What is the Human Mind?
In the 1950s and 1960s C.I.A. developed it's own cognitive model.
This was necessary because there was no other suitable model from psychology or psychiatry, and in my opinion there still isn't. Psychology and psychiatry continue to be straightjacketed in doctrines which cannot explain abnormal psychology. In order to arrive at a theory of what the mind is you have to be able not only to explain common behaviors but also uncommon and abnormal ones. The power of any comprehensive theory relies on it's ability to explain all observable phenomena, not just the mundane. Unfortunately because psychology and psychiatry cannot explain abnormal or unusual behavior, in recent decades they have merely sought to ignore them. Therefore there is virtually no research anymore regarding these areas, such as multiple personalities, hypnosis, dreams, or even homosexuality. However these areas offer the keys to understanding how the mind operates and how it's constructed.
In the 1950s psychiatry wasn't constricted by materialistic doctrines as it is today. In the early development of psychiatry psychiatrists pursued any areas which appeared to offer observable inquiry. Hypnosis and dream interpretation was widely used clinically. However hypnosis, dreams and multiple personalities possessed evidence and implications that the mind operates in non-material ways - in manners which cannot be explained by a materialistic, mechanistic philosophy. As such these areas of study and their implications became suppressed, with academics and students shunning results, embracing comforting alternative explanations, and avoiding further discussion.
By the early 1960s figures in C.I.A., in Technical Services and other areas of Psychological Warfare, had arrived at a workable model which appears to explain all observable behavior. I believe that it has explanatory power which is comprehensive, and well above the disjointed and near-bankrupt state of current psychological theory.
One illustration of the power of this model is in explaining homosexuality, a behavior having much in common with multiple personality disorder.
Causes of Homosexuality
In the 1950s homosexuality was accepted by psychologists as a disorder for a compelling reason - homosexuality deprives the individual of the motivation to reproduce. Reproduction is among the handful of fundamental traits any organism must have. The loss of motivation to reproduce, to mate with the opposite sex, is an obvious disorder.
In subsequent decades however psychologists have chosen to ignore this simple fact in favor of obtaining the political and social benefits of complying to the demands of homosexuals that they not be stigmatized by this finding. Therefore because homosexuals claim that they can live happy lives that they therefore should not be defined as possessing a mental disorder, and so psychologists have complied by re-defining the definition of "disorder" to mean "that which causes one to be un-happy" rather than "that which causes one to function in a dis-functional way." If the sole criteria for possessing a disorder is lack of well-being [or lack of adjustment or adaptation] than this works. However if "disorder" is also to include things which cause an individual to not be able to conduct core functions of an organism such as reproduction, than it doesn't work.
Furthermore the finding of homosexuality as a disorder was reinforced by the observation that it is never seen outside of human behavior - only humans have the capacity for homosexuality.
At this point I must deal with claims by the homosexual lobby to the contrary, as failing to do so will lead to misunderstanding of my claims given the widespread popular acceptance which has been gained by homosexuals' claims. In particular, homosexuals claim that homosexuality is common among animals. This is of course untrue. There are no examples of animals which prefer to attempt to mate with their own sex and are repulsed by the opposite sex. What is seen in animals is attempts at mating with anything resembling the opposite sex - such as a dog humping on someone's leg. Another example is a male rabbit mounting a male housecat when excited. Excitement and arousal in animals tends to also bring about sexual arousal, and animals will hump or attempt to mate with other species, or individuals of the same sex of their own species, etc., from time to time. However this is in no way homosexuality - which is the attraction ONLY to the same sex and turning away from opportunities to mate with the opposite sex when available.
Additionally homosexuals today claim that there are physical or organic causes of homosexuality, and this is likewise without foundation. There has been no finding whatsoever of any structural similarity between the brains of homosexuals and those of the opposite sex. Although brain imaging has revealed structural differences based on sex, homosexuals do not possess the brains of the opposite sex. Their brains are in fact structured in accordance with their DNA - with male DNA producing male brains as well as male organs and tissues in all other areas of the body, and female DNA producing female brains as well as female tissues and organs in all other areas of the body.
Now aside from STRUCTURAL differentiation there is FUNCTIONAL differentiation between genders, and there is observable functional differentiation between the brains of the same sex based on sexual preference. The brains of male homosexuals possess functional similarity with the brains of females, and the brains of female homosexuals possess functional similarity with the brains of males. This says nothing however to challenge that brains are derived from the DNA which determines them. It only means that a male homosexual will have the motivations of a female, and a female homosexual will have the motivations of male. The question is why?
Sexual Identity vs. Sexual Preference
Homosexuality is often defined as the preference for, or attraction to, the same sex. However the cause of homosexuality is much deeper. Homosexuals report that they felt homosexual well before the onset of any sexual attraction. In fact homosexuals report that they felt homosexual by at least the age of four, and that's well before the onset of sexual desire.
So what does it mean to feel homosexual at the age of four?
The key can be found in the phenomenon of gender disphoria.
