Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS please help!!

[verty]

I don't think "be yourself" is great advice. Most people aren't quite sure what 'yourself' is.

[Moonbear]

I don't think "be yourself" is great advice. Most people aren't quite sure what 'yourself' is.

If you aren't sure what "yourself" is, then you have bigger issues than asking out girls/women. I suggest spending time in a psychologist's office figuring out why you don't know who you are before you even bother trying to ask anyone out if you don't already know the answer to that question.

[verty]

If you aren't sure what "yourself" is, then you have bigger issues than asking out girls/women. I suggest spending time in a psychologist's office figuring out why you don't know who you are before you even bother trying to ask anyone out if you don't already know the answer to that question.

That was a rather harsh response. I mean that guys who want to ask a girl out often do what they come to regret later. I don't think they have a rigid conception of exactly what they want, and I don't think it is something so rare than one should visit a psychologist as though one were defective. Of course this is just my opinion.

[JasonRox]

I don't know too many people who know themselves. No one has integrity or values nowadays. No takes the time to reflect on and examine their lives. The idea of "finding yourself" is taking for granted and people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves.

[Cyrus]

people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves.

:confused: :rofl:

Does that sound as dumb to you as it does to me?

[verty]

Cyrus, I think your response can be taken in two ways. Do you mean it would be funny to think that one should not need to learn about oneself, or do you think one should not need to learn about oneself?

[Cyrus]

Neither, Im simply saying that sounds like a bunch of crap.

"people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves."

What a bunch of nonsense.

[verty]

What matters is the difference between acting and reacting.

[JasonRox]

Neither, Im simply saying that sounds like a bunch of crap.

"people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves."

What a bunch of nonsense.

I completely disagree.

You think it's nonsense because you seem to fall under that category.

[Math Is Hard]

Neither, Im simply saying that sounds like a bunch of crap.

"people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves."

What a bunch of nonsense.

I can't figger it out either. Must be one of them there tautologies. :biggrin:

[Astronuc]

"people think they know themselves simply because they are themselves." Actually it is quite true. People who lack introspection really don't 'know' themselves, and some or much behavior can be automatic or conditioned. Some people lack impulse control, and they really don't know or realize that component of their behavior. I wouldn't have believed if my wife (who has degrees in psychology) hadn't shown me examples first hand.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

What does it mean to know yourself? I am curiously interested in what you guys mean. I know myself, I know my core values, I know how I was raised and what seperates my values from others. I don't wake up one day and turn on the TV and think "Hmmmm, now how would I react to that?" I already know.... Ironically, because I am myself!! :rofl:

[radou]

The analysis of the sentence 'People think they know themselves simply because they are themselves.' would eject an unnecessary quasi-philosophical discussion. :rolleyes:

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Yea, I am not trying to refute it, but understand what he meant by it. :-). Robert Mak, you are both going to graduate before you get to ask her out if you keep going on like this, you know that right? lol

[verty]

I'll try to give an example. When I was young, I was told on numerous occasions that I was a practical person, and I came to believe that because I trusted those who told me that. Anyhow, it turns out that I am not practical but pragmatic. That is something I had to learn about myself; it could not be taught. Even if I had been told that I was pragmatic, I could only be said to know it if I believed it and was justified in believing it; taking the word of others liberally would not have justified that belief.

So knowing yourself is basically having a solid foundation for your personality. People without solid foundations are flaky, they change with the seasons and don't have firm convictions, etc. They don't quite know what they want.

This foundation is something lasting like a platonic essence, what one might call a life purpose or orientation. Who you are orients your life; your life shouldn't orient who you are. Okay, perhaps that sounds vague. It's like a ship that is sailing somewhere, it should pretty much go in a straight line or at least a polyline rather than following the currents.

[Moonbear]

So knowing yourself is basically having a solid foundation for your personality. People without solid foundations are flaky, they change with the seasons and don't have firm convictions, etc. They don't quite know what they want.

Well, I'll agree with you on the flaky part. Seriously, if you believe what other people tell you about yourself, regardless if it's true or not, that's just plain weird. The whole "I need to go find myself" stuff is Oprah-style psychobabble in my opinion. If someone is so delusional that they can't even recognize their own personality traits, they do need a psychologist...or psychiatrist. Don't you know what you like, or don't like, or if you're a morning person, or night-owl, or prefer to be left alone or like to hang out in crowds, or are usually a happy person, or more often sullen and sulky? How the heck do you NOT know this about yourself? And, why would you take someone elses opinion about your personality as more important than your own?

[twisting_edge]

What does it mean to know yourself? I am curiously interested in what you guys mean. I know myself, I know my core values, I know how I was raised and what seperates my values from others. I don't wake up one day and turn on the TV and think "Hmmmm, now how would I react to that?" I already know.... Ironically, because I am myself!!

But do you know before you react how you will feel tomorrow about your reaction today? That'd be the short & sweet acid test of knowing yourself in my book. It doesn't mean you can't have morning after regrets, just that you don't have unanticipated morning after regrets.

There's a good deal more to it than that, but the rest goes hand in hand with it. For example, you shouldn't hold opinions that lead to mutually exclusive conclusions, or at least be aware of the ones that do. If you do have such opinions that are ultimately mutually exclusive, you're eventually going to make a decision based on one opinion and only later find out it violates the other opinion.

[verty]

Seriously, if you believe what other people tell you about yourself, regardless if it's true or not, that's just plain weird.

I don't think we emerge knowing that. It's something to be learned. I also think it's rather subtle. I have often heard a mother say something like "my son/daughter knows what he/she wants to grow up to become", when very often I can read that as "they know what I want them to become". How many children disobey their parents when they become teenagers? If that's not a voyage of self-discovery, I don't know what is.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

But do you know before you react how you will feel tomorrow about your reaction today? That'd be the short & sweet acid test of knowing yourself in my book. It doesn't mean you can't have morning after regrets, just that you don't have unanticipated morning after regrets.

There's a good deal more to it than that, but the rest goes hand in hand with it. For example, you shouldn't hold opinions that lead to mutually exclusive conclusions, or at least be aware of the ones that are. If you do have such opinions that are ultimately mutually exclusive, you're eventually going to make a decision based on one opinion and only later find out it violates the other opinion.

I see your point, but I never said that your personality can't change. Surely I have changed since I was a teenager. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I would change from day to day, maybe every 3-4 years my attitude towards certain aspects of life changes.

My point was, at any one moment you should have a good feeling as to how you feel towards certain things, your outlook on life, and your personality. By being yourself for however many years you have lived, you know how you feel around lots of other people, as Moonbear pointed out as a good example.

I think that Astronuc also made a good point. By introspection we can perhaps change how we feel about certain things, but I don't think I would call it finally finding out my 'true' opinion or something. Would you?

[Moonbear]

I don't think we emerge knowing that. It's something to be learned. I also think it's rather subtle. I have often heard a mother say something like "my son/daughter knows what he/she wants to grow up to become", when very often I can read that as "they know what I want them to become". How many children disobey their parents when they become teenagers? If that's not a voyage of self-discovery, I don't know what is.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to get at here. What does your parents telling other people what they think you want to do when you grow up, or the fact that everyone naturally changes their mind as they learn about other options that fit their personality and desires better, have to do with knowing who you are yourself? And how is rebelling against your parents an indicator that you don't know what you want? If anything, it's an indicator that you do know, and are finally old enough to act upon your own desires, not be forced to do your parents' bidding. The conflict is usually because your parents' views on your personality and what you should or shouldn't be doing are not consistent with your own views. If you didn't know who you are and just went along with what everyone else told you, there wouldn't be any conflict.

[radou]

Who you are orients your life; your life shouldn't orient who you are.

I like this one. But it's not as simple as it sounds.


It's like a ship that is sailing somewhere, it should pretty much go in a straight line or at least a polyline rather than following the currents.

Ugh...these ships and currents always make me melancholic. :rolleyes:

Anyways, if your ship went in a straight line, you'd always know where you'd end up. And that ain't always the best thing, is it? :wink:

[verty]

The conflict is usually because your parents' views on your personality and what you should or shouldn't be doing are not consistent with your own views. If you didn't know who you are and just went along with what everyone else told you, there wouldn't be any conflict.

I don't mean that one either knows or doesn't know, as though that knowledge was atomic. I mean that young people who rebel know what they don't want but not really what they do. I consider their rebellion to be a negative reaction rather than a positive one, at least initially until they become more experienced and find purpose or whatever. If teenagers knew what they wanted, wouldn't we all still be teenagers?

