Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I’m interested in exploring to dimensions of personal identity, that is, what people introject as a part of their self identification. Since it’s part of them self, these would be things that a person might react to with a fight or flight response when they are challenged. Some things that come to mind are ideals, their body, particular emotions, religions, nation of origin, family, sports teams, etc., etc., etc.
I’m not quite sure what you mean, but I will give it a try…
Strongest force in my own personal identity are my ideals and the implicit belief that I am “supposed to” engage in the process of my own evolution. This has been the theme of my life and borders on a religious belief, which I can in no way defend intellectually. It started in my childhood when I was appalled by my parents’ behavior and mindset and vowed that I wasn’t going to be as stupid and blind as they were. Then, during my teenage years, it was manifested in a thirst for knowledge and self-improvement. After college, a both shallow and deep interest in philosophy began, and that’s when my aspiration to “evolve” became solidified. It all started with Marcus Aurelius, which I read about ten times and carried around in my pocketbook. Then Schopenhaur. Then existentialism. Spirituality entered the picture with “The Teachings of Don Juan”. Add Aurobindo, throw in a few mystics, and my mode of being was set for life.
Problems emerged later in life when I decided it was all a bunch of crap and that I was pathetic and self-deluded. There was no ultimate meaning in life and it didn’t really matter if I was a saint or a shithead. That’s when I wandered…or should I say crawled…. my way into this Forum. Project Reason has been very helpful to me. Especially your posts, Burt. I now consider you a wise old cyber-uncle.
Good topic. In a general sense, PI is predicated on one’s personal history, their position and status in their family of origin; culture comes into play perhaps a little later, including religion if that was an influence in earlier years. Gender plays a significant role, as that becomes a basis for differential treatment from birth. As an adult, given that one’s sense of PI is already in good part formed if not articulated, one’s occupation, status in marital family; relations with a few friends; significant experiences such as military service, dealing with crisis; all add to the frosting. But the cake has been baked before that.
For most people, I suspect the issue is never articulated or arises, unless something, usually adverse, occurs that is sharply inconsistent with what they’ve internalized, mostly unconsciously, to that point. An woman in rural Afghanistan is likely to consider herself a possession by men, subservient to her parents and men in general; socially avoidant in general society and suitable primarily for dealing with a household as an obedient wife and mother. Unless and until she experiences significant and painful experiences, as well as perceived alternatives, that’s her PI. PI is largely an unquestioned collection of experiences, and it is not maybe until adulthood that it might become even a topic, let alone questioned. Most of the forming influences impacting a person are those over which we have little or no control nor choice, and PI is not a matter of conscious selection or choices.
PI is essentially not a “personal” issue, it is a reflection of where a person perceives they stand in relation to others; the “others” form the parameters within which that question is answered. A little kid, told by his or her parents that they’re no good, useless, stupid, etc., and/or treated that way, proceeds into adulthood with that implied definition and may or may not at some point slowly change it as a result of later experiences; the same with a kid who’s treated as though they’re perfect and the most important person on earth.
It is worth noting that as adults, people tend to behave consistently with their PI, whatever it may be, even the oft-abused passive-dependent passive-aggressive woman, once freed of some abusive relationship by the actions of others, quite often quickly becomes engaged in yet another abusive relationship. I once had a very depressed, passive-dependent woman become quite upset and angry when one afternoon in one of our sessions I commented that she looked nice that day; she seemed to be more comfortable when she could list her failings.
PI is not a matter of conscious selection or choices.
Unless this is a semantic/definition/misunderstanding kind of thing, I don’t think I buy it. I identified very much as “Christian” back in the day, now I don’t, at all. That was a very conscious (and conscientious) choice, based upon the decision that I had to test my beliefs (in earnest) in order for them to be real beliefs rather than just presumptions. As they failed I left them behind.
PI is not a matter of conscious selection or choices.
Unless this is a semantic/definition/misunderstanding kind of thing, I don’t think I buy it. I identified very much as “Christian” back in the day, now I don’t, at all. That was a very conscious (and conscientious) choice, based upon the decision that I had to test my beliefs (in earnest) in order for them to be real beliefs rather than just presumptions. As they failed I left them behind.
Good point. But you’re referring more to “Frosting,” no criticism intended at all.
