Alvin Toffler in his Future Shock points out "the human mind can be thought of as a storehouse of images. A Snapshot of each and every incident of our life is stored as an image. The related images are grouped together to obtain a higher abstraction". Though this might not be exactly how the mind forms opinions, it serves the purpose of explaining Rajiv's behaviour. Before trying to identify the possible reasons for such a behaviour, it would be apt to try and answer the following questions. Considering that the mind has limited storage what happens when it runs out of space? What happens to the image when a higher abstraction is created? Are there any priorities? Are these images or abstractions static? Do the abstractions or images have some attributes?No one knows exactly, but, it seems most likely that they are overwritten but never deleted. They are overwritten by a higher priority image, the priorities being manifold. Most often the priority is the freshness of the image while it can be very complex at times. Images and abstractions do have attributes, based on which they are grouped. This grouping is used to create higher abstractions and also determines how we react to a particular situation. While the images themselves are static their attributes are not. The abstractions on the otherhand do not have any concrete form but are defined entirely based on the attributes and hence are not static. Attributes can be anything, every feeling that you experience when you think of an incident is an attribute. Images are powerful in the sense that they have the potential to change the attributes of other images or abstractions. This change might trigger an avalanche of changes all the way up to the root of the classification tree.
Now, how does a new image get recorded? What is the snapshot? Snapshot apart from having the visual image (most important or the frame when your mind was absolutely concentrated) also has the attributes. The attributes as pointed out earlier are the feelings we experience at the time of incident. Every feling that we experience has two components- the history of reactions as well as impulse. The impulse is the ability of the mind to generate new responses in the wake of new knowledge. The mix of these might vary from incident to incident depending on the intensity of impulse. The intensity of impulse depends on myriad other factors like the state of mind, the physical strain, available time, personal life etc... The new image is recorded at the bottom of the tree and it tries to percolate up the tree, stopping when it finds an abstraction of which it is a subset. An entirely new set of attributes might even force a new branch out of the classificaton tree (at any level.Even at the root). It might also create a new thread that reorganizes the abstractions in the light of the image.
How is the history information obtained? This is obtained top down. Immediately after we percieve something a thread gets activated in the mind. This thread tries to match the current image to the existing entries and returns the attributes once it finds a match.Then the immediate question that follows is - Why is then our reaction to the same kind of situation different at different times? Apart from the impulse factor the most prominent reason for such a behaviour is the vicissitudeness of the definition of a match. The factors that influence this change are the same as the ones that leverage the intensity of impulse. Depending on the influence an entry at different levels of abstraction is returned each time. Additionally a record of the results is kept that helps in further searches.
P.S: I think i have taken a very bold step of proposing a new theory on the working of mind. It might turn out that it is nothing but bullshit. But if Newton was allowed this luxury for three centuries...may be I deserve three hours atleast ( the time it took to write this blog)