Is Your Unconscious

Smarter Than You Are?

Reviewed by John F. Kihlstrom

Review of Wilson, Timothy D. (2002). Strangers to Ourselves:
Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, Ma. !el"na#
$ress%&arvard 'niversity $ress, 2(2 ) viii ##., *+!, -0.(/0.0012(.2,
32/.14 hard5over.
Note: 6n edited version of this review a##eared in PsycCRITIQUS,
!, +7##lement 80 (De5ember 21, 2000).

The title of this boo" evo"es memories of 6lbert Cam7s, writing in
9The Myth of +isy#h7s9
:f whom and of what indeed 5an * say 9* "now that;9. This heart
within me * 5an feel, and * <7dge that it e=ists. This world * 5an to75h,
and * li"ewise <7dge that it e=ists. There ends all my "nowledge, and
the rest is 5onstr75tion. This very heart whi5h is mine will forever
remain indefinable to me. !etween the 5ertainty * have of my
e=isten5e and the 5ontent * try to give to that ass7ran5e, the ga# will
never be filled. >orever * shall be a stranger to myself (Cam7s,
8102%8144, ##. 80.84).
Cam7s blamed his estrangement on the abs7rd 5onfrontation between
h7man 5ons5io7sness and an 7nintelligible 7niverse. !7t Timothy
Wilson lo5ates the #roblem in the limitations of 5ons5io7sness. The
world is "nowable, and so are we, and in fa5t, by virt7e of o7r
9ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s9, we "now a lot abo7t o7rselves and the so5ial
world in whi5h we live. We <7st dont "now that we "now it, and
wed be a lot better off if we wo7ld <7st sto# trying so hard to
7nderstand things and !ust "ehave.
*n a now.5lassi5 #a#er, Wilson and Ri5hard ,isbett arg7ed that we
have only very #oor "nowledge of the 5a7ses of o7r own behavior, and
instead rely on a priori theories to ma"e sense of #ro5esses that
a5t7ally r7n off 7n5ons5io7sly (,isbett ? Wilson, 81//). *n this boo",
Wilson e=#ands the arg7ment to 5over m75h broader territory. ,ot
only do we not "now why we do what we do, b7t we also dont "now
how we feel abo7t things and events, and were bad at #redi5ting
abo7t how well feel abo7t them in the f7t7re. @a5h of 7s has a sort
of d7al #ersonality, one 5ons5io7s, and the other 7n5ons5io7s. !e5a7se
only the 7n5ons5io7s one really matters, we 5an learn more abo7t
o7rselves from observing o7r behavior than by intros#e5ting on o7r
motives and goals. The stories that we tell abo7t o7rselves are <7st
stories, and theyre a557rate to the e=tent that they ha##en to refle5t
o7r 9non5ons5io7s goals, feelings, and tem#eraments9 (#. 8A8).
The ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s, in Wilsons view, is a #owerf7l learning
devi5e, #ro5essing information B7i5"ly and effi5iently, filtering stim7li,
eval7ating events, rendering <7dgments, and setting goals .. all
o7tside of o7r 5ons5io7s awareness. Cons5io7sness, if not wholly
ill7sory, #lays only a very limited role in h7man e=#erien5e, tho7ght,
and a5tion. >re7d #retty m75h got it right, e=5e#t that 9o7r friend the
ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s9 (#. 828) is "inder and gentler and more
rational .. than >re7ds seething, #rimitive, infantile, an=iety.evo"ing
se=7al and aggressive monsters from the *d. While >re7d tho7ght that
5ons5io7sness was only the ti# of the i5eberg, Wilson thin"s that it is
9more the siCe of a snowball on to# of that i5eberg9 (#. ().
To ill7strate and s7##ort these ideas, Wilson m7sters an im#ressive
array of fi5tional e=am#les, ane5dotes, and s5ientifi5 resear5h. The
fi5tional e=am#les are well, fi5tion, and the ane5dotes are
sometimes of d7bio7s relevan5e. >or e=am#le, Wilson 5ites the 5ase of
a 'niversity of Dirginia st7dent who won a #restigio7s Marshall
+5holarshi#, b7t who almost did not a##ly be5a7se 9she did not thin"
she had m75h of a 5han5e to win9 (#. 208). The im#li5ation is that she
did not "now herself as well as her advisors did. Maybe. :n the other
hand, with only 00 s5holarshi#s awarded and a field of some 8,000
a##li5ants that year, #erha#s she "new herself B7ite well, b7t also
5al57lated the baserates. *n any event, the fa5t that she a5t7ally won
against s75h odds tells 7s nothing abo7t her 7n5ons5io7s #ersonality,
or the degree of her 5ons5io7s self."nowledge.
