ideal state, a certain amount of mild negativity may be part of the process.  For example, competent planning for just about anything requires consideration of what might go wrong. It stands to reason that when the mind is churning over unresolved issues, one’s  hedonic states will be somewhat less enjoyable than, say, a flow experience, where attention is buoyed by a challenging but doable activity. Not a tragedy.

References:

Dewey, John “What is thought?” Chapter 1 in How we think. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, (1910): 1-13. https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_a.html

Baird, B., Smallwood, J. Schooler, and J. W. Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (2011) 1604–1611

When attention isn’t focused on the task at hand, cognitive resources are likely to be directed to unfinished business. Much of the time our so-called “wandering minds” are focused on unresolved business. Although “wandering” conveys an impression of thoughts adrift, unanchored and chaotic, it may be more accurate to view such thoughts as triggered by a sense of concern and seeking some resolution.  The Wandering Mind is the  Exploring Mind: exploring the problem space, a few moves at a time.

Imaginary conversations and scenarios are like the brain running through hypotheticals and counterfactuals, just in case. The imagined events may never happen but something like them may and the process of playing them out in the brain is a kind of problem-solving exercise that can sharpen one’s readiness for whatever may come one’s way. Even though these imaginary events are often fueled by a vague sense of potential threat, that doesn’t mean one’s underlying anxiety or stress level is excessive. Alertness to the possibility of undesirable things happening may cause an uptick in cortisol. Not to mention a downtick on the happy-ometer. So what?

Some may say the prosody of thoughts simply reflects their emotionality: words flowing on a sea of feeling.  But when we engage in imaginary conversations, are the feelings heard in the words independent from the communicative intention, which is to have an effect on an imagined audience? Emotional expression is calibrated in the real world – why not in the world inside our heads?

This is not to say that emotions don’t exist except in the service of communicative intent, only that take away the (real or imagined) audience and it’s like the emotion isn’t landing anywhere. The emotion loses part of its raison d’etre.

When I hear the emotional inflections in thought streams, they sound like they are trying to drive a point home – to create an impression. If thoughts themselves are goal-directed, wouldn’t the emotionality that adheres to their semantic content also be goal-directed in some way?

Feeling shame, guilt, contrition, or sadness may not be pleasant but these emotions aren’t “toxic”.  Shame, guilt and contrition help us learn from our mistakes and eventually move on. Sad thoughts allow us to appreciate the preciousness of what was lost and the preciousness of what is still here. Thoughts that amplify bad feelings aren’t necessarily dysfunctional – they may serve a useful purpose. Some unpleasant thoughts lead to breakthroughs; others become repetitive and reap diminishing returns. It’s not the quality of unpleasantness that counts; it’s the sense of whether the thought is valuable or useful in some way. We should be careful not to pre-judge a thought or emotional state just because it is unpleasant. Sometimes we have to bear with negative feelings and thoughts for a while. Sometimes dwelling feels right.

Of course, some of us are prone to unproductive rumination and so a heuristic to nip rumination in the bud may be useful, at least some times and for some topics. And using positive self-talk to counter habitual self-condemnation can also be a valid tool in the emotional regulation toolkit.  If we’re stuck, we need tools to become unstuck.

But that’s a different thing altogether from considering  negative emotions in general as “toxic”. Or, worse, avoiding people going through spells of unhappiness because their presence is “toxic”.  This vigilance against “negativity” reminds me of the Victorians – except it’s not sexuality the New Victorians are suppressing, it’s their feelings. And just as the old Victorians shunned the “sexually degenerate”, the New Victorians shun the unsmiling.

So where does “awareness” come in? What is the difference between “awareness” and focal attention? Is “awareness” the same as “consciousness”? How does equating awareness with consciousness advance understanding of anything?  You still have to define your terms.

Is “awareness” of online focal attention possible, i.e., awareness simultaneous with and distinct from focal attention? Or is “awareness” really the same thing as focal attention? And if we are “aware” of focal attending, is it simultaneous with the attending or awareness of attending that just passed? Please answer and get back to me.