Perhaps I shouldn't see purpose as something fixed but rather that people's opinions change and so does their behaviour, and to look at a life as a whole gives a misleading picture. I am willing to accept that we are speaking different languages. However, couldn't I then say that everyone always does what they want at the time, even someone being coerced? They want the pain to stop, etc.

Perhaps there is a middle ground here. When young people rebel, they want to rebel, and perhaps their opinion changes over time and they stop rebelling, but I frame that as that they have learned what they really want through that period of discovery. The language we choose is justified by the context in which we want to use it, but for now I think this is the best way to see it.

[twisting_edge]

I think that Astronuc also made a good point. By introspection we can perhaps change how we feel about certain things, but I don't think I would call it finally finding out my 'true' opinion or something. Would you?
I most certainly would. I can't think of a good example of this because I usually see these things coming long before the problem arises. I consider all my other opinions on various related matters before forming new opinions. Many people do not.

But I'll happily steal someone else's example. "Regarding biodiesel, when I approach the same sorts of people who all but hung me from a tree [threatened my life] for being an environmentalist, and ask if they would rather give their money to oil sheiks or Oregon farmers, guess what the answer is every time?" Those people clearly had not thought their opinions about environmentalists through very well, had they? Had he phrased the question another way, he would have gotten a very different answer. What did they think their opinion was of biodiesel? What was their true opinion of biodiesel? They had all the facts, they just hadn't thought it through.

There's examples like that everywhere. People react without thinking all the time (in fact, most of the time). People undeniably exhibit contradictory behavior regularly. But the more you rectify your opinions against each other, the less likely you are to to exhibit contradictory behavior, even when you act without thinking. When you do notice yourself engaging in contradictory behavior (most people don't even notice it when they do), you can figure out the reason pretty quickly if you "know yourself", know why you do things. Then you have the option of changing that behavior or just accepting it.

But if you aren't "self aware" (a more current version of "knowing yourself"), you don't even have that option.

[verty]

Anyways, if your ship went in a straight line, you'd always know where you'd end up. And that ain't always the best thing, is it?

Well it depends on what 'straight line' means. Perhaps I should have phrased it better, that is why I add the polyline bit on the end. By straight line I initially meant a line like evolution follows a line from less complex to more complex. Even though people's behaviour changes, they are making discoveries through those actions. Think of it as a time line but actually a discovery line or even a knowledge line.

[Cyrus]

Well, I'll agree with you on the flaky part. Seriously, if you believe what other people tell you about yourself, regardless if it's true or not, that's just plain weird. The whole "I need to go find myself" stuff is Oprah-style psychobabble in my opinion. If someone is so delusional that they can't even recognize their own personality traits, they do need a psychologist...or psychiatrist. Don't you know what you like, or don't like, or if you're a morning person, or night-owl, or prefer to be left alone or like to hang out in crowds, or are usually a happy person, or more often sullen and sulky? How the heck do you NOT know this about yourself? And, why would you take someone elses opinion about your personality as more important than your own?


Careful moonbear, according to jason we might both not know ourselves based on our replies!

Jason: Do you always make it a habbit to speak for other when you talk? You make ignorant generalizations left and right about people.

[JasonRox]

Well, I'll agree with you on the flaky part. Seriously, if you believe what other people tell you about yourself, regardless if it's true or not, that's just plain weird. The whole "I need to go find myself" stuff is Oprah-style psychobabble in my opinion. If someone is so delusional that they can't even recognize their own personality traits, they do need a psychologist...or psychiatrist. Don't you know what you like, or don't like, or if you're a morning person, or night-owl, or prefer to be left alone or like to hang out in crowds, or are usually a happy person, or more often sullen and sulky? How the heck do you NOT know this about yourself? And, why would you take someone elses opinion about your personality as more important than your own?

It's more than that Moonbear. Knowing yourself is much more than just knowing you like to be alone, and like certain things. It goes much deeper than that.

Oprah style? Socrates himself said "Know thyself."

Probably the best advice ever given. And what I said still stands, and it is what Socrates implied, as well as what many Philosophers believe, along with Psychologists.

Anyways, this isn't the place to discuss this.

[Moonbear]

It's more than that Moonbear. Knowing yourself is much more than just knowing you like to be alone, and like certain things. It goes much deeper than that.

:rolleyes: I give some examples and you want to argue because I haven't named every little facet of personality? C'mon. How does someone NOT know themselves? Give an example of something someone wouldn't know about themself, because for the life of me, this makes no sense at all that someone wouldn't know themself.

The only examples anyone is giving of anything are things like their opinions change as they get older. That's not that you didn't know yourself before, it's that as you learn new things about the world around you, any honest person will adjust their views on things with greater knowledge about those things. That's not changing knowledge about yourself, that's changing knowledge about things in the world around you.

Socrates himself said "Know thyself."
But that wasn't to imply people didn't already know themselves. It was intended that to understand the world around you, look to yourself first.
But, whereas the Sophists had forthwith given up the search after truth, Socrates insisted that by reflecting on our own mental constitution we may learn to determine the conditions of knowledge, to form concepts as they ought to be formed, and by this means place the principles of conduct as well as the principles of knowledge on a solid scientific foundation. Know thyself (gnôthi seauton): this is the sum of all philosophy. From the consideration of the objective world (nature) we must turn to the study of the subjective (self).
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/hop07.htm

Oh, and by the way, the phrase is originally attributed to the Oracle at Delphi, not Socrates.

[twisting_edge]

The only examples anyone is giving of anything are things like their opinions change as they get older. That's not that you didn't know yourself before, it's that as you learn new things about the world around you, any honest person will adjust their views on things with greater knowledge about those things. That's not changing knowledge about yourself, that's changing knowledge about things in the world around you.
In a lot of cases, there's no new information involved. People have just bought into one side or another of an argument. But there's a broader point than that. Opinions are just the most tangible aspects (and not very tangible at that, I might point out).

I think my earlier acid test still works, and a lot of people fail it. It usually shows up as hypocrisy when seen from the outside. The wingnuts who lecture me on global warming but drive SUVs are a good example. Jealous lovers almost always have the worst track record on infidelity. The list goes on. Almost every one of them will deny being a hypocrit, too.

But even that isn't the end of it. There's the simple matter of making up your mind. If you are self aware, it's generally easy to make up your mind because there's fewer confliciting opinions you're going to have to reconcile later. "If I do this, I'm going to regret it later because of that." If there's less of "that" floating around out there, it's easier to figure out the "right" thing for you to do.

Whether or not you actually do the "right" thing is another matter altogether. But if you can't even figure out in advance what the "right" thing is, the odds of you doing something you'll regret later skyrockets.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Surely you don't need to formulate an oppinion on each and every topic to "know thyself" or whatever, you simply need to know how you may feel towards a certain topic. I need not think about whether or not politics peaks my interest. I don't have to sit down and really reflect on the history of the ottoman empire to already know that I would not enjoy it. My values tell me that politics are not very important and that is me. Me is not the fact that I dislike George Bush (I don't, just an example), me is the fact that I tend not to be interested.

What you are basically saying is that you apply your values to new situations a lot of the time.For examply you think about whether the concern for global warming coincides with your values, but you are not readjusting your values. You already know them, or else you would have no way of making an oppinion.

If I were to ask you a question on lets say, whether or not you might like badmington, what would you say? Most people would immediately be able to say yes or no just based on knowing themselves. I can't imagine someone not knowing their core values. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I would argue that if you were asked about biodiesel and said that it was a waste of time and money, then that is "you"... You don't value such things, if tommorow you decide to run your alarm clock on biodiesel, it just means that "you" have changed.

By the way, sorry that this post is not formulated very well. I don't have much time, it kinda jumps from topic to topic.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I made a post in the philosophy forum so that we can sort of separate the two different topics here - Knowing yourself, and dating. Could we move the knowing yourself topic to this thread please?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1226793#post1226793

[Moonbear]

I think my earlier acid test still works, and a lot of people fail it. It usually shows up as hypocrisy when seen from the outside. The wingnuts who lecture me on global warming but drive SUVs are a good example. Jealous lovers almost always have the worst track record on infidelity. The list goes on. Almost every one of them will deny being a hypocrit, too.
But does that really mean they don't know themselves? Or does it just mean they are being dishonest with other people? I mean, I know people who have put on the pretense of objecting to extramarital affairs while having one of their own. Sometimes such things are done to avoid the judgement of others (they don't actually condemn other people in extramarital affairs, but don't admit to it around people who would), and sometimes it's just that they're selfish people (they are judgemental of others, but when it comes to themselves, the rules change if it isn't convenient to follow them...do as I say, not as I do types).

