A dichotomy: head knowledge vs. heart knowledge

I've been pondering over the weekend and today about two concepts I heard over and over again in parochial school: "head knowledge" vs. "heart knowledge". It is in my mind because T mentioned it last session. I stated some beliefs I had decided on. She asked me a couple of relevant questions which I answered in the affirmative. She then asked me, "Do you know that in your head or in your heart?" I told her my head. She said, "What I really want for you is to know it in your heart."

So my question to the PC hive mind is this:

What are your opinions on "head knowledge" vs. "heart knowledge"?

Does the fact that you believe something in your "heart" vs. your "head" make it more real or important?

I acknowledge that there is more than one way to "know" something.

I think you need to have both....don't know how you go about getting heart knowledge.

I know that I have lots of head knowledge but that I can't even express most of my feelings in any form so I'm not sure I can speak to the heart knowledge...

But I do know that therapist can tell me something....it can sound logical...my head can wrap around the idea and it can become head knowledge. but deep down inside...if I still have shame or hurt or discomfort around that issue then its difficult to have heart knowledge.

Like if my T. told me I was "love"able... and said I can prove it and listed my children as loving me and therefore I must be loveable. Okay so maybe I could believe it in my head but in my heart I could still feel worthless and unloveable....

I'm definetly a heart knowledge person. I have been all my life. I think being this way makes it harder (at least for me) because there is no 'logical' thinking in heart knowledge- for me, it's an overpowering feeling or knowledge that what I am experiencing is real- even if there's no "proof" of it and it is difficult to put into words.

I think you can convince people of head knowledge, but not so much heart knowledge.

I gained the heart knowledge that I could trust my T and what she said such that she'd tell me something I did not understand with my head and a few days later I'd be walking down the street and do one of those, "Oh! That's what she meant!" things

It's like when you suddenly understand a math principal and how to work a problem. Heart knowledge requires an experience of what the head knows. There are lot of "facts" out there on believes; the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but it's the heart that experiences the actual sun rise and the night fears evaporating?

I think heart knowledge is just a different way of saying impulsivity or "emotion mind" from the DBT school of thought. I don't trust my heart knowledge at all, because as they say in DBT, relying on your feelings alone is a bad thing. It means you are impulsive. But I would say that heart knowledge + head knowledge = the best combination. I have always operated with head knowledge because you can trust it, it is rational, it is logical, and it is based on reality (as opposed to the fantasy world of emotions) and it is so whether you believe it or not. In my experience, heart knowledge has been wrong 100% of the time (hey.. dbt was right haha), therefore it is not worth worrying about. I would say stick to the head knowledge, then you can't go wrong!

I think when it comes to issues of faith, emotions, truths about ourselves and other people.. it is important to have both head and heart knowldge. It starts out as head and goes to heart and to me that seems like a normal progression.

Say for example.... the concept of God, since you were talking about beliefs when this got brought up. I can read the Bible and get all of the info I need or want that tells me who God is. All of His Characteristics, how he loves all of us, etc. However, if that head knowldge does not make it to my heart- it doesn't translate so well. I can know it my mind, but to really believe it in my heart takes an act of faith (and this is true with a lot of things not about a belief in a God). My pastor calls it mental asscent vs real faith. I think when we have that real heart knowldge that is when we take a so called "leap of faith" and believe what the head tells us is rational to believe.

So, take for example my relationship with T.. Since it is new, and I have been thinking about trust latley. He says- , it is okay to trust him. So, I hear it in my mind. He has showed me through his actions, that indeed he is a trustworthy person. So, in my mind.. I have that knowldge... Now, it is the hearts turn. Will I trust him? and trusting him in my case means sharing a number of things with him that I haven't told many people or anybody really. For me, sharing those details of my life is an action of heart knoweldge. My mind got a hold of it and my heart followed. I don't know if that makes any sense to anybody else.. But- those are my thoughts

For me, heart knowledge is what I make a part of me, while head knowledge is all the stuff that doesn't apply, but might be nice to know.
Bluemountains

for me head knoledge means just that you know something in your head.heart knoledge is that you feel this knoledge also.you can feel it in your heart.not something i like all that much because all i ever seem to feel in my heart is frear and anger.

That one I have seen once told me we were having a head connection but not a heart connection. I was clueless about what she meant, if it was a criticism, or how to do it differently. She was not useful in explaining any of those to me. She has also told me something like she thinks I only operate from the neck up. I guess that is the head knowledge part.

The therapist I saw for only three months once told me the only time she saw me show unguarded feeling was when I talked about my dog. I thought that was a bit harsh.

A big part of my getting healthier was acknowledging that there are things that I feel, and things that I know, and that these two things do not need to be the same thing. I've also found that changing specifically what the heart feels is rarely accomplished with what the head knows, and sometimes what is necessary is to look at what the heart knows in a different way. For instance, my head knows that my T puts a lot of time and effort into me, but my heart still questions whether he cares. Getting to the bottom of what makes my heart so doubtful is what helps me feel cared for the most, not so much recalling the facts of what he does (although of course, that does help and is necessary before I can really convince my heart).

And also, I've found that it's important to hang onto what my head knows, and say that it's ok that my heart doesn't know it, but I can't let my heart change what I know in my head. For example, if I'm arguing with my husband I have to try to stay in my head and just acknowledge that the emotions are there, because as soon as I let my emotions take over completely, I start saying things that I know aren't true, or deny things that I know are true. No progress is made and both of us end up hurt.

