Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS

[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.

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, I am 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, I am 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, I am 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.

 

[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 separates 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!

 

[radou]

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

 

[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 separates 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 anyone 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.

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?

 

[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.

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 let's 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?

https://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?

https://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.

 

[Cyrus]

I win!

text

 

[Moonbear]

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

 

[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 don't 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. 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

 

[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 )

 

[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.

Yeah right. I think almost everyone here would just watch the trolley run them over and go, oh, that's 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 )

...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 wouldn't know these things.