Gender disphoria begins by age four, and it manifests itself in the extreme stress and discomfort experienced by the individual when made to dress as it's genuine gender rather than the opposite gender. A four or five year old boy required to dress as a boy rather than a girl will experience so much discomfort and stress that he will be disfunctional. He will cry, scream, yell, etc., and will not be able to function in any way until he's allowed to dress in girl's clothing. The same with female gender disphorics.
Clearly four year olds have no sexual preference so what is the cause of this extreme discomfort? How and why could a four year old have taken on such profound emotions regarding their gender, and why does it focus on clothes?
The C.I.A. Cognitive Model
According to the model I was taught the personality is a construction of the unconscious mind almost as a screenwriter composes a character of a movie. There is no "authentic" or "genuine" personality determined by the physical brain, DNA and environment. The personality is a synthetic construction made up by the unconscious in the same way that the unconscious constructs characters in dreams. The personality that the world sees is the "operating personality" but it may not be the only personality that individual possesses. It is very possible for the same individual to possess more than one personality, and to have many variations of the operating personality within that single alter.
This is not to say that the personality may be changed by any conscious effort. The personality is constructed from parameters given genetic and cultural factors, but key choices are also made as a matter of solving problems encountered in early childhood when the unconscious mind is open due to it's design in imprinting cultural information, particularly language.
It was the work primarily of Noam Chomsky in the 1950s at the M.I.T. Cognitive Studies Lab which arrived at the finding that the human mind is designed to process language in early childhood. What C.I.A. did was take that one step further - the human mind is specifically designed to process CULTURE in early development. Not only language, or verbal symbols for ideas, but all ideas comprising culture and it's symbols and meanings.
Only the human mind is designed in this way because only humans possess culture, and language.
However when this stage of early development is over than the mind closes, and the personality is fixed. Whatever was imprinted on it at that time in terms of cultural icons is there to stay.
In the C.I.A. model gender disphoria is a reaction to an external stimulus, presumably a rejection trauma, which causes the unconscious mind to create a personality of the opposite gender to the individual's genetic or actual gender.
This person will have imprinted that he/she needs to possess the imprinted cultural characteristics of the opposite gender or he/she will be in peril of trauma - therefore the extreme emotion and discomfort involved.
To the mind of a toddler there is no understanding that clothes, hairstyle, etc. are only cultural. To the toddler these observable gender traits are just a authentic as non-cultural observable gender traits such as pitch of voice, shape of hands, brow, etc. The toddler imprints anything observable and treats it all the same whether it's physically-determined or culturally-determined.
Different individuals will respond, or react, to the traumas which create gender disphoria in different ways.
Some individuals will remain heterosexual but prefer the dress of the opposite sex. These are heterosexual cross-dressers, and they function as heterosexuals except that they obtain greater sexual arousal, or higher well-being generally, by dressing as the opposite sex. Such heterosexual cross-dressers are usually males.
The next area on the continuum are transsexuals. Transsexuals are simply gender disphorics and are extremely uncomfortable dressing as their genetic gender. They have a strong compulsion to comport to all the observable cultural traits of the opposite sex, and have personalities which mimic all the observable characteristics of the opposite sex, including emotional and physical preference for the opposite sex. As children they pefer toys used by the opposite sex, in adolescence pursue avocations of the opposite sex, etc. They have created a personality of the opposite sex in every observable way. One interesting factor is the manner in which they will mimic the physical walk, or gate, of the opposite sex although it is contrary to their skeletal structure.
Many male homosexuals, particularly negro homosexual men, will walk with an exaggerated hip movement possessed by women. This female hip movement is necessary for the woman given her pelvis structure, but is not at all determined for a male, and is in fact contrary to the movement determined by the male pelvis. In negro homosexual men this is all the more contrary because negro men possess narrower pelvises than even non-negro men. The exaggerated female hip movement while walking of some homosexual men indicates the non-physical nature of homosexual behavior as strongly as other observable factors.
The next step along the homosexual continuum is simple homosexuality, which may exist without any obcession regarding clothes or other cultural iconography. These are individuals who have created a personality of the opposite sex but who did not link it necessarily to cultural gender traits such as hair style, clothes, etc. For whatever reason they did not identify gender as necessarily being defined by cultural traits, and this may have happened because of the stage of childhood development the individual was in when the trauma occurred.
What is interesting is that homosexuality occurs at every point along the androgenic spectrum for men, and along every point of the estrogenic spectrum for women.
All men and women fall along different points of their respective androgenic or estrogenic continuums depending on their hormonal and genetic determinants.
Some men are more masculine than others - have deeper voices, larger brow ridges, etc., based on these factors. With women some are more curvy than others, have higher pitched voices, etc.
These differences in gender "density" have nothing however to do with homosexuality. Individuals at every point along their respective gender specra are heterosexual or homosexual in the same ratio as at every other point in their specra. It is a myth that men with higher pitched voices or smaller hands, or smaller adam's apples, or less musculature are "feminized" and therefore more prone to homosexuality. Homosexuality occurs at every point of the genetically-determined androgenic and estrogenic condinua. It occurs with the same frequency at every point. Homosexuality IS NOT a function of the gender spectra.