But even that isn't the end of it. There's the simple matter of making up your mind. If you are self aware, it's generally easy to make up your mind because there's fewer confliciting opinions you're going to have to reconcile later. "If I do this, I'm going to regret it later because of that." If there's less of "that" floating around out there, it's easier to figure out the "right" thing for you to do.

Whether or not you actually do the "right" thing is another matter altogether. But if you can't even figure out in advance what the "right" thing is, the odds of you doing something you'll regret later skyrockets.

I still just don't see how this distinguishes between knowing yourself or not. Some people are notoriously impulsive and regret things they do later because they didn't stop to think about it before they did it, but that IS who they are. Knowing they have made mistakes like that in the past doesn't stop them from continuing to make impulsive choices, and doesn't make it any easier for them to train themselves to stop and think before acting. I don't really know what impulsive people are thinking, but it just seems that the problem isn't that they wouldn't know they would regret something if they thought about it before doing it, it's that they just act too quickly and don't think about something and all the consequences down the line.

Now, someone claiming they're an environmentalist to the extent of lecturing others about it and then driving an SUV, unless it's to get off-road to lug equipment to some remote location to rescue endangered species, fits my definition of "flakey." Again, is that lack of self-awareness, or just selfishness? They expect everyone else to fix the world for them, and idealistically it's a good idea, but they don't want to change their own lifestyle for it.

[JasonRox]

I still just don't see how this distinguishes between knowing yourself or not. Some people are notoriously impulsive and regret things they do later because they didn't stop to think about it before they did it, but that IS who they are. Knowing they have made mistakes like that in the past doesn't stop them from continuing to make impulsive choices, and doesn't make it any easier for them to train themselves to stop and think before acting. I don't really know what impulsive people are thinking, but it just seems that the problem isn't that they wouldn't know they would regret something if they thought about it before doing it, it's that they just act too quickly and don't think about something and all the consequences down the line.


Impulsive people generally act according to how they feel, which is their emotions, which isn't always consistent with you they are. That's why it matters when you do something regretful or not. The idea is to not act in according to emotions and to act according to rationality. Sure it's still YOU in the physical world.

[Moonbear]

Impulsive people generally act according to how they feel, which is their emotions, which isn't always consistent with you they are. That's why it matters when you do something regretful or not. The idea is to not act in according to emotions and to act according to rationality. Sure it's still YOU in the physical world.

But it's not "them" to be rational. That's what you're expecting of them. They are impulsive people who react to things based on emotions first. What makes you think they don't know who they are or that they're going to regret something later even as they do it and inevitably regret it anyway? Are there really all that many people who are constantly regretting things they've done? Most people learn from experience...they act impulsively and realize that was a bad approach, because they didn't like the outcome, so decide not to do that again. Those who have no impulse control whatsoever DO need psychological help, because that's not a normal behavior. That's not about "finding" themselves, that's about a problem controlling their own behavior.

[Moonbear]

I made a post in the philosophy forum so that we can sort of separate the two different topics here - Knowing yourself, and dating. Could we move the knowing yourself topic to this thread please?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1226793#post1226793

You're right that it should be split out.

Edit: The thread operation was a success! If anyone wishes to participate in a higher level of debate on the topic of Socrates' "Know Thyself", use the philosophy forum thread. We'll leave Robert Mak's thread for dating advice, and this one for trying to figure out what on earth people mean when they say someone doesn't know themself in common, everyday usage.

[Cyrus]

I agree with moonbear, this is all a bunch of psychobabble crap.

Edit: Wooooo, spelled it physcobabble the first time....tisk tisk.

[Evo]

I agree with moonbear, this is all a bunch of physcobabble crap.I think you missed the thread split. :biggrin:

[Cyrus]

I win!

text

[Moonbear]

Okay, hopefully I've gotten all the stragglers now. :biggrin:

[mathwonk]

when i was young and trying to make a success of life, and figure out why i was so wishy washy and unsuccessful, i read gurdjieff, who taught that most people actuALLY DO NOT EXIST, AS THEY haVE NO FIXED PERSONALITY AT ALL.

WHAT he meant was that many of us, e.g. swear one day we will do something, then the next day forget all about it and never carry through.

In Gurdjieffs system such people have no substance and count essentially for nothing, and can not accomplish anything.

He said the key to succeeding in life was to acquire some will power, and so I set about trying to get some.

He gave as an exercise that of breaking ones habits. He said it did not matter whether the habit was a good or bad habit, just break it, as that is the only way to find out what ones habits are, which means behavior we do repeatedly for no reason.

I thought well i dont have any habits, and just then the door at the bar across the street opened wide and the music blared out and I was half way out the door on my down there before i even knew it.

then i realized i had a habit of going down and drinking every night in that bar. so i resolved not to go that night. it was very difficult as i felt a strong urge almost physically pulling me out the door, but i fought it and stayed home and worked that night.

slowly i began to get some control of my life. eventually i achieved a large number of my goals, mostly by will power, but some by luck and assistance from others.

i used other tricks like staying awake for long periods of time, or not speaking for days on end. i think most people do not need this kind of mystic BS in their search but I used it and many other tradional, if exotic, methods of enhancing personal growth, such as reading and contemplating scriptures of various religions.

within a few years i had a PhD, a family, postdocs at Harvard, a permanent job, international invitations, indeed most of my dreams came true.

but some will power was necessary first. i think this sort of thing is what is meant by "know oneself". perhaps know your limitations, in clint eastwoods language, or know your desires, or know how far you will go for what you want.

[Evo]

Good job on splitting Moonbear.

Eeesh. :bugeye: You can know yourself well enough that you want to act differently in public.

I don't see how what a person says or how they act in public relates to them being self aware. It just means they are dishonest or at the least putting on false pretenses.

Then there are people whose personalities are just flaky or manipulative.

I'll have to throw in with Moonbear on this one.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

You're right that it should be split out.

Thanks :biggrin:

[Math Is Hard]

Impulsive people generally act according to how they feel, which is their emotions, which isn't always consistent with you they are. That's why it matters when you do something regretful or not. The idea is to not act in according to emotions and to act according to rationality. Sure it's still YOU in the physical world.

It seems that we often do act according to how we feel, "impulsive" person or not. Emotion plays a huge part in decision making. Consider two logically equivalent dilemmas:

#1)Imagine being witness to a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks toward five helpless people. Through the simple activation of a control switch, you have the power to alter the course of the trolley. Along the new path, only one individual is killed. Is flipping the switch the best choice?

#2) Another runaway trolley is racing down a track toward five people. These individuals can be saved if you choose to push a large stranger off an overhead footbridge. The body of the stranger will block the runaway trolley’s path and save the five endangered individuals. Is it the best choice to push the stranger?

The rational decision, in either case, is to sacrifice one to save five. Yet, most people choose to flip the switch in the first dilemma but not to push the stranger in the second. One of them "feels" more like murder.

There were some interesting neuroimaging studies done of people deliberating these dilemmas. Emotionally charged quandaries, such as the second dilemma, have been shown to activate the reasoning and emotional centers in the brain, while the solving of impersonal moral dilemmas, as in the first situation, activates primarily reasoning and memory centers, but not the emotional areas. It is thought that negative feedback from these emotional areas inhibits us from making the rational choice in the second dilemma. We may be "wired" to reach the emotional decision, in some situations, over the logical one, and some even argue that this has been beneficial to our survival as a species.

[russ_watters]

The only examples anyone is giving of anything are things like their opinions change as they get older. That's not that you didn't know yourself before, it's that as you learn new things about the world around you, any honest person will adjust their views on things with greater knowledge about those things. That's not changing knowledge about yourself, that's changing knowledge about things in the world around you.

But that wasn't to imply people didn't already know themselves. It was intended that to understand the world around you, look to yourself first.
I'm with you on this, but there is another related issue that you haven't exactly mentioned - different from knowing who you are is being comfortable with who you are.

