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.
BURT: 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.
This has happened a few times….when I am tutoring a little kid (6-8} a few of them will complain that they don’t want to read a particular story about a main character who is a different race than their own. This isn’t bigoted…it’s natural. I’m sure these kids would be more inclined to respond more altruistically toward those who resemble their parents and siblings. It’s all about bonding in infancy…is it not?
Elements of a PI as an adult may include but not be limited to:
1. Gender and associated gender roles prescribed by society
2. One’s sense of general competency in relation to others (e.g. intelligence)
3. A perception of social status in relation to intimate others
4. Identification with an occupation, especially a profession
5. Identification as a parent, especially a mother
6. One’s sense of physical prowess or skills
7. National and/or political affiliation
8. Religious beliefs
I think religious and/or political beliefs are secondary for most people, but for some it is a critical or driving force.
I think religious and/or political beliefs are secondary for most people, but for some it is a critical or driving force.
It definitely was for me—very much so, as I said before.
PI makes a lot more sense to me when I include the religious beliefs in which I was raised. Otherwise it seems we’re talking about a fairly narrow margin between neurology and psychology.
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.
A lot of this is done subconsciously - part of the brain seems intensely interested in the question of “who am I?”. It is always making distinctions that clarify it’s own sense of self. We can explore other view points and perspectives, but at a certain point we withdraw or draw lines and say “that is not me.” The brain seems to search for the boundaries of it’s own influence, essence, or being, like a star learning the limits of its own gravitational pull. The brain wants to know about itself. To do this it creates a Nhojian narrative that makes sense of its environment, and is constantly tweaking the novel to make things fit. This helps it to define and develop the main character in the novel - itself.
I think religious and/or political beliefs are secondary for most people, but for some it is a critical or driving force.
It definitely was for me—very much so, as I said before.
PI makes a lot more sense to me when I include the religious beliefs in which I was raised. Otherwise it seems we’re talking about a fairly narrow margin between neurology and psychology.
Religious and political beliefs are both extremely important for some people. I have a very hard time getting fired up over any of the candidates running for President right now, but some people are very enthusiastic about one or the other, to the point of getting into heated and even physically violent arguments. Same for religion. Anything that provides a foundation for an over-arching world view that explains life to some person is potentially a critical element of one’s PI.
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.
A lot of this is done subconsciously - part of the brain seems intensely interested in the question of “who am I?”. It is always making distinctions that clarify it’s own sense of self. We can explore other view points and perspectives, but at a certain point we withdraw or draw lines and say “that is not me.” The brain seems to search for the boundaries of it’s own influence, essence, or being, like a star learning the limits of its own gravitational pull. The brain wants to know about itself. To do this it creates a Nhojian narrative that makes sense of its environment, and is constantly tweaking the novel to make things fit. This helps it to define and develop the main character in the novel - itself.
More wine, Saki, a toast to Omar!
“Hidden you live, inscrutable as ever,
A person sometimes, but sometimes a place,
Showing this costly spectacle to no one
You the sole audience and the actor too.”
BURT: 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.
This has happened a few times….when I am tutoring a little kid (6-8} a few of them will complain that they don’t want to read a particular story about a main character who is a different race than their own. This isn’t bigoted…it’s natural. I’m sure these kids would be more inclined to respond more altruistically toward those who resemble their parents and siblings. It’s all about bonding in infancy…is it not?
Argh! Another way of looking at PI, as it evolves over a lifespan. Probably relates to those levels of lifespan development. And Jaquez lament about the seven ages of Man.
Applying this to education (in a broad sense) maybe it’s important for young kids to develop a secure sense of self, and then have it modified periodically (cocoons giving birth to butterflies that morph into new cocoons and further butter flies). Perhaps at the end it’s no longer Who Am I, but Who the Hell Was That?
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.
A lot of this is done subconsciously - part of the brain seems intensely interested in the question of “who am I?”. It is always making distinctions that clarify it’s own sense of self. We can explore other view points and perspectives, but at a certain point we withdraw or draw lines and say “that is not me.” The brain seems to search for the boundaries of it’s own influence, essence, or being, like a star learning the limits of its own gravitational pull. The brain wants to know about itself. To do this it creates a Nhojian narrative that makes sense of its environment, and is constantly tweaking the novel to make things fit. This helps it to define and develop the main character in the novel - itself.
