Who You Are is Who We Tell You You Are

Here is a discussion board prompt from my General Psychology:

Social Psych is by far my favorite chapter. One realizes how our sense of ourselves (our identity) is tied to other people.

This thought experiment will be easiser if you have seen the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks, because viewing that movie, one really gets the sense of what is means to be stranded and completely alone - something almost completely foreign to us humans beings.

But imagine you could have been born, like Tom Hanks in the movie, on a deserted island, and had enough food and nutrition to survive from baby to toddler, adolescent, adult BUT without the company of others.

This is hard to even imagine as we are born of others and usually surrounded and immersed in others.

But on this island, you have survived, without others to adulthood.

Now, the thought experiement is this: on this island, what adjectives could you assign to yourself? Are you funny? Are you smart? Are you pretty? Are you mean?

What are you?

This is fascinating because it shows you, if you earnestly engage the experiment, that your sense of self is almost completely bound to others.

Couldn't one argue that you are how other people see you? You see yourself as funny, or smart, or pretty, or mean only because other people have reflected this back to you. This is the Looking Glass Self concept. If you are on a deserted island, you have no adjectives because there are no comparatives and no other people to assign adjectives to you.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.  

Now check out this great response from a student:

In the thought experiment of being stranded on a deserted island from birth, devoid of any social interaction, the concept of self takes on a strikingly different dimension. Without the presence of others to provide feedback or validation, the development of one's self-concept becomes severely limited. In the absence of social comparison and interaction, the individual lacks the external perspectives necessary to form adjectives or descriptors about themselves.

This scenario underscores the profound influence of social interactions on the construction of our self-identity. As social beings, we often define ourselves in relation to others and through the feedback we receive from them. This concept aligns with the Looking Glass Self theory in social psychology, which posits that our self-concept is shaped by how we believe others perceive us. Without the presence of others to act as mirrors reflecting back our qualities or characteristics, it becomes challenging, if not impossible, to develop a nuanced understanding of ourselves.

In essence, the thought experiment highlights the interconnectedness between our sense of self and the social environment in which we exist. It emphasizes that our identity is not merely an internal construction but is intricately linked to the perceptions and interactions of those around us. Therefore, if stranded on a deserted island without the presence of others, the individual's self-concept would likely be devoid of the adjectives or descriptors typically used to define oneself in a social context. 

What say you?

 

Rustin, The 60's, and Shotgun

I caught a bad cold, from my son (parenting amirite?) and didn't have the oomph to practice my geetar or record anything so I (record scratch, gulp)...watched tv.

One movie was Rustin. This was a fine movie with a great lead and a relevant subplot but, what hit me, upon the conclusion of the movie, is that I've never protested or marched...for anything. 

It's more than a little bit disconcerting to think of myself as never having stood (marched, protested) for anything. 

Now of course some of this is me being a gen Xer and the zeitgeist I was thrown (the german geworfenheit) into but there are certainly gen Xers that have marched and have protested, and I'm sure, put there lives on the line for something they believed in. They stood for something. 

So the "ok boomer" meme hits a little differently when I think about someone who marched on Washington, who protested Vietnam, who had peers/friends/lovers killed in Nam or Kent State. 

Who am I to judge?

Imagine the wherewithal to participate in the March on Washington.  

(My inner George Carlin sarcastically says, "You were in Hands Across America...for a whole 5 minutes!)

Man, to experience the 60's. What that must have been like. To feel invested in ideas like freedom and equality, as opposed to materialism and battling cultural ennui.

I keep coming back to this, almost Hemingway kind of idea, that I haven't experienced much. Its as if I thought I was by going to college and living in Athens and playing in bands, and all before getting married at 40 and having my first child at 41...but movies like this, that hit right, make me think 

I've never been hit with a billy club protesting for equality
I've never stood my ground fighting for freedom
I've never been tear-gassed or water-hosed or had German shepherds sicced on me for someone else's dignity, or my own

Hold on it gets worse. 

Would I have?

If I had been a child of the 60's. What would I have done? 

Who am I when you control for the zeitgeist? 

On a lighter note, there was a song in the movie, again I'm an Xer, that encapsulates the music of the 60's. I have never taken a deep dive into 60's music per se, but I have been on the planet 53 years and have listened to some music and man, just the first 4 bars and the intro sax lines scream THE 60"s! I am referring to Shotgun by JR Walker and The All Stars:

Hell yeah. Give me an Ab and just kill it! 

I don't know who I would have been in the 60's but I hope I would have appreciated Shotgun. 

"We gonna break it down, baby now."

Leibniz and Nex

Consider the debate about gender and sex. 

If Leibniz is correct, the “suicide” of Nex Benedict is necessary as part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds. 

Remember, per Leibniz, nothing imperfect can flow from a perfect being. God can only produce the best of all possible worlds. 

From a god’s eye view, one (god and perhaps Leibniz) can see that the bullying of Nex Benedict and the suicide of Nex Benedict are BOTH necessary as part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds. 

Logically, Nex Benedict would not have committed suicide unless she were bullied. 