I'm having some serious problems with a friend of mine right now who'se basic problem (imo and in the opinion of other friends) is that she is in conflict about who she is and who she wants to be. And that struggle spills out into her relationships, meaning she fights with pretty much everyone she knows. She isn't comfortable enough in her own skin to take criticism of any kind, and reacts violently (either with pain or anger) to any implication that she has any kind of personality flaws (which everyone does). The last time I tried to hang out with her, she stood me up at a bar and blamed it on her cell phone. She does have cell phone issues (bad battery or something), but she makes no attempt to work around them, and doesn't believe things like that are her fault, though they happen with her a lot. Reliability is a real pet peve of mine and I told her that (speaking of impulsive, how did I not see this coming...?), causing her to blow up at me.

Applied to dating, being yourself requires more than just knowing yourself - you can know yourself but fight it or perhaps delude yourself into thinking you aren't who you are, but if you can't be comfortable in your own skin, people will never be comfortable being with you. How can you be open and honest with others about who you are if you can't be open and honest with yourself about who you are?

And it should be self-evident (but apparently it isn't, with so many people arguing it here...) - an important part of a relationship is trust. If you aren't being yourself, how can anyone trust you? It could be, though, that we're having a discussion between people of different ages and often people in their teens and early twenties aren't really interested in real relationships, they are just interested in having some fun. Then the goal is just to act however you need to to get what you are after.

[JasonRox]

I agree with moonbear, this is all a bunch of psychobabble crap.

Edit: Wooooo, spelled it physcobabble the first time....tisk tisk.

I disagree.

I'm just not the person to explain these ideas.

[Cyrus]

No offense, but you pretty much have to be an idiot not to know yourself. (if that's even possible :confused:)

[JasonRox]

#2) Another runaway trolley is racing down a track toward five people. These individuals can be saved if you choose to push a large stranger off an overhead footbridge. The body of the stranger will block the runaway trolley’s path and save the five endangered individuals. Is it the best choice to push the stranger?

The rational decision, in either case, is to sacrifice one to save five. Yet, most people choose to flip the switch in the first dilemma but not to push the stranger in the second. One of them "feels" more like murder.


Is that really the best decision?

Yes, it is murder. It's not your decision to decide whether or not someone else's life should be sacrificed to save five others. It's for that person himself or herself to decide. The best decision would have been to jump in front of the trolley yourself and sacrifice your own body, and not someone else's.

[Math Is Hard]

Is that really the best decision?

Yes, it is murder. It's not your decision to decide whether or not someone else's life should be sacrificed to save five others. It's for that person himself or herself to decide. The best decision would have been to jump in front of the trolley yourself and sacrifice your own body, and not someone else's.

So you opt for the emotional decision over the logical one. Surprising!

[Cyrus]

Is that really the best decision?

Yes, it is murder. It's not your decision to decide whether or not someone else's life should be sacrificed to save five others. It's for that person himself or herself to decide. The best decision would have been to jump in front of the trolley yourself and sacrifice your own body, and not someone else's.

:rofl: Yeah right. I think almost everyone here would just watch the trolley run them over and go, oh, thats a shame. You must be pretty dumb to jump infront of a trolley.

I would never, in a million years, jump infront of a trolley to save some strangers at the cost of my own life. That would be stupid.

[russ_watters]

No offense, but you pretty much have to be an idiot not to know yourself. (if that's even possible :confused:) ...or a teenager. It isn't an unusual or abnormal thing and getting through it is a huge part of what it means to grow up.

[Cyrus]

What? I was a teenager. I knew who I was............what I was good at/bad at. Like I said, only an idiot wouldnt know these things.

[JasonRox]

So you opt for the emotional decision over the logical one. Surprising!

Killing myself to save five people is an emotional decision?

I don't know, but I think your logic is way off. Killing someone else to save others is more logical than killing yourself to do the job. That has to be the weirdest thing I've ever heard.

If I ever see two people or more about to get run over by a car, I'll think quick and logically then look around for an elderly person because they would be the easiest to throw in front of the car and save them. Thankfully I thought about this ahead of time so that when this situation occurs, I will make the logical choice.

[JasonRox]

...or a teenager. It isn't an unusual or abnormal thing and getting through it is a huge part of what it means to grow up.

Unfortunetaly, lots of older people think because they are older, they grew up. :uhh:

[JasonRox]

What? I was a teenager. I knew who I was............what I was good at/bad at. Like I said, only an idiot wouldnt know these things.

That's not what knowing yourself is all about.

[russ_watters]

What? I was a teenager. I knew who I was............what I was good at/bad at. Like I said, only an idiot wouldnt know these things.

I knew who/what I wanted to be since I was about 6. My sister decided on a major in college right at the deadline at the end of sophomore year and struggled with her personal goals (marriage/family questions) as well. Now she's tearing through Melon bank like a hot knife through butter and loves who she is and what she does.

A very, very high fraction of teenagers are confused about who they are. Part of the reason for that is simply that as a teenager, you aren't who you are going to be yet and you have had a lot of experiences on your own, so it is more difficult to know who you are than it is as an adult. It is perfectly normal to struggle with this issue as a teenager.

[russ_watters]

Unfortunetaly, lots of older people think because they are older, they grew up. :uhh: True enough.

[Cyrus]

That's not what knowing yourself is all about.

Then explain what you mean by knowing yourself. Im certainly not a stranger to myself. So far, to borrow from brewnog, your clear as mud.

[russ_watters]

That's not what knowing yourself is all about. You still haven't been real clear on what it takes to know yourself....

[dontdisturbmycircles]

JasonRox I know that you have stated before that you don't really want to go in depth into this topic and I respect that, but can I ask you to give a brief description of what you would say "knowing yourself" is about? It is hard to debate such a vague topic. Could we make it more concrete perhaps?

This question could also go towards anyone else that says that it is not automatic for someone to "know themself", I just singled you out JasonRox because you were online :-)

[JasonRox]

JasonRox I know that you have stated before that you don't really want to go in depth into this topic and I respect that, but can I ask you to give a brief description of what you would say "knowing yourself" is about? It is hard to debate such a vague topic. Could we make it more concrete perhaps?

I will. I will search for some articles that can better explain the idea. I have to go to bed though, so this will have to wait.

It's kind of what twisted_edge was explaining. I didn't read everything he said, but he got the jist of it I know that.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Cool, sleep well.

I think that the problem is that some people are treating the matter as if we were born with some sort of underlying principles which are concrete and unchanging. Through introspection it is believed that these underlying principles can be grasped and uncovered.

I would argue that all principles are simply changed, and that just because you changed your oppinion on a certain topic does not mean that you are closer to understanding the "real you", just that you have changed.

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Yes, it is murder. It's not your decision to decide whether or not someone else's life should be sacrificed to save five others. It's for that person himself or herself to decide. The best decision would have been to jump in front of the trolley yourself and sacrifice your own body, and not someone else's.


But what if you are not fat? :rofl: Surely you would not stand a chance against a trolley and the only hope for the 5 people would be to push the fat one. Of course I would not push the fat one even though it is logical, I don't feel godly enough to evaluate the value of people's lives.

[Cyrus]

I don't know, but I think your logic is way off. Killing someone else to save others is more logical than killing yourself to do the job. That has to be the weirdest thing I've ever heard.

Says jason, until the very next line!

If I ever see two people or more about to get run over by a car, I'll think quick and logically then look around for an elderly person because they would be the easiest to throw in front of the car and save them. Thankfully I thought about this ahead of time so that when this situation occurs, I will make the logical choice.

The second dumbest thing I've heard in this thread so far.

Good grief. Get in touch with reality man.

Throwing little old ladies infront of cars :rolleyes: :rofl:. Your parents taught you well..........(sarcasm)

[Math Is Hard]

Killing myself to save five people is an emotional decision?

yes, self-sacrifice is heartwarming, but it is irrational.

I don't know, but I think your logic is way off. Killing someone else to save others is more logical than killing yourself to do the job. That has to be the weirdest thing I've ever heard.

You're the one that brought up suicide. I didn't give that as an option.
If I ever see two people or more about to get run over by a car, I'll think quick and logically then look around for an elderly person because they would be the easiest to throw in front of the car and save them. Thankfully I thought about this ahead of time so that when this situation occurs, I will make the logical choice.
You're using sarcasm to skirt the issue. The point is that we are not cold-blooded analytical machines, and emotions frequently factor into our decision making whether we realize it or not.

[Cyrus]

You're using sarcasm to skirt the issue. The point is that we are not cold-blooded analytical machines, and emotions frequently factor into our decision making whether we realize it or not.