I think a good part of it harkens back to the least common denominator of the physiological factor of species identification. “Who am I?” is undifferentially related irregardless of the superficial distinctions, real or imagined, between us. If the physiological function of empathy is working properly, “I become you” or understand the “experience of you,” we “become one” inasmuch as we experience the same thing (life) in the same way. When we place emphasis on differences and lose sight of our commonalities, we divide the one into innumerous parts creating artificial separation. Separation produces anxiety and we attempt to overcome this in a variety of ways, some more or less effective and some more or less harmful and/or beneficial than others. Love seems to be a primarily universal human experience that accomplishes this and allows recognition of similarities and appreciation of differences, but love also is predicated on a rational distinction as to what it entails. Generally though, I love others in as much as I love myself, I love myself inasmuch as I love others.
Combining a lot of the observations posted here, if the brain wants to know about itself and make sense of its environment, then it must know others (others being part of the environment). How well we pull that off is the question and considering the observations of human behavior, individual and group, we can assess the rationality of it. Religion is the ancient attempt or tool (the only one available at the time) to explain and guide by dictate a formula that recognizes our “oneness” but is limited in its didactic shortcomings with its dichotomic and static approach. Today, science and reason are the tools that offer the more accurate and dynamic approach of explaining, thus understanding ourselves, the environment and our relation to it and to each other. This is where Harris, in my view, has done an absolutely brilliant and astute job of laying the foundation of the framework for putting us in greater touch with reality and, consequently, our personal identities.
When we emote or express to other people, we assume we are exuding our Identity but instead it something we aren’t even privy to- Personality.
Personalities are collaborative duets between the sender and the recipient. No two will be exactly alike. If you know a thousand people, you have a thousand personalities. We can see our personalities best as sonar reflections off of other people.
As people, we reflect light, ripple the atmosphere with sound waves and release scent molecules. We manage to encode expresions of mood and intent by modulating reflected light with our eyebrows, jaws, posture and such. With eye contact, we submit to a common frequency or pace of exude and receive. Some find that uncomfortable. We encode vast amounts of info and expression into sound waves but again the fidelity is only as good as the receiver’s reception or what sort of reception they are intent on. Curiously, it is only Mr. Hippo who uses scent to express himself. Who’s personal narrative includes what they smell like?
Many have no idea what they actually look like. Most have no idea what they sound like. Some are unaware of their molecular output. Personal Identity become an issue of personal experience. One’s personality is other people’s experience.
Also, above and below the Chunk Limit, we may as well be two different persons.
Below the Chunk Limit in the fast paced world of gut reactions, slogan-sized speaking and “Body English”, the combined efforts of Mr. Hippo (posture) and Mr. Now (eye contact and gesturing) make for our loudest and most immediate presence on earth.
Above the Chunk Limit in the time-delayed world of personal stories, global understandings and acting self-consciously, it can take much longer to know Mr. Flashlight and the Big Narrative he thinks he is living in. His likes and dislikes will depend on whether liking or disliking something is consistent with the Big Narrative. Cut off from emotions, Mr. Flashlight has nothing else to base a decision on.
Mr. Flashlight would say, “I am from Texas, so I like the Cowboys.” This would remain “true” even if, to any observer, facial grimaces and colorful meme choices would indicate a loathing of the Cowboys. We call it a “deep commitment”. This kind of liking can only be perceived above the Chunk Limit.
Mr. Now would say, “I enjoyed watching the Lions play in Texas today”. Observers would draw the same conclusion. We call it “being unfaithful”.
We may welcome the company of one with charming inner narrators while wishing their physical presence could stay home. Posting, letters, texting and phones let us do that now, but our ancestors had to shout and use semaphore signals.
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’ve heard Sam Harris talk about the sphere of reality. He talks about how if one has religious beliefs one cannot keep this separate from ones other views on life because there is indeed only one sphere of reality. I don’t really know much about the sphere though even though I have one but i’m sure Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, etc have speculated on it. Freud talks about the id, ego and super ego as being the three parts of the psyche. But as far as the sphere I think it is a mix of the genes of personality and intelligence. Although I’m not sure. But yeah check out Sigmund Freud.
It may be that personal identity (PI), being more subject in an adult at least to choice, is easier to identify, in part also because at least some major element of it are articulated freely by a person. Once a set of elements of a PI are identified, and ranked in terms of importance, PI may be better basis for making predictions about how someone is likely to behave in a given situation than personality. Personality not how people see you in a social situation, it is your pattern of behavioral and emotional dispositions that’re rooted in genetics and early conditioning, neither of which are subject to choice. Further, unless there’s some measure such as an MMPI or other instrument, and/or careful observations under different conditions, one’s personality is largely based on inferences. As an example, BM’s constant diatribes about his belief in his god reflect his PI, but the manner in which he engages with others reflects his personality. All of us have both, but PI as said is more subject to conscious choice, though some elements such as biological gender aren’t.
