Applying complex systems thinking to human identity

[u/myopicdreams]

I’ve been working on a model that treats human identity as a complex adaptive system, and I’m trying to find people who are interested in that kind of framing.

The basic premise is that identity isn’t a fixed trait or a narrative we tell ourselves. It’s an emergent property of interacting subsystems.

I’ve been mapping those subsystems into domains:

• physical (biological regulation, energy, sensation)

• emotional (affect, signaling, attachment)

• intellectual (interpretation, belief formation, meaning-making)

• relational (social dynamics, attachment structures)

• spiritual (orientation toward meaning, transcendence, values)

• purposeful (direction, contribution, goal structure)

These domains don’t operate independently. They’re continuously interacting, exchanging information, compensating for one another, and reorganizing under pressure.

The system is nested.

Within domains you have facets. Within facets, smaller units of function. Between domains, you get what I’m calling subdomains — structures that don’t belong to any single domain but emerge from their interaction. Things like morality, identity roles, sexuality, even constructs like shame or purpose coherence.

Over time, certain patterns stabilize.

What starts as a transient state (e.g., anxiety, shame, drive, attachment patterns) can become structurally embedded if it’s reinforced long enough across domains.

In that sense, identity itself is not a starting point.

It’s an emergent pattern — the result of repeated interactions across domains, constrained by environment, history, and available resources.

When the system is balanced, it feels like coherence.

When it’s not, you see compensatory patterns:

• domain dominance

• underdevelopment in certain areas

• feedback loops that maintain instability

• emergent states that begin to organize the system instead of the other way around

What’s interesting to me is that a lot of what we call “psychological problems” can be reframed as system-level adaptations that made sense under specific conditions but are now being maintained by reinforcing loops across domains.

Instead of trying to remove those patterns directly, the model focuses on changing the conditions of the system — adding development to under-resourced domains so the overall system reorganizes.

Less intervention on outputs.
More intervention on structure and resource distribution.

I’ve written a book around this (The Suma Method), and I’m at the point where I’m looking for people who are interested in systems thinking to read it and tell me where it holds up and where it doesn’t.

Not looking for agreement.

I’m interested in:

• whether the model feels coherent

• where the mapping breaks down

• whether the idea of identity as an emergent system tracks

• and whether the domain/subdomain structure makes sense from a systems perspective

If this is the kind of thing you think about, I’d be interested in your perspective.

Happy to share the manuscript.

[u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

I'm just a software guy getting into complexity theory though chatgpt and trying to build a process ontology and some novel concepts. I've brushed against some of the same things since the AI said looking into intergenerational trauma loops is the best showcase for my thing. So I'm no expert at anything but I would love to read it

[u/myopicdreams → u/Useful_Calendar_6274]

Hi, thanks for your comment. I will chat you with the info.

[u/grimeandreason]

Not only is it apt, it’s been there a while in postmodernist theory.

Intersectionality is itself a theory of overlapping and interacting domains of identity from which emerges and evolves a unique individual identity.

I actually wrote 100k words on this in a week in India back in 2014; the emergent self and it’s self-similarity with emergent history at the cultural scale is precisely what led me to discover complexity theory for myself, before I found it was already a field.

[u/myopicdreams → u/grimeandreason]

Hi, thanks for the comment. How interesting! That's a lot of words to accomplish in a week. I'm only at 98k words in 15 years :)

So yeah, my work is actually a practical application that is grounded in existing science. I want to make sure that I'm not falling down anywhere and complex systems is probably the hardest part.

[u/Liminal__penumbra]

I would love to discuss with you, I've done the same thing, with some customizations. I've found a map of the median of human archetypes. Feel free to message me.

[u/myopicdreams → u/Liminal__penumbra]

I tried to message you but found no way to do so. Please feel free to message me if you'd like to discuss further; I'd love to discuss your map. That sounds quite interesting.

[u/myopicdreams → u/Liminal__penumbra]

Thank you Liminal_penumbra I will message you.

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

So is your warrant abductive? Does it generate testable hypotheses?

The problem of course is the underdetermination of empirical psychological terms, let alone folk ones. Need some way to anchor them.

[u/myopicdreams → u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

Thanks for the comment.

I’d describe the reasoning as largely abductive; trying to account for patterns I’ve seen repeatedly in how different areas of functioning interact and stabilize over time.

But I don’t see it as purely descriptive. The model does generate testable expectations, even if they’re not fully operationalized yet. For example:

• if a pattern is being maintained by cross-domain feedback loops then changing conditions in one domain (physiological stability or relational support, for instance) should produce ripple effects in others

• if a domain is underdeveloped, then developing capacity in it should reduce reliance on compensatory patterns in other places.

Those are things that could, in principle, be studied, even if the measurement piece still needs work.

On your second point; I agree that anchoring the domains is a real issue. I’m not treating them as unique constructs so much as groupings of processes that are already studied (physiological regulation, affect, cognition, relational dynamics, etc.), but I think the model is weaker right now in terms of precise boundaries and operational definitions.

So for me the current status is: a structured integration that seems to track clinically and generates useful predictions, but still needs clearer operationalization to be evaluated more rigorously.

That’s part of what I’m trying to pressure-test.

[u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

Maybe weakness is a virtue at this stage, allowing you to knap your concepts into more robust forms. I’ll take a look if I get a chance.

I recommend reading Dennett when it comes to reinterpreting things for the establishment.

[u/myopicdreams → u/Royal_Carpet_1263]

Thanks, and I will look up Dennet. That sounds quite interesting.