Does the truth make people happy?

[apeiron]

Flow happens at both individual and group level according to the guy who invented the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Group_flow

I only use the term because most people "get it" quite easily. If you want to debate the definition, take it up with Csíkszentmihályi.

 

[DanP]

Flow happens at both individual and group level according to the guy who invented the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Group_flow

I only use the term because most people "get it" quite easily. If you want to debate the definition, take it up with Csíkszentmihályi.

I know some of Csikszentmihaly's work. I won't take it with him, but with you, because your usage is what bothered me , not his.

Yes, flow does happen to individuals within groups. It can happen to players in a football team for example. But it's not collective. It's *individual*. It doesn't happen to the group, it happens to the individuals.

 

[apeiron]

I know some of Csikszentmihaly's work. I won't take it with him, but with you, because your usage is what bothered me , not his.

Yes, flow does happen to individuals within groups. It can happen to players in a football team for example. But it's not collective. It's *individual*. It doesn't happen to the group, it happens to the individuals.

And I could respond by challenging your notion of individuals and groups.

What is an individual? You think people aren't social creatures - that is shaped socioculturally? What is your theory here?

Mine is based on Vygotskean psychology and social constructionism. Do you have a theory here or just opinions?

So this is a systems perspective - one based on hierarchy theory and semiotics. Which is why I would talk about the property of autonomy instead of "individual". And both individual people and groups can display autonomous behaviour - acting as one. It is not a property tied to a single scale of organisation.

So be bothered by my useage. But respond with theory-based views rather than more general opinion.

 

[DanP]

And I could respond by challenging your notion of individuals and groups.

What is an individual? You think people aren't social creatures - that is shaped socioculturally? What is your theory here?

Mine is based on Vygotskean psychology and social constructionism. Do you have a theory here or just opinions?

So this is a systems perspective - one based on hierarchy theory and semiotics. Which is why I would talk about the property of autonomy instead of "individual". And both individual people and groups can display autonomous behaviour - acting as one. It is not a property tied to a single scale of organisation.

The fact the self and self awareness are undoubtedly social constructs does not have too much relevance in this case.

Groups do not behave. Individuals within a group may act in a synchronized manner, and their behavior may be influenced by grouping. Yet a group does not take a life of it's own, it does not obtain a new mind, independent of the motivations and behaviors of the individual members.

Even the most basic functions of an efficient group (let's say a football team) relay ultimately on individual cognition, even if it's distributed, and on the behaviors and motivations of the individuals.

We are not Borg.

 

[apeiron]

Groups do not behave. Individuals within a group may act in a synchronized manner, and their behavior may be influenced by grouping. Yet a group does not take a life of it's own, it does not obtain a new mind, independent of the motivations and behaviors of the individual members.

Take that up with your sociology, anthropology and social psychology professors. I can't really debate this with you as you keep confusing what is being said.

Who said that the different levels of mind or autonomy should be independent. The model is that they are inter-dependent.

Although, once you get into the detail of a systems view, there is a tell-tale polarisation that must occur (for it to be a system). The local scale must act by way of additive construction, the global by way of top-down constraint.

So as I've mentioned elsewhere, an important tension that human social systems have to equilibrate is local competition vs global co-operation.

But this is indeed getting into the details where the argument might become interesting to me (rather than a sterile to and fro). At the moment, you are not picking up these critical nuances.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just wanted to make it clear that this is not only about religious beliefs. It could include any faith-based belief. For example, I once took it on faith that the expansion of universe has a negative acceleration. Silly me! I don't know what I was thinking.

 

[apeiron]

I just wanted to make it clear that this is not only about religious beliefs. It could include any faith-based belief. For example, I once took it on faith that the expansion of universe has a negative acceleration. Silly me! I don't know what I was thinking.

But the difference here would have been is that you believed science to be a game of models seeking falsification so as to move on to the next level of modelling. Dark energy was an exciting discovery at a time when so little new had happened for a while to shake things. (And it was quickly accepted as "true" because it turned out to have been anticipated as the cosmological constant in existing equations).

