Thinker, failure, scolder, trailer
Bitchman, storeman, terrorman , chief
Internal dialogue, apparently, we don’t all do it, but that cerebral cohabiter is more than a second voice, someone to bounce ideas off. The character’s not a mini-you. It’s a caricature, simpler than the one you have of yourself. Like the awkwardly forced replacement characters above in the nursery rhyme, respectively leading to:
- wargaming every possible potential outcome of important future events
- expecting everything to always go wrong, what’s the point
- always justifying, comparing
- thinking the worst of others
- compulsive collecting
- over protecting from imagined dangers (OCD)
- gross entitlement
- and many many more….
Why have one at all? I suppose once you have language and ask questions internally to plan and predict, it’s natural to answer them. As there’s no brain blueprint, traits will evolve as they influence the individual’s success of reproduction.
No, better, it’s not the voices that evolve but the potential to host a range of voices that can take on the role needed. In which case, it’s just another ability for development as needed by the child. To phrase that better, and remove the suggestion of intent from the development, it’s a capability that will respond to environment.
Thus, the child that is constantly diminished by its parents may develop a voice that results in suppressing self-expression: you’re useless/evil so keep your head down. A child staying with separated parents may be constantly monitoring behaviour and switch codes to suit, requiring two voices. But given some don’t dialogue internally at all, there must be a range of capabilities too. The other extreme to not dialoging sounds like Dissociative Identity Disorder but pssshhh I dunno.
In particular, the anti-woke warriors – what’s up with them? Their copilot is a peculiar mix and I suspect without the encouragement of corrupt right wing media and monkeys on the take, NIGEL, it would be a far less noticeable breed.
The owner needs to reassure themselves constantly of the supremacy of their identity, they rubbish authority figures with different values or perspectives. The values themselves don’t even matter, but they’re not ME. It was brilliantly described by Lyse Doucet – I don’t have a reference. She was describing the angry people that would tweet at her, furious that she was reporting a reality that conflicted with their constructed world poor sods.
Picture the collaborator being born. An overbearing parent against whose criticism the child must strategize, maybe competing with a favoured sibling. Perhaps later the principle is attracted to a partner like that parent. It’s familiar to have someone to prove to and satisfying to win. It replaces them when they’re not there – it’s pasted over their faces when they are.
And if a competitor surpasses them, reasons must be found, having a bigger house, more successful children, down to a trivial case of a stranger overtaking them on the pavement.
A teenager suggests climate change is a threat? Mock her. A scientist confirms accepted knowledge? Well, we all know that! A scientist suggests something novel the principle can’t grasp? Load of pseudo crap! And such resistance to change.
My companion? Now I know he’s there, he’s so much easier to ignore.