I see personal identity as springing from three major sources: 1) biological sources that have to do with one’s birth: gender, ethnicity, general health, etc.; 2) social sources, relating to one’s general socialization and life experience; and 3) and significant historical sources, relating to significant events that have occurred in one’s life apart from the normal socialization process, either good (an unexpected positive change in fortune) or bad (an unexpected serious injury). Sometimes a single event can forever alter a person’s view of himself/herself. As perhaps a sub-category of 2 are those experiences of life that stand out because they made a particular impression on the individual, even just a word or an otherwise insignificant event that happened to fortuitously impact the person at that particular moment because of the circumstances. That’s a general framework for how I see the issue.
PI is not a matter of conscious selection or choices.
Unless this is a semantic/definition/misunderstanding kind of thing, I don’t think I buy it. I identified very much as “Christian” back in the day, now I don’t, at all. That was a very conscious (and conscientious) choice, based upon the decision that I had to test my beliefs (in earnest) in order for them to be real beliefs rather than just presumptions. As they failed I left them behind.
Good point. But you’re referring more to “Frosting,” no criticism intended at all.
What’s wrong with criticism? Sounds like my point is good only in that it hits on what’s likely a pretty common issue of misunderstanding for this topic. I do get it though (your pulled punch, so to speak), and I do appreciate the sentiment, but I took no offense at all to that—it just indicates a disparity in my concept of what you’re explaining and what you’re actually explaining (i.e. it reveals an opportunity to increase/hone my understanding of this twisted, bizarre species of ours).
How do we get a solid grip on what’s “foundation” (core?) and what’s frosting? It seems that can be a pretty problematic obstacle to discussion if we don’t have a fairly clear and common standard.
PI is not a matter of conscious selection or choices.
Unless this is a semantic/definition/misunderstanding kind of thing, I don’t think I buy it. I identified very much as “Christian” back in the day, now I don’t, at all. That was a very conscious (and conscientious) choice, based upon the decision that I had to test my beliefs (in earnest) in order for them to be real beliefs rather than just presumptions. As they failed I left them behind.
Good point. But you’re referring more to “Frosting,” no criticism intended at all.
What’s wrong with criticism? Sounds like my point is good only in that it hits on what’s likely a pretty common issue of misunderstanding for this topic. I do get it though (your pulled punch, so to speak), and I do appreciate the sentiment, but I took no offense at all to that—it just indicates a disparity in my concept of what you’re explaining and what you’re actually explaining (i.e. it reveals an opportunity to increase/hone my understanding of this twisted, bizarre species of ours).
How do we get a solid grip on what’s “foundation” (core?) and what’s frosting? It seems that can be a pretty problematic obstacle to discussion if we don’t have a fairly clear and common standard.
Perhaps we’re talking about different things: personality (from an earlier thread), which as Dennis says is pretty consistent over a lifespan; and the things that a person assumes as a part of their identity. As in, “I am a mathematician.” (Years ago I gave a talk with the title “I am not a mathematician” trying to make a differentiation between identity and professional role.) The existential question, of course, is “Who am I?” but that’s getting a bit deeper and more philosophical (saralynn seems to be going with that full steam though).
I see personal identity as springing from three major sources: 1) biological sources that have to do with one’s birth: gender, ethnicity, general health, etc.; 2) social sources, relating to one’s general socialization and life experience; and 3) and significant historical sources, relating to significant events that have occurred in one’s life apart from the normal socialization process, either good (an unexpected positive change in fortune) or bad (an unexpected serious injury). Sometimes a single event can forever alter a person’s view of himself/herself. As perhaps a sub-category of 2 are those experiences of life that stand out because they made a particular impression on the individual, even just a word or an otherwise insignificant event that happened to fortuitously impact the person at that particular moment because of the circumstances. That’s a general framework for how I see the issue.
Copy and agree with that. PI changes over a lifespan, if usually slowly; sometimes, some maybe dramatically and quickly, usually in adulthood as a consequence of very intense experiences. For some people, things like honor, obligation; caring for others; being leader; provider, independent, etc., are important, for others in different mixes, not so. Some, usually male, use their occupations as an important reference point. For a few, their religion is important, for most it is of secondary or tertiary importance.
How do we get a solid grip on what’s “foundation” (core?) and what’s frosting? It seems that can be a pretty problematic obstacle to discussion if we don’t have a fairly clear and common standard.
Really unclear differences, the “core” probably relates more to earlier foundation experiences, the “frosting” to later, but darned if I can show some clear line of difference.
