Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS

[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.

 

[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.