Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS

[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.

 

[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.

 

[JasonRox]

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.

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 wouldn't 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.

True enough.

 

[Cyrus]

That's not what knowing yourself is all about.

Then explain what you mean by knowing yourself. I am 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? 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 . 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...

 

[Pyrrhus]

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

 

[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.

 

[J77]

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

Here endeth the lesson

 

[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).