Speaking for myself, “I’m an atheist” is a quite small part of my PI, more influential are terms like “independent,” “critical thinking,” deliberate analysis,” “decision making,” and “active.” For some here, the atheism/theism issue is much more important. I suspect but cannot prove that for most of the human race, theism or lack of it, is not a dominating element of their PI. Being a providing parent, a skilled worker or professional, a loyal member of a political group and/or culture, a male or female; or a spouse, are probably more influential.
Personality and PI have some relationships; a passive, low energy, dependent personality who’s highly reactive to stimuli, and who lives in an assertive, competitive society, is more likely to express PI elements such as nurturance, cooperation; risk avoidance, etc., and iconic identifications that reflect those. An active, energetic, strong person who find stimuli exciting not aversive will more likely use PI referents such as strength, independence, personal accomplishment, competency, etc.
It may be that personal identity (PI), being more subject in an adult at least to choice, is easier to identify, in part also because at least some major element of it are articulated freely by a person. Once a set of elements of a PI are identified, and ranked in terms of importance, PI may be better basis for making predictions about how someone is likely to behave in a given situation than personality. Personality not how people see you in a social situation, it is your pattern of behavioral and emotional dispositions that’re rooted in genetics and early conditioning, neither of which are subject to choice.
I’m not sure what you are saying in the opening part of that sentence in bold, Dennis? In the next part below, you say that ‘personality’ is the manner in which he engages with others, that seems more accurate a description.
Further, unless there’s some measure such as an MMPI or other instrument, and/or careful observations under different conditions, one’s personality is largely based on inferences. As an example, BM’s constant diatribes about his belief in his god reflect his PI, but the manner in which he engages with others reflects his personality. All of us have both, but PI as said is more subject to conscious choice, though some elements such as biological gender aren’t.
Nhoj has a similar crucial distinction between personality and identity in his thesis. But if I recall correctly ‘personality’ is just the way your personal behaviour is understood by those who experience it. So that personality is what others who know you think you are, while identity is more tied into who you think you are. In that sense ‘personality’ is more objective (it is based upon your actual actions in the world) while ‘identity’ is almost entirely subjective (how you claim your own uniqueness). Maybe Nhoj can make this clearer?
Nhoj has a similar crucial distinction between personality and identity in his thesis. But if I recall correctly ‘personality’ is just the way your personal behaviour is understood by those who experience it. So that personality is what others who know you think you are, while identity is more tied into who you think you are. In that sense ‘personality’ is more objective (it is based upon your actual actions in the world) while ‘identity’ is almost entirely subjective (how you claim your own uniqueness). Maybe Nhoj can make this clearer?
The popular usage of “personality” is social perception, how others see your social persona. “S/he is a delightful, fun person….” etc. There’s a connection, but psychologists use the term to refer to a person’s basic traits, emotional and behavioral, that’re not necessarily all that public. A psychopath, for instance, maybe regarded in casual social interaction as an engaging, clever, fun-loving, etc., person, with little if any appreciation of his or her basic traits. BM’s style of belittling others is a personality reflection, the content of his theistic posts a reflection of PI. Same can be said of anyone here, just that BM is a well-known chew toy.
Not to beat this topic to death, but PI is heavily influenced by the culture and cohorts with which a person is raised. A person raised in a highly religious cohort and culture is quite likely to embrace some form of theism as a part of his or her PI; the same applies to someone raised in a secular atheistic environment, they’ll most likely embrace elements of a PI reflecting that environment. But they can and do change their PI as a result of personal experiences, intellectual reflections, etc. Personality is more a function of genetics, selective mating; the level of infant morbidity, nutrition; environmental toxins perhaps, and the like.
It is very interesting to be in a brand new place or situation where you are not known. This could be traveling alone in another country, or joining in on a wilderness adventure group. Different attributes become important, and your PI shifts. You get to see more of your personality uncovered.
I am taking a break from chap 4 to return to posting. 11,000 words and holding.
I’m hoping to start finding a bit more focus time to allow such a luxury too, Nhoj. Next week looks fairly open for both editing and posting. I’m hoping, at least.