Oh, was that sarcasm? He always complains to no end about babyboomers and elderly people and how they suck money from society. I thought he was being serious. Its hard to tell.... :rolleyes:

[Pyrrhus]

To be or not to be, that is the question. :cool:

[verty]

This is inevitably a philosophical issue. I won't say too much here but it's like if you look back on your life, you might say something like "I act differently now to how I did then, that is accountable to the fact that I was not the person then that I am now"; or one could say "it is accountable to the fact that I was unsure of myself; I thought I wanted that but I have since learned the folly of my former ways". In calling it "my former ways", it is implied that that former you is indeed you, but if it was you and you acted differently then shouldn't it be said that you were naive at the time?

Okay, end of philosophy lesson. I have posted this here because I think it concerns what has been said here.

[radou]

Now, this thread is amusing. :rofl:

[J77]

You can't learn how to behave in a social environment from a text book.

Here endeth the lesson :tongue:

[JasonRox]

yes, self-sacrifice is heartwarming, but it is irrational.


And killing someone else isn't?

Seriously, it's not for you to choose someone else's sacrifice. The logical one is to kill yourself if you want to do save the people.

[russ_watters]

Not really, Jason - in order for killing yourself to be the logical choice, there pretty much needs to be no other choices and/or a 100% chance of success. Otherwise, you've taken away your ability to make a second try at it. Because of that, self-sacrifice logically needs to always be the last choice (given other choices of similar concequences).

[JasonRox]

Not really, Jason - in order for killing yourself to be the logical choice, there pretty much needs to be no other choices and/or a 100% chance of success. Otherwise, you've taken away your ability to make a second try at it. Because of that, self-sacrifice logically needs to always be the last choice (given other choices of similar concequences).

That's no reason to kill some innocent person to save 5 others.

Because if he were to do the logical thing too, according to you, is to take YOU and kill YOU to save those people while YOU are trying to kill HIM to save 5 people.

Makes no sense at all to think this is the logical way to go.

[BobG]

It seems that we often do act according to how we feel, "impulsive" person or not. Emotion plays a huge part in decision making. Consider two logically equivalent dilemmas:

#1)Imagine being witness to a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks toward five helpless people. Through the simple activation of a control switch, you have the power to alter the course of the trolley. Along the new path, only one individual is killed. Is flipping the switch the best choice?

#2) Another runaway trolley is racing down a track toward five people. These individuals can be saved if you choose to push a large stranger off an overhead footbridge. The body of the stranger will block the runaway trolley’s path and save the five endangered individuals. Is it the best choice to push the stranger?

The rational decision, in either case, is to sacrifice one to save five. Yet, most people choose to flip the switch in the first dilemma but not to push the stranger in the second. One of them "feels" more like murder.


Is that really the best decision?

Yes, it is murder. It's not your decision to decide whether or not someone else's life should be sacrificed to save five others. It's for that person himself or herself to decide. The best decision would have been to jump in front of the trolley yourself and sacrifice your own body, and not someone else's.

Do you know these people? I don't think I'd jump in front of a trolley to save 5 strangers. Better to push another stranger in front of the trolley. He has more in common with the five people than I do - at least from my point of view.

Reading both choices in order, the right answer to the second seems obvious - of course I'd push him. Given the second choice alone, I'd still probably push him, but you can't know for sure since you only know the path you took; not the path you didn't take. Given alone, emotion would play a bigger role than if the problem seems more like a restatement of a problem you've already solved logically.

Logic is more state dependent than emotion. Emotion can very much depend on the route you took to get to a certain place, so 'knowing yourself' isn't as clearcut as some would think.

[Moonbear]

That's no reason to kill some innocent person to save 5 others.

Because if he were to do the logical thing too, according to you, is to take YOU and kill YOU to save those people while YOU are trying to kill HIM to save 5 people.

Makes no sense at all to think this is the logical way to go.

Re-read the scenarios as presented. You've jumped to the emotional choice, because what you're suggesting isn't even an option in those scenarios, thus cannot be a logical choice.

In one case, it's a choice between pulling a switch on one track or another, let one person die or 5. No option is given that you can jump in the way and stop the train. Nor is any option given that the people could jump clear of the track in time to save all of them. Of course, you could logically argue that they're all stupid to be standing on RR tracks while a train is barrelling down on them, so it doesn't really matter, and you shouldn't interfere at all.

In the second case, you have a choice between pushing a very large person in front of the train (the assumption is that a small person won't stop it), or letting 5 others die. I'm not sure I agree that the logical choice is to push one person off to sacrifice them for the 5 others if that one person was smart enough to stay off the tracks, and the other 5 dumb enough to be on the tracks, thus contributing to their own fatal outcome. But, to choose to jump yourself, when there's a low chance you'd be big enough to stop the train anyway, is a foolish choice born out by emotion of not wanting to see anyone die, but logically a poor choice, because now you'll just die with the other 5 on the tracks. It's an especially illogical choice because it isn't presented as a choice. Perhaps your discomfort with the option of watching 5 people die, or contributing to the death of one other person, leads to an illogical reaction of inventing an option that does not exist to avoid the dilemma entirely.

Given that dilemma, I know I'm going to stand there and watch 5 people die. The primary reason is that I'd probably freeze up for a moment with the shock of the scene, and be unable to think clearly enough to even pull that switch. If I did have enough time to recover from my shock to actually make a choice, I'm not going to turn the train toward someone who thinks they are safely out of harm's way to save 5 people dumb enough to be standing on train tracks and not moving out of the way as the train approaches. I'm also not going to throw an innocent bystander under a train to save those same idiots who are standing on the train tracks, and I'm definitely not going to sacrifice myself for them.

This is inevitably a philosophical issue. I won't say too much here but it's like if you look back on your life, you might say something like "I act differently now to how I did then, that is accountable to the fact that I was not the person then that I am now"; or one could say "it is accountable to the fact that I was unsure of myself; I thought I wanted that but I have since learned the folly of my former ways". In calling it "my former ways", it is implied that that former you is indeed you, but if it was you and you acted differently then shouldn't it be said that you were naive at the time?
Yes, people do make changes in their life, or acquire a new perspective to look at things, but does that in some way mean you didn't know yourself? Don't you have to know yourself to recognize that you have changed your views? I also think that fits with Russ' example of not just knowing who you are, but being comfortable with that. They aren't the same thing. I've also known people who are very acutely aware of who they are and very sensitive about their flaws. They aren't comfortable at all with who they are, but that discomfort requires awareness of their flaws. What is usually lacking is a good awareness of others in those cases, so they can't put their own flaws into perspective, or realize that everyone has flaws.

[russ_watters]

That's no reason to kill some innocent person to save 5 others. Um, how is that different from your choice? You are an innocent person too, so the only difference here is whether the innocent person who dies is you or someone else. And that difference makes it more logical to select a stranger than to select yourself. Because if he were to do the logical thing too, according to you, is to take YOU and kill YOU to save those people while YOU are trying to kill HIM to save 5 people. Perhaps, yes. But again, how is your answer any different? With yours, now you'd have two people throw themselves in front of the train. Makes no sense at all to think this is the logical way to go. How, exactly, is yours more logical? It sounds to me like your argument boils down to it being nicer to kill yourself than someone else and you aren't saying why you disagree with my argument. You haven't made any logic-based arguments!

[BobG]

Re-read the scenarios as presented. You've jumped to the emotional choice, because what you're suggesting isn't even an option in those scenarios, thus cannot be a logical choice.

In one case, it's a choice between pulling a switch on one track or another, let one person die or 5. No option is given that you can jump in the way and stop the train. Nor is any option given that the people could jump clear of the track in time to save all of them. Of course, you could logically argue that they're all stupid to be standing on RR tracks while a train is barrelling down on them, so it doesn't really matter, and you shouldn't interfere at all.

In the second case, you have a choice between pushing a very large person in front of the train (the assumption is that a small person won't stop it), or letting 5 others die. I'm not sure I agree that the logical choice is to push one person off to sacrifice them for the 5 others if that one person was smart enough to stay off the tracks, and the other 5 dumb enough to be on the tracks, thus contributing to their own fatal outcome. But, to choose to jump yourself, when there's a low chance you'd be big enough to stop the train anyway, is a foolish choice born out by emotion of not wanting to see anyone die, but logically a poor choice, because now you'll just die with the other 5 on the tracks. It's an especially illogical choice because it isn't presented as a choice. Perhaps your discomfort with the option of watching 5 people die, or contributing to the death of one other person, leads to an illogical reaction of inventing an option that does not exist to avoid the dilemma entirely.