I’m not sure what we’re after here either. But first and foremost, we have to start with “living human being” as life/survival is the first motivation eliciting a fight or flight response. Practically anything else can and does, but it seems to me the question is the motivation that drives it and whether it is rational. The higher up we move (higher consciousness) from direct physiological mechanisms and responses, the more leeway or opportunity we seem to have to develop irrational responses. For instance, the Hitchens interview on another thread comes to mind. The racist white supremist identity of the interviewees seem to trigger the fight or flight response (ie, separatism and/or extermination), with no rational foundation (eg, subdividing humans into separate species). Homosexuality, Religion, Geography, etc, and any other perceived differences that we may express or manifest, superficially, voluntarily or not (consciously/unconsciously), seem to have the ability to trigger the response. Reaction to oppression of freedom is also closely related to the common denominator of physiological response of survival and probably next up the line, but would also seem to be transitionally related based on differences perceived in the realm of higher consciousness (eg, Movements such as Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Arab Spring, etc). False pride, shame, hubris, fear—you name it—self-perception and worldview are determinants of personal identity which may trigger the response. The determining issue of the number of factors that do so would seem to depend on how broad and encompassing the common denominators are realized and applied (base motivations) and how rationally the differences of higher order processes are perceived, accepted and tolerated.
Personally, the only base identities for me that I can think of at the moment are, in pecking order: human, father, American (free, democratic), liberal, atheist, as I rationally perceive them, with human/father falling in the common survival category (to include survival of my offspring), and American (freedom), liberal and atheist falling in the transitional category but closely tied to both and more superficial, abstract or “higher order.”
I’m interested in exploring to dimensions of personal identity, that is, what people introject as a part of their self identification. Since it’s part of them self, these would be things that a person might react to with a fight or flight response when they are challenged. Some things that come to mind are ideals, their body, particular emotions, religions, nation of origin, family, sports teams, etc., etc., etc.
The voices in my head told me I should respond to this. They all have the same voice, so it’s hard to tell them apart. I hope there’s not more than three or four. Some may envision the proverbial angel and devil, one on each shoulder. Not very secular, I know. Sorry. Still, I’m sure we all have some sort of internal dialogue. Whether it’s one half of the brain talking to the other. Or the two halves, talking to the center I’m not quite sure. The center does not say much. It mostly only listens and observes. Who controls the arms and legs etc. I’m not quite sure. Maybe it’s the fourth voice that says things like ouch, shit that hurts and I’ll call you sometime. I think the fourth voice does the flight or fight stuff too. He’s usually too busy to say much but we all know what he’s thinking.
I’ve spent many years training these voices to behave. Or maybe, it’s the other way around. It’s hard to tell. Still, I’m not in jail or wanted by the authorities. They didn’t guide me to become a doctor or lawyer. They felt it best to explore the world and try to understand it the best they could. Luckily, today’s Explorer, never need to leave the comfort of an office chair. The monitor of my computer is the most elegant window my voices could imagine. Information pours in and becomes another voice. Philosophy, biology, geology, cosmology and physics, all at my fingertips.
I only tell you this to explain the dimensions of one particular person that seems to be a culmination. I find it somewhat rewarding, or should I say, we find it somewhat rewarding, to interject our ideas onto others. it doesn’t seem fair to have constant input and never contribute. The body merely serves the mind in this head. Religion, sports, emotions, national origin etc. all get in the way of input. Input that is far more intriguing, interesting and rewarding. Except the sixth game in the last World Series, that was awesome.
My voices, I’m sure would be a lot different, and say different things, in another place or another time. We have never been hungry. We have never slept out in the cold. We have never been beaten to perform a task, so the internal dialogue has been lucky when compared to others.
Honesty seems to be the key. If you allow the voices to lie to each other, it gets in the way of true understanding. We see others who allow the lies to sneak in. They think a better car or a bigger house equals a better person. They judge others and themselves on criteria that is false. They trick the voices in their head to comfort them in times of need with God or other mental pacifiers. God is mental pollution and noise to the internal dialogue. Just one of many lies and tricks we play on ourselves at our own expense.
Please don’t drive this too far, but “personality” in relation to “personality identity” is like a car make in relation to the paint job. You’ve some choice over the paint job, less over the make. Most people a fairly small number of referents they use when speaking of PI, usually family, job, social status; maybe religion or political party; gender, education, age; personal values adopted, competencies, etc. Apart from the true believer, such as BM, who advances at least here just one referent, his claimed status as a special communicant with his god, most people have multiple referents, few if any dominate much over the others. Older people retiring from an occupation that defined much of their lives, may find themselves having a PI problem; same with women who defined themselves as a mother and the kids leave home.