A scientific mindset is reassuring because we feel we have a solid process that does home in on prediction and control of reality. The happiness comes not in having complete answers right now, but knowing this is the best route to answers about anything that might crop up. And when science slows down - it finds no new troubling data to keep it moving along - then we are less happy. Well, maybe that's just me.

 

[DanP]

Take that up with your sociology, anthropology and social psychology professors. I can't really debate this with you as you keep confusing what is being said.

Who said that the different levels of mind or autonomy should be independent. The model is that they are inter-dependent.

Although, once you get into the detail of a systems view, there is a tell-tale polarisation that must occur (for it to be a system). The local scale must act by way of additive construction, the global by way of top-down constraint.

So as I've mentioned elsewhere, an important tension that human social systems have to equilibrate is local competition vs global co-operation.

But this is indeed getting into the details where the argument might become interesting to me (rather than a sterile to and fro). At the moment, you are not picking up these critical nuances.

No, I take it up with you, since you are the one with whose affirmations I have a problem with it.

And about your so called critical nuances: strop drifting all the way through the subjects, try to express yourself clearly, with fewer pompous words and at the subject at hand. You'll have a better chance to make yourself understood.
So far everything you said is pretty sterile for me too.

 

[apeiron]

No, I take it up with you, since you are the one with whose affirmations I have a problem with it.

Just love you commanding tone .

You may have forgotten, but you rather more politely PMed me a few months back and I provided you with a list of sources.

If you had read them, perhaps you would not have mistakenly interpreted my statements as claiming levels of a hierarchy are independent rather than inter-dependent.

 

[DanP]

Just love you commanding tone .

You may have forgotten, but you rather more politely PMed me a few months back and I provided you with a list of sources.

Yes I do, this is why I couldn't understand your "commanding tone" on saying "take it up with X or Y". Well, at such statements like "take it up with X", you get what you ask for. You where rather polite as well in PMs, thing which seem to elude you here.

 

[zetafunction]

TRUTH makes you free but LIE makes you happy

 

[brainstorm]

TRUTH makes you free but LIE makes you happy

The question is how far you can go with a lie before it collapses. The farther you get, the harder you fall in the end, metaphorically speaking of course.

 

[micul1987]

" Certain things are indispensable to the happiness of most men, but these are simple things: food and shelter, health, love, successful work and the respect of one's own herd. To some people parenthood also is essential. Where these things are lacking; only the exceptional man can achieve happiness, but where they are enjoyed, or can be obtained by well-directed effort, the man who is still unhappy is suffering from some psychological maladjustment which, if it is very grave, may need the services of a psychiatrist, but can in ordinary cases be cured by the patient himself, provided he sets about the matter in the right way."
-Bertrand Russell-

Truth does not play an essential role in human happiness,even if he has complete faith in his beliefs or has no beliefs the things listed above make true happiness.

 

[brainstorm]

" Certain things are indispensable to the happiness of most men, but these are simple things: food and shelter, health, love, successful work and the respect of one's own herd. To some people parenthood also is essential. Where these things are lacking; only the exceptional man can achieve happiness, but where they are enjoyed, or can be obtained by well-directed effort, the man who is still unhappy is suffering from some psychological maladjustment which, if it is very grave, may need the services of a psychiatrist, but can in ordinary cases be cured by the patient himself, provided he sets about the matter in the right way."
-Bertrand Russell-

Truth does not play an essential role in human happiness,even if he has complete faith in his beliefs or has no beliefs the things listed above make true happiness.

Love, self-respect, or what you are calling "respect of the herd," is where truth and deceit plays a role in human happiness. People lie, engage in secrecy, or are otherwise deceitful out of love and fear for the consequences of people knowing things about themselves or others that could create problems. However, when others discover that one is deceitful, love or respect could be lost. This increases the impetus to engage in deceit to hide deceit. The fear that the truth could "come out" makes people nervous and constrained in how they think and express themselves. The truth sets people free in that they feel like a weight is lifted when they are able to just admit whatever it is they felt they had to hide or lie about. This is, I think, why religions that prescribe forgiveness do so - i.e. so people can gain the relief of not having to live in shame without losing love or respect of others.