Given that dilemma, I know I'm going to stand there and watch 5 people die. The primary reason is that I'd probably freeze up for a moment with the shock of the scene, and be unable to think clearly enough to even pull that switch. If I did have enough time to recover from my shock to actually make a choice, I'm not going to turn the train toward someone who thinks they are safely out of harm's way to save 5 people dumb enough to be standing on train tracks and not moving out of the way as the train approaches. I'm also not going to throw an innocent bystander under a train to save those same idiots who are standing on the train tracks, and I'm definitely not going to sacrifice myself for them.

How do any of the people know how the switch is set? If the switch is normally set for the trolley to go down the path that would kill the single person, then the single person is at least as stupid as the five people. In fact, the five people could be workers who relied on the single person to flip the switch so they could safely work on the tracks.

Besides, the scenario is supposed to be a simple display that being more directly involved in choosing one person to die over another makes the decision more difficult. Voting for a candidate that supports the death penalty is easier than serving as the executioner, voting against a tax measure to install lights along the entire US interstate system is easier than tying random people into car seats to serve as crash dummies, etc. (and, obviously, even the examples I gave are a lot more complicated than a simple life or death decision - such as the money spent on lights could save more people if spent another way).

[russ_watters]

This is the more interesting discussion anyway (contrived hypotheticals get on my nerves):I've also known people who are very acutely aware of who they are and very sensitive about their flaws. They aren't comfortable at all with who they are, but that discomfort requires awareness of their flaws. What is usually lacking is a good awareness of others in those cases, so they can't put their own flaws into perspective, or realize that everyone has flaws. I'm never sure which side of the coin a person is on. A person can be oversensitive because they are aware of their flaws but not have perspective on how they fit with the flaws of others, or they can be oversensitive because they think they are flawless. Of course, that second option could just be a defense mechanism for self-delusion.

[chaoseverlasting]

Mixing up scientists with philosophers is a recipe for destruction... worse yet, a philosophically inclined scientist...

[BobG]

This is the more interesting discussion anyway (contrived hypotheticals get on my nerves): I'm never sure which side of the coin a person is on. A person can be oversensitive because they are aware of their flaws but not have perspective on how they fit with the flaws of others, or they can be oversensitive because they think they are flawless. Of course, that second option could just be a defense mechanism for self-delusion.

Lying to yourself can be an effective defense mechanism. If you decide you lost that last game because you suck, your confidence is shot come time for the next game. If you blame the loss on a bad call or unlucky bounce (or even a team mate), you go into the next contest with more confidence.

At least it's a good short term fix. Eventually a person has to take a more honest look at what went wrong so they can fix it, but that initial whining period really does serve a valid function.

The delusional people are the ones that feel that if their initial whining got a semi-positive response, then maybe it will work full time. That's not recognizing that others are polite enough not to call their friends whiners right after a tough beating since they might just like a sympathetic ear sometime in the future, themselves.

[Evo]

I think that the title also sums it up, there is a difference between knowing yourself and being/acting yourself.

[russ_watters]

The delusional people are the ones that feel that if their initial whining got a semi-positive response, then maybe it will work full time. That's not recognizing that others are polite enough not to call their friends whiners right after a tough beating since they might just like a sympathetic ear sometime in the future, themselves. Ahh, but there are two sides to that coin as well: delusional or manipulative? If you can always win a fight by saying you'll never speak to the other person again (and being stubborn enough to stick to that), the other person can either let the relationship die or beg for forgiveness, regardless of what actually happened to start the fight. It is a risky approach, but it can be effective.

[twisting_edge]

What you are basically saying is that you apply your values to new situations a lot of the time.For examply you think about whether the concern for global warming coincides with your values, but you are not readjusting your values. You already know them, or else you would have no way of making an oppinion.
You may not be readjusting your values, but a lot of times you should. I often find that people are just rife with inconsistancies in their beliefs and opinions. Have you never once thought, "Gee, I really wish I hand't done that", not as a matter of happenstance (e.g., you made a bet and lost) or as a matter of known stupidity (e.g., hangover), but simply as a matter of feeling bad about a decision you'd made?

I don't know anyone who has never regretted a single decision they've made. But, then, you see, I don't typically hang around with psychopaths. That is the actual meaning of the word "psychopath". It essentially means someone with no conscience.

Personally, I don't even like being inconsistant about things that wouldn't make me feel guilty. I always seem to eventually find myself somewhere in the grey area between them. I find it annoying to dither.

[twisting_edge]

But does that really mean they don't know themselves? Or does it just mean they are being dishonest with other people?
I think in a lot of cases they are being dishonest with themselves. A lot of them are in a state of denial over such matters. It sounds like so much psychobabble, but it is surprisingly true in my experience.
I still just don't see how this distinguishes between knowing yourself or not. Some people are notoriously impulsive and regret things they do later because they didn't stop to think about it before they did it, but that IS who they are.
And some of those are aware they have poor self-control. Others are not. The ones who are not have far less chance of eventually gaining some form of self control than the ones that are.
Now, someone claiming they're an environmentalist to the extent of lecturing others about it and then driving an SUV, unless it's to get off-road to lug equipment to some remote location to rescue endangered species, fits my definition of "flakey."
That's a separate facet of the same issue. It's not a single matter in my opinion.

It's really a matter of critical thought, and applying it to yourself. I don't even think a lot of people know what "critcal thought" is. It's a basic reality check. What are the implications, and are any of them true? That's really the central question in this context. Lots of people just do not think things through at all.

Broadly, you can apply critical thought to your ideology, your behavior, and your specific opinions. The three overlap to a good degree, but they are actually pretty distinct. You can come up with your own categories, but the way I've been mixing those three together without identifying them as distinct probably has not helped to clarify matters at all.

[Cyrus]

I do not see the connection between what you are saying: i.e. "poor judgement in life" has anything at all to do with "not knowing ones self" - whatever THAT means.

BTW, I am still waiting for someone to explain what "not knowing ones self means." So far, no one has.

[twisting_edge]

The rational decision, in either case, is to sacrifice one to save five. Yet, most people choose to flip the switch in the first dilemma but not to push the stranger in the second. One of them "feels" more like murder.

The second one is murder, and you'll probably wind up in jail. I'd just walk away from that one.

My very first thought on the matter was: "In the second example, why not jump off the bridge yourself, if saving the other five people is really worth killing someone else? If you're willing to kill someone else for it, you ought to be willing to kill yourself for it." It's an almost perfect example of critical thought.

I'd probably walk away from the first one, too, unless I knew no one would ever discover I had flipped the switch. That one could also land you in jail. If you were responsible for the trolley (i.e., a switchman actively employed by the transit company), you'd probably be OK in the second case, but otherwise almost certainly not.

See, I know myself that well: I have no intention of ever getting on the wrong side of the law. I've been a little too up close and personal with some real travesties of justice (I used to do some consulting for defense attorneys).

I'm that selfish: four strangers' lives (the net difference) are not worth risking ten years in the clink to me. If society doesn't like my attitude, then society needs to do something about the U.S. court system.

[twisting_edge]

In the second case, you have a choice between pushing a very large person in front of the train (the assumption is that a small person won't stop it), or letting 5 others die.
Can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? Don't ever try to argue that in front of a jury.

I think I'd rather jump in front of the trolley than push someone in front of it just to avoid the jail time. It is simpler still to simply do nothing.

[Moonbear]

I don't know anyone who has never regretted a single decision they've made. But, then, you see, I don't typically hang around with psychopaths. That is the actual meaning of the word "psychopath". It essentially means someone with no conscience.

That's quite a leap from not regretting your decisions to being a psychopath, especially when you've eliminated regretting an outcome arising from happenstance as part of the category of regrets. Believe it or not, there are people who think through their actions pretty carefully so that they don't have major regrets about decisions they've made. Minor regrets, like buying a pair of shoes that seemed great in the store, but that end up really hurting your feet after a full day of walking in them...or losing the receipt so you can't return them when you realize this...sure, everyone has a few of those lingering around. But, major regrets? Nope.

That's not to say people don't make mistakes, or in hindsight not realize they might have done it differently if they had something to do over WITH that hindsight, but it doesn't mean they regret the decision they did make with the information they had available at the time. Even some of the things in my life that have turned out very badly in the end I wouldn't do differently if given the chance to do it again, because everything up until the bad ending was worth experiencing (ending relationships can be like that...it might end badly, but if you enjoyed yourself while it lasted, there's no reason to regret it). No point in dwelling on it, move on and take your lessons from it of where things went wrong so you can avoid that next time.

