Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS

[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).

 

[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. 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. )

 

[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 don't know yourself!)



BTW, were not talking about knowing ones self. I am 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. 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. 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 couldn't 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. So I still win in the end!

 

[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.

 

[BobG]

Agreed. I've just been inserting some mischief. 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 ).

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?"

(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.")