It would also seem that Personal Identification involves a process not only of determining what I am, but what I am not. I am male, I am not female; I am white, I am not black, etc. This is done in our interaction with others, as we discern differences between “I and thou.” There is probably a little PI going on each time we interact with a person, as we discover similarities and differences.
It would also seem that Personal Identification involves a process not only of determining what I am, but what I am not. I am male, I am not female; I am white, I am not black, etc. This is done in our interaction with others, as we discern differences between “I and thou.” There is probably a little PI going on each time we interact with a person, as we discover similarities and differences.
As said earlier, PI is basically a set of statements about a person by the person that are in comparison to others, how like and not like. I’m hard pressed to come up with a PI basis for someone who somehow was raised along on an island with no one around, except maybe someone who does not fly or swim well? Given that, then PI may evolve over time as a person’s relationship with others changes. For most of us, our PI remains fairly constant with no huge changes, even given that some 80 y/o will have, I hope, a different PI than that same person at 8 or even 25.
Although have not considered it much before this OP, therapy deals more with PI conflicts than personality. Those can be mitigated, psychotherapy does not change personality (basic temperament) all that much if at all.
It would also seem that Personal Identification involves a process not only of determining what I am, but what I am not. I am male, I am not female; I am white, I am not black, etc. This is done in our interaction with others, as we discern differences between “I and thou.” There is probably a little PI going on each time we interact with a person, as we discover similarities and differences.
Interesting point—it raises the question of what criteria we choose and/or are conditioned to “see.” To say “I am white; therefore I am not black” reflects a decision (not necessarily a conscious decision, or one made by the individual) to recognize that:
a) “race” exists (pretty much a given in our culture); and
b) that one’s “race” is an important part of who each of us is—“important” that it helps define each of us and who we are.
I’m left-handed, but I don’t know if I identify myself as “not right-handed” because I don’t think it’s really that important. Other than at a superficial, just-for-the-sake-of-light-conversation, I don’t “identify” myself as left-handed.
But I do identify myself as a “reader” both because I love to read and because books and reading are an important party of my current profession and my graduate studies. For other people, a love of reading may or may not seem to be a fundamental part of themself.
But I do identify myself as a “reader” both because I love to read and because books and reading are an important party of my current profession and my graduate studies. For other people, a love of reading may or may not seem to be a fundamental part of themself.
Anything you consider important is a part of your PI, as with anyone. We really cannot easily identify our own personalities clearly, but most can with not too much effort assert what it is they hold important in identifying themselves as different from others.
But I do identify myself as a “reader” both because I love to read and because books and reading are an important party of my current profession and my graduate studies. For other people, a love of reading may or may not seem to be a fundamental part of themself.
Anything you consider important is a part of your PI, as with anyone. We really cannot easily identify our own personalities clearly, but most can with not too much effort assert what it is they hold important in identifying themselves as different from others.
I think what you mentioned about age and or ageing can have an effect on ones identity, A person’s PI may change with time as personal reassessment occurs and which in some extreme cases can lead to an identity crises. I suppose other big changes in perception, or belief could do this also.
What do you think?
But I do identify myself as a “reader” both because I love to read and because books and reading are an important party of my current profession and my graduate studies. For other people, a love of reading may or may not seem to be a fundamental part of themself.
Anything you consider important is a part of your PI, as with anyone. We really cannot easily identify our own personalities clearly, but most can with not too much effort assert what it is they hold important in identifying themselves as different from others.
I think what you mentioned about age and or ageing can have an effect on ones identity, A person’s PI may change with time as personal reassessment occurs and which in some extreme cases can lead to an identity crises. I suppose other big changes in perception, or belief could do this also.
What do you think?
Of course. My father always considered himself a competent, independent man, which he was for the most part. But as he got into his 80s, things changed with more rapidity. Losing his driver’s license as his situational awareness declined, beginning to lose recent memories, etc., had a depressing impact on his PI. A healthy mature adult of 50 has a quite different PI hsn s/he had when 18.