I work in science, and questions of faith and science are frequently posed to me. It's a similar deal in my opinion. You can't argue faith using science, and you can't argue science using faith. Science is, by definition, based on proof; faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of proof. It would be like using a wet sponge to dry your dishes. I get very frustrated when people want to bring faith into a science classroom, and I get equally frustrated when people want to bring science into the arena of faith.

In thinking about my beliefs, science has certainly informed the way I think and look at the world. But when I thought about my faith, it took looking at my beliefs in all different directions to really settle on what they were -- all science did was set the boundary for where proof ended and faith began. I think it's the same thing with the head and the heart.

I have a head and heart example, I think. It happened when T double booked me, and sent the other clients away. I figured since it was two against one, they would "win", and even thought they should - head. But once I got into session, I FELT how it replicated all the times I lost out to my brother and his wife, my mother would even cook my SIL's favorite meal for MY birthday, because SIL doesn't like MY favorite! But even before that, as children, it was always my brother, never me. So when T chose me this time, I was COMPLETELY surprised at HOW MUCH it touched my heart. This was a major breakthrough for us.

Glad you've posted it.

Yes absolutely.
I know logically that some things are/aren't real. However, how I feel is a different story...
(e.g. I know I cannot make other ppl dirty, but I feel being in my company harms then). No matter what my head/T tells me, I just know it's true. I've stopped discussing it during session cause my T got allergic to this topic.

Thanks to all for your replies. I love to see all the different points of view!

I see head vs. heart knowledge this way. In my discussion with T, this was related to faith and beliefs. I had listed several tenets I decided I believed; i.e. "there is a God", "I am a day-age creationist", etc. She told me such decisions of belief were good, but what about "God loves you exactly for who you are", "God wants only the best for you", etc. I told her I believed those things. She asked if I knew them in my head or my heart. I told her my head. That's when she made the statement, "What I really want for you is for you to know these things in your heart." I was struck by her sincerity.

In parochial school, this was related to whether or not a person was "saved". Anyone could have head knowledge of the Bible and Christian principles of faith; however, if one was to be "saved", one must have heart knowledge of these principles. In other words, one must accept by faith that these things are true, because they cannot be proven.

In my relationship with T, I think head knowledge became heart knowledge last week. In session, she was telling me she makes decisions based on what she thinks is best for me (with the caveat that she knows she may be mistaken sometimes). I actually believed that in my heart for the first time. When I didn't get something I wanted from her via email, I was okay with it, because I believe she has my best interests at heart. And I already knew the information I wanted to hear. I trust her.

In my relationship with my mom, head knowledge led me to discover heart knowledge I already held in my heart. I knew in my head I needed to forgive her, to accept I would never get from her what I wanted/needed as a child. What I realized was that once I accessed those thoughts, in my heart, I had already forgiven her and accepted that I wouldn't get those desires. I just had never processed and mourned the loss and that's what I needed to do.

However, related to the top post, I plan to ask T how I make head knowledge into heart knowledge. For me, the change is not a conscious choice at this juncture. I believe it is related to shame (I don't deserve a God that loves me, I don't deserve good things in life, etc.). Shame weighs me down like Atlas holding the world on his shoulders. I'd love to be free of that!

I think both are equally important in making something real and believable. I've told my T more than once "I know x is true, but I have a hard time believing it." I can understand, in my head, that something is true, but my experiences don't necessarily hold it out, so in my heart, I have a hard time accepting that truth. However, I don't think I'd be able to accept the truth in my heart if I didn't also believe it in my head, especially when it comes to changing some of my core beliefs.

I find this true for me. Very articulately written!

I think this is a distinction without a difference.

Could you explain this more?

Yeah, sure, I think it's a bit of a false choice actually. Kind of like the left-brain; right brain canard that some folks have popularized.

Sometimes my old T would say "are you thinking that or feeling that?" He seemed to divide these things up...and put a preimium on the feeling it part. Which is fine....for some!

I know what he was driving at.....and I do accept that I have a tendency to intellectualize things, but honestly? It's also true that feelings necessarily become thoughts once they leave my "heart" and travel through my brain and come out my mouth! I could not say these things if I did not THINK THEM with my head.

All I'm saying is that it's easy to get caught up in distinctions, parsing things, and end up with nothing....very illuminating.

Not only that, I sometimes felt like my therapist thought much "work" and progress was being made when I was particularly emotional during a session, but the truth was, for me, most of my real life-long breakthroughs have come during much more quiet, internal moments of repose...I think some great writer once said that the best stories were "strong emotions recalled during tranquility." But the longer I do therapy, the more I come to believe that some in the therapeutic profession (and I count my former T among them), place high value on intense, stormy emotions demonstrated "in session." It's almost like *some* of them want to see that...and try to pull that out of me.

Sometimes it strikes me as a little strange and a little phoney. And it just aint me!

Maybe I'm just too British! On the way back to my day job today after a fulsome lunch, I heard an old Pink Floyd song....the lyrics go something like ..."hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.." and I laughed. Just a little.

I'm not demonstrative, not outwardly emotional, not huggy or warm or particularly fuzzy. So my "heart knowledge" isn't very obvious to the outside observer.
But we are all different! And for me, dividing up "knowledge" as "heart knowledge" or head knowledge" strikes me as a weird and unhelpful way to go and not very integrated at all.

Just way way way more than my two cents worth. Thanks to anyone who read this far! Boy am I off on a tangent here

Head knowledge = false self = cognitive distortions.

heart knowledge = winnicott's true self = no more transference, defenses, etc.