To Defend the Self-Model
It is true that humans often defend not only their biological life but also their self-model which consist of their identity, status, and personal narrative. People can endure discomfort, conflict, and even danger to preserve how they see themselves or how they are seen by others. That is observable.
However, it is not accurate to say that humans fight only for the model and not for life. What actually exists is a coupling between biological survival systems and the self-model. These two are deeply intertwined rather than separate.
The reason the system defends the self-model so strongly is not arbitrary. In human environments, identity and social position are directly tied to access to resources, cooperation, and long-term stability. Damage to reputation or exclusion from a group could historically reduce chances of survival. Because of this, the brain treats threats to identity as if they were threats to the organism itself. This is why criticism or rejection can feel disproportionately intense. The mechanism is not irrational in origin; it is an extension of systems that once had clear adaptive value.
Is maintaining of the self-model possible or worthwhile? It is not possible to eliminate the self-model entirely. As described by researchers like Antonio Damasio and Thomas Metzinger, some form of self-representation is necessary for decision-making, planning, memory integration, and interaction with others. Without it, coherent functioning breaks down. Removing the self-model does not reveal a clearer truth; it removes the system that organizes behavior.
The real issue, therefore, is not the existence of the self-model but the degree of identification with it. Problems arise when the model is treated as something that must be preserved at all costs or as something that defines reality itself. When the model weakens, certain fears also weaken. This indicates that much of what is being defended is not life in a basic sense, but a particular version of the self.
A more accurate formulation is that humans are defending a system in which the self-model plays a central role, and that model is often overvalued. It is not necessary to eliminate it, but it is necessary to stop treating it as something that cannot change or collapse. You do not need to destroy the self-model as the spiritual "teachers" suggest; you need to stop treating it as something that must be protected at any cost.
In a concrete situation such as criticism or rejection, how can you determine whether you are protecting your actual ability to function, or merely defending a version of yourself that could be allowed to change without real loss?