[Moonbear]

Can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? Don't ever try to argue that in front of a jury.
It's a hypothetical scenario. I don't have to prove it to anyone, it was the only option offered. As presented, the only choice you have is to stand there and do nothing, or push the large person in front of the train. You aren't presented any third alternatives. They're never realistic scenarios at all, and aren't meant to be.

I think I'd rather jump in front of the trolley than push someone in front of it just to avoid the jail time. It is simpler still to simply do nothing.
Again, jumping in front of it yourself wasn't one of the options given. That's the reason those things are called ethical "dilemmas" because you don't get offered an easy out. In the scenario provided, to do nothing allows 5 people to die. To do something requires pushing someone else in front of the moving train/trolley. There is no third choice. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable with the two choices offered in these sort of scenarios; that's part of their purpose. But, yes, doing nothing because the alternative would result in jail time sounds like logical reasoning...it's self-preservation. No matter how many people will die, it's not worth landing yourself in prison for a bunch of complete strangers.

[twisting_edge]

In the scenario provided, to do nothing allows 5 people to die. To do something requires pushing someone else in front of the moving train/trolley. There is no third choice. You're supposed to feel uncomfortable with the two choices offered in these sort of scenarios; that's part of their purpose. But, yes, doing nothing because the alternative would result in jail time sounds like logical reasoning...it's self-preservation. No matter how many people will die, it's not worth landing yourself in prison for a bunch of complete strangers.
I am not the least bit uncomfortable with the decision to do nothing. As I wrote before, society has given me a very strict set of instructions on what to do in such a situation, backed up with some truly nasty threats. It makes the choice very easy for me.

[Cyrus]

Someone feel free to answer my question, please..... I've been waiting.

This thread has gone way off topic with pushing people infront of trains now for long enough.

[Moonbear]

I am not the least bit uncomfortable with the decision to do nothing. As I wrote before, society has given me a very strict set of instructions on what to do in such a situation, backed up with some truly nasty threats. It makes the choice very easy for me.

It seemed to me you were looking for third options. I must have misunderstood the point you were making. I've seen those types of dilemmas presented before, but have never even considered the jail time angle because I just treat them as so completely unrealistically hypothetical that I just take the question at face value, and assume that you're only supposed to consider personal morality, not society-imposed laws, or, well, anything related to the real world. Then again, I suppose there are some people who would opt for jail time if they could save the lives of 4 people (one person dies no matter what).

[Moonbear]

Someone feel free to answer my question, please..... I've been waiting.

This thread has gone way off topic with pushing people infront of trains now for long enough.

Yes, I'm still waiting for that answer too, which is why we've strayed off topic from the off-topic topic while waiting. :biggrin: Every example we've tried to offer has been dismissed as not being what they're talking about, but nobody has given a single example of what something would be that you wouldn't know about yourself if you didn't know yourself. (That sounds like a bad tongue-twister. :tongue2:)

[The_Tuna]

It seems to me that knowing oneself doesn't have as much to do with "what you would do in x situation" as why you would do that in the given situation.

[twisting_edge]

It seems to me that knowing oneself doesn't have as much to do with "what you would do in x situation" as why you would do that in the given situation.
I'd agree. I'd go further and offer two reasons why it's a good idea.

If you know why you're doing something, you probably won't have any later regrets. At the very least, you'll be able to promise yourself you'll avoid whatever specific boneheaded impulse made you do that in the first place.

Another good reason is because it stops you from working at cross purposes to yourself. Say you want to be focussed and taken seriously at work. The next day you want to be seen as an impulsive free thinker. Assuming either goal is important to you (i.e., that your co-workers' opinion of you is important to you), mixing those two behaviors is just going to make you look like a loose cannon.

It's definitely counterproductive to hop around from one approach to the other if your actually trying to get something done. If the goal is to accomplish something, it's usually better to choose either to slog it out using brute force or to hunt around for a more elegant solution. If you never make up your mind between the two, you just wind up going in circles.

Sort of like this debate. Fortunately, I'm not really trying to accomplish anything here.

[Cyrus]

I'd agree. I'd go further and offer two reasons why it's a good idea.

If you know why you're doing something, you probably won't have any later regrets. At the very least, you'll be able to promise yourself you'll avoid whatever specific boneheaded impulse made you do that in the first place.

Another good reason is because it stops you from working at cross purposes to yourself. Say you want to be focussed and taken seriously at work. The next day you want to be seen as an impulsive free thinker. Assuming either goal is important to you (i.e., that your co-workers' opinion of you is important to you), mixing those two behaviors is just going to make you look like a loose cannon.

It's definitely counterproductive to hop around from one approach to the other if your actually trying to get something done. If the goal is to accomplish something, it's usually better to choose either to slog it out using brute force or to hunt around for a more elegant solution. If you never make up your mind between the two, you just wind up going in circles.

Sort of like this debate. Fortunately, I'm not really trying to accomplish anything here.


Sorry, but just.........Huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh????????????????

Does that actually mean anything???

So not knowing yourself because your yourself has to do with your career goals now?

Alright, I've had bout enuff of this nonsense in this thread. Moonbear, if I were you id leave before you start hitting yourself in the head with a blunt object to make the pain stop. (And then theyd all say you were doing it because you dont know yourself!)



BTW, were not talking about knowing ones self. Im talking about NOT KNOWING ONES SELF BECUASE YOU ARE YOURSELF.

You guys are changing the subject left and right because you have no point!

AYE CARAMBA!

Just goodbye, this nonsense has made my head hurt. Hope your happy. (Yes, I am literally smacking myself in the forehead now)

[Math Is Hard]

Someone feel free to answer my question, please..... I've been waiting.

This thread has gone way off topic with pushing people infront of trains now for long enough.

Agreed. I've just been inserting some mischief. :devil: But knowing how you respond to moral dilemmas does have something to do with knowing yourself. It can be very difficult to decide if you are making a judgement from pure logic or the under the influence of emotion. Five is always greater than one... sometimes.

[Cyrus]

Agreed. I've just been inserting some mischief. :devil: But knowing how you respond to moral dilemmas does have something to do with knowing yourself. It can be very difficult to decide if you are making a judgement from pure logic or the under the influence of emotion. Five is always greater than one... sometimes.

To answer your moral dilema senario, I would just watch them die. I couldnt push someone to their death, but I would not risk my own life either. So those people on the tracks would die. I would say, 'oh no!' and make the 5 oclock news. :approve: So I still win in the end! :tongue2:

[Ivan Seeking]

To know oneself is not to answer what one would do given a hypothetical situation. That is what we want to think of ouselves. We can never really know unless confronted with the reality. In order to know ones self one must be tested. The rest is just theory.

[BobG]

To know oneself is not to answer what one would do given a hypothetical situation. That is what we want to think of ouselves. We can never really know unless confronted with the reality. In order to know ones self one must be tested. The rest is just theory.

I agree. A person's reaction to two similar situations can be 180 degree opposites depending on how they arrived at the situation. I don't think most people that get involved in some of these corporate scandals ever made corruption a career goal. They just sort of wound up in it, spending more time wondering how they got there than in finding a way out of it.

In fact, people's lack of self awareness is what sets them up to be sucked in by commercials and scams. The other person knows his audience better than the audience knows themselves.

[russ_watters]

In fact, people's lack of self awareness is what sets them up to be sucked in by commercials and scams. The other person knows his audience better than the audience knows themselves. Boy, is that ever true - a TV psychics thread is open again in S&D. :uhh:

[BobG]

Agreed. I've just been inserting some mischief. :devil: But knowing how you respond to moral dilemmas does have something to do with knowing yourself. It can be very difficult to decide if you are making a judgement from pure logic or the under the influence of emotion. Five is always greater than one... sometimes.

I'll say you've inserted some mischief. The reactions are mind-boggling.

One person says if he were confronted with that kind of decision, he'd just kill himself. Another's primary motivation is to avoid having to take responsibility for his actions - any action is okay as long as it's someone else's responsibility (or maybe even the cat's responsibility). Another feels the decision isn't as important as making sure the people that died deserved it (and that's something that can be arranged either before they die or after :rofl: ).