:f 5o7rse, in a boo" that see"s to inter#ret s5holarly resear5h for a
wider a7dien5e, it is the resear5h that matters. 'nfort7nately, the
st7dies Wilson details are often either irrelevant or s7b<e5t to
alternative inter#retations. >or e=am#le, he 5ites Eewi5"is resear5h
on im#li5it learning to s7##ort the 5laim that the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s
is a #owerf7l dete5tor of #atterns in the stim7l7s environment
(Eewi5"i, &ill, ? !iCot, 81AA). !7t as it ha##ens, Eewi5"i never
5om#ared in5idental, im#li5it learning to an adeB7ate 5ontrol 5ondition
involving 5ons5io7s, deliberate "nowledge a5B7isition (nor do most
demonstrations of the #7r#orted #ower of im#li5it learning, for that
matter). 6rg7ably, the most #owerf7l learning me5hanism available to
h7man beings is what 6lbert !and7ra (!and7ra, 81A() has 5alled
so5ial learning by #re5e#t, or s#onsored tea5hing. Thats why we give
introd75tory #sy5hology st7dents te=tboo"s, and ma"e them attend
le5t7res, instead of ho#ing that theyll ind75e the #rin5i#les of de#th
#er5e#tion from re#eated e=#os7res to Renaissan5e #aintings.
Wilson 5ites +5ha5hter and Wheelers a##arently #arado=i5al finding
that the in<e5tion of e#ine#hrine led to in5reased la7ghter when
s7b<e5ts viewed a sla#sti5" film, b7t not to in5reased ratings of the
films h7mor (+5ha5hter ? Wheeler, 81(2). &is inter#retation ..
re#eated twi5e (##. 822 and 280), so he m7st mean it .. is that the
ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s fo7nd the film to be f7nny, and th7s generated
la7ghter, while the s7b<e5ts 5ons5io7s ratings of the film were based
on abstra5t #ersonal theories abo7t what "inds of films they li"ed. !7t
a more #arsimonio7s inter#retation of the +5ha5hter and Wheeler
st7dy is sim#ly that the dr7g disinhibited la7ghing behavior witho7t
altering the s7b<e5ts sense of h7mor. *n other words, the effe5t has
nothing to do with the 7n5ons5io7s, ada#tive or malada#tive.
To demonstrate that 5ons5io7sness 5an sometimes get in the way of
ada#tive behavior, Wilson des5ribes his own resear5h, whi5h finds that
analyCing the reasons, both #ro and 5on, for a #arti57lar de5ision
alters the #referen5e itself, leading #eo#le to regret the 5hoi5es they
initially made. The im#li5ation is that the int7itive 9g7t9 feelings
#rod75ed by the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s are more a557rate refle5tions of
o7r tr7e feelings than are those that arise from deliberate
intros#e5tion. 6nd the f7rther im#li5ation is that we wo7ld ma"e better
de5isions, and be ha##ier with the de5isions we made, if we did not
thin" abo7t them too m75h. This is a reliable finding in resear5h on
<7dgment and de5ision.ma"ing, and it is not 7ninteresting. !7t it may
have nothing to do with the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s. $eo#le who are
fa5ed with a #roliferation of 5hoi5es 7s7ally are less ha##y with the
5hoi5es that they ma"e (+5hwartC, 2000). The effe5t is 5a7sed sim#ly
by the ab7ndan5e of 5hoi5es available, 5ombined with a tenden5y to
ma=imiCe the 7tility of the 5hoi5es made, and disa##ears when #eo#le
a##ly a strategy of 9satisfi5ing9 instead .. or when the n7mber of
5hoi5es is red75ed. *n m75h the same way, Wilsons effe5t may be
5a7sed sim#ly by the #roliferation of reasons, and not by whether the
de5ision #ro5ess is 5ons5io7s or 7n5ons5io7s.
,evertheless, drawing on this and other resear5h, Wilson asserts that
we #ossess #arallel sets of attit7des. Cons5io7s attit7des refle5t how
we thin" we should feel abo7t things, while 7n5ons5io7s attit7des
refle5t how we really feel abo7t things. Cons5io7s and 7n5ons5io7s
attit7des may be dis5re#ant with ea5h other, so that #eo#le 5an be
5ons5io7sly egalitarian b7t 7n5ons5io7sly ra5ist or se=ist, and it is this
7n5ons5io7s #re<7di5e that 5ontrols o7r behavior. Wilson 5ites resear5h
that see"s to meas7re #eo#les 9im#li5it9 attit7des, and tra5e their
effe5ts on behavior. !7t he fails to ma"e a 5lear distin5tion between
attit7des that are tr7ly 7n5ons5io7s and those that the #erson sim#ly
5hooses not to div7lge, or between 7n5ons5io7s ra5ial #re<7di5e and a
#ersons "nowledge of 5ommon ra5ial stereoty#es. The fa5t is, most
st7dies of im#li5it attit7des do not in5l7de #ro#erly 5ontrolled
5om#arisons with 5ons5io7s attit7des, so we really do not "now, yet,
whether e=#li5it and im#li5it attit7des 5an be disso5iated from ea5h
other in the same manner as e=#li5it and im#li5it memories. These are
serio7s #roblems, whi5h m7st be solved if we are to avoid the
#sy5hologists falla5y of ass7ming that o7r inferen5es abo7t other
#eo#les mental states are better than their own.