Though PI will differ from person to person, some form of PI always exits, even if it is poorly articulated. PI is important, without it we cannot distinguish ourselves from others. In this manner, it is very much like, maybe even identical with “Self-concept,” since both depend on comparison with others. It also depend, at least for articulation in words, on a sophisticated level of language skills and experiences with many others. Little kids may well have some largely mute PI, but that cannot be symbolized in language until at least until a rare age of puberty and likely adulthood. But in mature adults, a challenge of one’s PI can lead to literally murder, or suicide; it is not a trivial issue.
But I do identify myself as a “reader” both because I love to read and because books and reading are an important party of my current profession and my graduate studies. For other people, a love of reading may or may not seem to be a fundamental part of themself.
Anything you consider important is a part of your PI, as with anyone. We really cannot easily identify our own personalities clearly, but most can with not too much effort assert what it is they hold important in identifying themselves as different from others.
I think what you mentioned about age and or ageing can have an effect on ones identity, A person’s PI may change with time as personal reassessment occurs and which in some extreme cases can lead to an identity crises. I suppose other big changes in perception, or belief could do this also.
What do you think?
Makes sense. We have all these indicators which are predicated on prediction, then inevitably we surprise ourselves and others.
I’m not sure what we’re after here either. But first and foremost, we have to start with “living human being” as life/survival is the first motivation eliciting a fight or flight response. Practically anything else can and does, but it seems to me the question is the motivation that drives it and whether it is rational. The higher up we move (higher consciousness) from direct physiological mechanisms and responses, the more leeway or opportunity we seem to have to develop irrational responses. For instance, the Hitchens interview on another thread comes to mind. The racist white supremist identity of the interviewees seem to trigger the fight or flight response (ie, separatism and/or extermination), with no rational foundation (eg, subdividing humans into separate species). Homosexuality, Religion, Geography, etc, and any other perceived differences that we may express or manifest, superficially, voluntarily or not (consciously/unconsciously), seem to have the ability to trigger the response. Reaction to oppression of freedom is also closely related to the common denominator of physiological response of survival and probably next up the line, but would also seem to be transitionally related based on differences perceived in the realm of higher consciousness (eg, Movements such as Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Arab Spring, etc). False pride, shame, hubris, fear—you name it—self-perception and worldview are determinants of personal identity which may trigger the response. The determining issue of the number of factors that do so would seem to depend on how broad and encompassing the common denominators are realized and applied (base motivations) and how rationally the differences of higher order processes are perceived, accepted and tolerated.
Personally, the only base identities for me that I can think of at the moment are, in pecking order: human, father, American (free, democratic), liberal, atheist, as I rationally perceive them, with human/father falling in the common survival category (to include survival of my offspring), and American (freedom), liberal and atheist falling in the transitional category but closely tied to both and more superficial, abstract or “higher order.”
Does this address your interest, burt?
That’s the sort of thing I’m trying to consider, as well as how we tend to relate to people who we find communalties with as compared to those who are quite different. And how high up the scale one can go in distinguishing self from role.
It would also seem that Personal Identification involves a process not only of determining what I am, but what I am not. I am male, I am not female; I am white, I am not black, etc. This is done in our interaction with others, as we discern differences between “I and thou.” There is probably a little PI going on each time we interact with a person, as we discover similarities and differences.
As said earlier, PI is basically a set of statements about a person by the person that are in comparison to others, how like and not like. I’m hard pressed to come up with a PI basis for someone who somehow was raised along on an island with no one around, except maybe someone who does not fly or swim well? Given that, then PI may evolve over time as a person’s relationship with others changes. For most of us, our PI remains fairly constant with no huge changes, even given that some 80 y/o will have, I hope, a different PI than that same person at 8 or even 25.
Although have not considered it much before this OP, therapy deals more with PI conflicts than personality. Those can be mitigated, psychotherapy does not change personality (basic temperament) all that much if at all.
Getting at something in both these posts - how do we relate to others who share identity marks, as compared to others who display distinct identity marks. For example, I have a visceral distaste for the Dallas Cowboys and a liking for the 49ers - are those fighting words, Bruce? What I’m doing is trying to mine the intellectual vein on this forum for thoughts on how we might act altruistically or morally towards confederates as compared to strangers. The first part is to try and get some idea of how we identify ourselves. It can get pretty subtle - I notice that when driving I feel more of a tendency to excuse some stupidity by another driver if they’re driving the same make of car as I drive (and being aware of that, I’ll swear at them anyway). 40 years ago, freaks had long hair and didn’t trust anybody over 30. Now the freaks are bald with piercings and tattoos. Except for the retro-hippie contingent.