I can just imagine Moonbear accidentally driving through a school crosswalk, dodging the crossing guard, and running over some poor 10-year-old girl and having to take the witness stand during the ensuing lawsuit, "She deserved to die. She was chewing gum and gum-chewing 10-year-olds are notorious for spitting their gum out on the sidewalk. Why, even as she was dying as she hurtled through the air, she made one last act of defiance by spitting her gum 68 feet across the intersection. Here's a picture of her gum laying on the sidewalk and here's a copy of the DNA report proving the gum had her saliva on it ..... Why didn't I choose to run over the crossing guard? She only had one leg! How was she supposed to get out of the way! That girl had two healthy legs and maybe she could have hustled her little butt across that intersection a little faster?" :rofl:

(Okay, that's mean, but when I read your response I had to laugh. "Dang, not only would she kill those poor people, but then she calls them stupid afterward.")

[BobG]

It seems to me that knowing oneself doesn't have as much to do with "what you would do in x situation" as why you would do that in the given situation.

I'd agree. I'd go further and offer two reasons why it's a good idea.

If you know why you're doing something, you probably won't have any later regrets. At the very least, you'll be able to promise yourself you'll avoid whatever specific boneheaded impulse made you do that in the first place.


"Probably" might be the key word.

Sometimes, you still have regrets even if you understand why you made the decisions you made. People don't like to have it pointed out to them that they just didn't have the strength or courage to make the best decisions. In fact, the person responsible for putting you in a situation you couldn't handle comes in for a lot of long term resentment (not wholly unlike Moonbear's response, although I wouldn't go so far as to call the person stupid). A whole new problem scenario to solve that could wreck a relationship if not resolved effectively.

[Astronuc]

Five is always greater than one... sometimes. :rofl: :rofl:

[Moonbear]

I can just imagine Moonbear accidentally driving through a school crosswalk, dodging the crossing guard, and running over some poor 10-year-old girl and having to take the witness stand during the ensuing lawsuit, "She deserved to die. She was chewing gum and gum-chewing 10-year-olds are notorious for spitting their gum out on the sidewalk. Why, even as she was dying as she hurtled through the air, she made one last act of defiance by spitting her gum 68 feet across the intersection. Here's a picture of her gum laying on the sidewalk and here's a copy of the DNA report proving the gum had her saliva on it ..... Why didn't I choose to run over the crossing guard? She only had one leg! How was she supposed to get out of the way! That girl had two healthy legs and maybe she could have hustled her little butt across that intersection a little faster?" :rofl:

(Okay, that's mean, but when I read your response I had to laugh. "Dang, not only would she kill those poor people, but then she calls them stupid afterward.")

:rofl: Nope, entirely different situation. In that case, I'd be the one in the wrong place and acting stupidly. Though, I'd be screwed either way, huh?

As I was thinking about the scenario, and especially T_E's response to it, a more likely to be encountered scenario came to mind. If you're driving down the road, and some jaywalking pedestrian dashes out from between parked cars (wait, make that SUVs...big ones...Escalades or Hummers...that you have no chance of seeing around). You don't have enough room to stop, and there's steady traffic in the opposing direction. You could hit the jaywalker, or you can swerve and hit a car coming in the opposing direction. If you hit the jaywalker, it's his fault, but you've just killed a person. If you hit an opposing vehicle, the collision becomes your fault, and in the split second you have to make your decision, you have no idea how many people are in the vehicle in the opposing direction. The only thing you know is that even if you slam on the brakes, it's going to be a bad collision and you and the occupant(s) of the other vehicle are likely to sustain major injuries.

Every defensive driving course will tell you to hit another vehicle over a pedestrian if you have no way to avoid a collision entirely, but the careless pedestrian who really caused it all gets out scott-free, while you're the one facing the charges for causing the accident. And, you don't know if you're hitting a vehicle full of little children whose lives will be changed forever by the injuries they sustain, or what if that vehicle has a pregnant woman in it who aborts as a consequence of the accident what would have otherwise turned out to be a healthy baby, or the person hit can't afford the time off work to recover from the injuries, etc. And you may be just as badly injured. And, then there are the lawsuits, etc.

My answer to the initial dilemma wasn't intended to appease what I think others expect, it's the closest I could describe how I'd react if the scenario really happened without having actually experienced such a scenario. In this latter scenario, I wouldn't have time or take time to reason anything out, and from observing a number of near misses in the real world, it seems others have the same reaction. No matter how much you know you should swerve into the other vehicle, because logically, the other vehicle will protect the people inside it from death, while hitting a pedestrian is very likely to kill him, at the moment you really face that scenario, you slam on the brakes, your heart leaps into your throat, and you hit the person who just ran in front of you. It's not about that person being stupid, or the other people being innocent, or whether you're at fault or not, it's about the complete and utter disbelief that this has just happened and the fervent hope you'll manage to brake just in time, or that person will somehow miraculously leap out of the way in the nick of time, even if that would require jumping ability beyond that of even the best NBA player. When someone dashes out in front of another vehicle in heavy traffic, even when the vehicle next to them is going the same direction, so they'd just sideswipe the vehicle and there'd probably be little more than a few bruises, nobody ever has swerved that I've observed...and the pedestrians missed were missed by a hair. From my perspective, in the few cases when I've seen such things, I was holding my breath and getting ready to dial 911, expecting a collision with someone to be inevitable.

[slider142]

No offense, but you pretty much have to be an idiot not to know yourself. (if that's even possible :confused:)

The mind is more complicated than you give it credit for. See experiments by Gazzaniga (1995, 1998) on split-brain patients where patients would give rationalizations for otherwise irrational behavior initialized in a sector of the brain that no longer communicated properly with the sector that produced the rationalization.

[Cyrus]

I can understand people with medical problems. I'll give you that.

But for a normal person, its just a lame excuse for not knowing what you want to do with your life.

"oh, he doesnt realy know himself, its not his fault he cant pick a major, or a job, or a hobby, etc, etc, etc" -bla-de-bla-bla-bla-bla, not buying it.

[Moonbear]

The mind is more complicated than you give it credit for. See experiments by Gazzaniga (1995, 1998) on split-brain patients where patients would give rationalizations for otherwise irrational behavior initialized in a sector of the brain that no longer communicated properly with the sector that produced the rationalization.

Note that the discussion began with me making the point that if you don't know yourself, you should seek pscyhological/psychiatric help. Such patients as described would need such help. The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself. Everytime we say something, we've gotten the answer "but it's not about that" (paraphrasing). So, we're trying to find out what it IS about if someone wants to argue it is possible.

[slider142]

Note that the discussion began with me making the point that if you don't know yourself, you should seek pscyhological/psychiatric help. Such patients as described would need such help. The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself. Everytime we say something, we've gotten the answer "but it's not about that" (paraphrasing). So, we're trying to find out what it IS about if someone wants to argue it is possible.

The patients described have a well-defined neurological disconnect; as such their behavior reveals the functioning of a brain without the physical disconnect; ie., it's like removing a part of a machine to see what that part does. As such, the experiment's result begs the question of how much rationalization is given to our "selves" by our brains on behavior that may or may not benefit long-term goals or personal ideals, whereas the action was taken for some short-term goal whose origins are questionable (see mathwonk's post earlier in this thread). The appeal of introspection is to better serve long-term ideals that we can internalize as being "personal", as opposed to those actions that can be rationalized, but do not actually serve "our" purposes. We tend to appreciate those types of actions better., ie, you get a great feeling after working hard and earning a degree and you probably always will vs. you feel like you wasted time last night going to that bar and that action will diminish in memory such that you really did waste that time for an action that will never be remembered for any reason. A silly extreme example of a non-introspective would be someone who never questions any impulse that enters their mind since "they are themselves", while at the other extreme we have an introspective who never does anything because they spend too much time rationalizing their impetus to action. I'm no good at explaining this stuff either. A psychologist or neurologist would be better suited to this thread. :D


The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself.


If a person ever gives the answer "I don't really know why I did that." to a question about a past action and means it (at least on the surface), I would define that person as not really knowing that aspect of themselves. While it's arguably impossible to know every single aspect, large holes like not knowing why you went to that party last night or why you stayed in and studied is definitely a noticeable measure.

[Ivan Seeking]

How can we possibly understand ourselves without understanding every psychological impulse, every hormonal reaction... every physiological and psychological influence that determines how we feel and react to situations, when it is a given that no expert could?

I don't think it is possible to fully know ourselves. And beyond that, we never stop changing. Part of a marriage is adjusting to who your mate becomes over time.

[verty]

How is looking back and thinking that you would act differently if you knew what you know now consistent with that you knew yourself back then? If it is your former self then it is still you, so either the present you or the past one is/must have been mistaken.

Now if the people here continue posturing about how it hasn't been explained, then no more response will be forthcoming.