*n some ways, the arg7ment in Strangers to Ourselves refle5ts the
9a7tomati5ity <7ggerna7t9 r7nning thro7gh so5ial #sy5hology the
wides#read a55e#tan5e of the #ro#osition that o7r everyday
e=#erien5e, tho7ght, and a5tion is largely if not wholly 7nder the
5ontrol of refle=.li"e #ro5esses that r7n off o7tside #henomenal
awareness and free of vol7ntary 5ontrol. To the view that most #eo#le
are on a7tomati5 #ilot most of the time, Wilson adds the f7rther
#ro#osition that we dont "now what were doing, or why, or what
we feel abo7t it. This 5on5e#tion of mental life is attra5tive to many
#sy5hologists, and other 5ognitive s5ientists, who are still made
nervo7s by the to#i5 of 5ons5io7sness. Moreover, an em#hasis on
a7tomati5, 7n5ons5io7s #ro5esses is 5om#atible with the sit7ationism
that still infe5ts m75h of so5ial #sy5hology .. the view that so5ial
behavior is largely 5ontrolled by the immediate stim7l7s environment.
6dd to this mi= the notion that #eo#le are f7ndamentally ignorant and
irrational, and yo7 have what * have 5ome to 5all the 9$eo#le 6re
+t7#id9 s5hool of #sy5hology. Wilson avoids st7#idism, mostly, be5a7se
he views the 7n5ons5io7s as smart and ada#tive altho7gh he does
note that 9the tenden5y for the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s to <7m# to
5on5l7sions, and to fail to 5hange its mind in the fa5e of 5ontrary
eviden5e, is res#onsible for some of so5ietys #roblems9 (##. 44.4().
@ven if the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s did not have its malada#tive
moments, however, a view of mind and behavior whi5h is 5entered on
7n5ons5io7s, a7tomati5 #ro5essing seems dangero7sly 5lose to the
"ind of f7n5tional, in#7t.o7t#7t behaviorism that was re<e5ted by the
5ognitive revol7tion in the first #la5e 5all it +"innerism with a
5ognitive fa5e.
+till, in more benign ways, Wilsons boo" refle5ts the wide and dee#
a55e#tan5e of a non.>re7dian view of 7n5ons5io7s mental life within
5ontem#orary s5ientifi5 #sy5hology. 'nli"e earlier 5ognitivists, who
tended to view the 7n5ons5io7s as a wastebas"et for dis#la5ed
#er5e#ts and de5ayed memories, or as a filebo= for latent "nowledge,
Wilson revives &artmanns 81
th
.5ent7ry Romanti5 view of a
dynami5ally a5tive 7n5ons5io7s mind whi5h 95an really o7tdo all the
#erforman5es of 5ons5io7s reason9 (&artmann, 8A(A%8128, #. 00). 6s
with 9emotional intelligen5e9 (Foleman, 8114G +alovey ? Mayer,
81A1), the notion of the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s has already been
s7b<e5t to #o#7lariCation in 2004, Mal5olm Fladwell, a staff writer for
the #e$ %or&er, will #7blish 'lin&: The Po$er o( Thin&ing )ithout
Thin&ing (Eittle, !rown), whi5h arg7es that the ada#tive 7n5ons5io7s
5an #rod75e res7lts as good as, if not better than, rational tho7ghtG
and that we wo7ld all be a lot better off if we wo7ld rely more on
instin5t.
This wo7ld be ni5e if it were tr7e, b7t both @bbingha7s and Hames too"
&artmann to tas" for having an overly broad definition of the
7n5ons5io7s, and for going way beyond his eviden5e. Strangers to
Ourselves is a de5ided im#rovement on &artmann in both res#e5ts.
!7t #re5ise details of e=#erimental methodology, in5l7ding the demand
5hara5teristi5s of the e=#eriment, matter a great deal in this resear5h
an iss7e raised by some 5riti5s of the original ,isbett.Wilson
e=#eriments (!owers, 81A0G Cotton, 81A0G +mith ? Miller, 81/AG
White, 81A0). Wilson does not re#ly to his earlier 5riti5s in this boo",
b7t the same sorts of #roblems they identified still t7rn 7# in the later
resear5h dis57ssed here. *f the boo" is not entirely 5onvin5ing, at least
it ma"es an interesting arg7ment and #oints the dire5tion for f7t7re
resear5h. *n any 5ase, it seems 5ertain now that the 7n5ons5io7s mind
is ba5", and here to stay if only its enth7siasts 5an avoid sli##ing
into the dar" side of e#i#henomenalism, 5ons5io7s inessentialism, and
behaviorism.