The suicide is part of the best of all possible worlds. The bullying that created/fostered/instigated the suicide is the best of all possible worlds. 

The upshot, for god and Leibniz, is that with knowledge of god’s perfection, there is no suffering. Suffering is only the ignorance of god’s perfection and ignorance of the fact that nothing imperfect can flow from a perfect being. 

Again, there is no suffering. 

How does this not lead to nihilism, understood as a lack of values? If this is the best of all possible worlds, how is anything good or bad? If bullying is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are we trying to get rid of it? If suicide is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are we trying to get rid of it? 

If sin is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are christians trying to not sin? Or to atone for sins committed a priori? Either way, this is the best of all possible worlds. Sin, don’t sin, bully, commit suicide, none of it is imperfection in the best of all possible worlds. 

This is nihilism. 

Leibniz, in his attempt to exult god, renders human endeavor meaningless.

I can’t imagine a paradigm more harmful.

Line of Work

On my commute this morning, I saw a company truck for

https://www.tcsco2.com/

"We put the fizz in your bizz."

Did you ever stop and wonder about how you got into your line of work?

Did you ever stop and wonder about all the accidents and possible paths that landed you in your line of work and not some other? 

I was working at a Kmart when I decided to go back to school (and accrue more debt) for Counselor Ed. Somehow I got a GA gig in Judiciaries (somehow = I had a good interview and a good recommendation) which led to a job in Judiciaries, then a College of Medicine, then Arts & Sciences, then to Rhode Island and a somewhat stable career in Higher Ed. 

But I am fully aware that all this, ALL THIS, was tenuous, and that it DIDNT HAVE TO BE. 

Does that ever scare you? 

How could it have turned out? 

Poorer? Happier? More fulfilled? Richer? 

So many moments seem like fulcrums that could have changed things irreparably. 

Does that ever scare you?

Or is it just me that thinks about such things? 

It's probably me.

It's me. 

The World Is Messy - Probabilistic - Relativism

Listened to this Hidden Brain on the commute this morning. 

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/why-youre-smarter-than-you-think/

The IQ part is of course interesting and how IQ can't measure desire or passion or interest of course leaves the concept wanting. 

I have always found myself going back to Kurzweil's definition of intelligence - the ability to solve problems with limited resources. 

Alas, problems for you might not be problems for me.

But the real kipper of the piece for me was when he used the word "messy."

The world is messy. 

Here is some of the context:

Shankar Vedantam:

You've also said that IQ tests fail to capture the full range of human potential, in that they focus on the explicit, the conscious, the controlled forms of thinking. What does this leave out, Scott?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Absolutely. Well, one specific thing I did study in my dissertation is this idea called implicit learning, which is our ability to learn the probabilistic rule structure of the world automatically and implicitly without a level of awareness. This is deep implications. I mean, so you talk about the theme of your show, right here, we're getting to... this is very, very congruent. I mean, think about what is required to develop social intelligence. Sometimes when people smile, they mean this, sometimes they don't. Sometimes when people's eyes are like this, sometimes they don't. The world is messy.

Probabilistic rule structure of the world. 

There are no absolutes. From the hard sciences to the social sciences, not one truth.

And yet, we can be happy. We can move through the world with grace and patience and humility and smile and be smiled at. 

Relativism is your friend. 

Old systems, especially in an education system, but you also see it in organizations and hiring practices. It goes deep, this stuff, a lot of these assumptions we have about human potential that are really outdated and just wrong.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Religion is an old system, really outdated and unhealthy. We aren't fallen, we aren't born in sin, we aren't corrupt, we don't need saved, the body isn't bad. 

Time to let it go. Time to embrace the messy world with a new paradigm. A healthier paradigm. 

You'll thank me.

Invoking god

Lotta folks invoke god and god's plan. Or as some call it, divine providence - god's intervention in the universe. 

Ah yes, intervention. To intervene. 

Now, athletes can be especially guilty of this invoking business. Two that come to mind are Baker Mayfield and Patrick Mahomes. I find it interesting (and so did George Carlin) that this invoking is always after success. Mahomes winning the super bowl and Mayfield landing a contract of "life-changing money." 

Here's Mayfield via kpvi: 

God had a plan for me, saw it through, and the group we had made it so special last year, I big reason I wanted to come back here.

 And here is some Mahomes via the christian post:

I give God the glory. He challenged us to make us better. I am proud of my guys. They did awesome. Legendary.

Now, does god's plan also hold for Regina King? Does god's plan also hold for her son Ian, who committed suicide? Is depression part of god's plan? Why didn't god intervene for Ian? Did Regina King not pray as hard or as well or as correctly as Mayfield and Mahomes? 

God only knows. 

But this is not the worst part of adhering to beliefs like this. 

The worst part is the paradigm constructed to answer the cognitive dissonance of suffering, best known and portrayed by Leibniz' answer to the problem: 

 Leibniz's best of all possible worlds philosophy argues that the existence of evil in the world created by God made it possible to achieve a greater good. However, Leibniz posits that humans do not always understand this greater good because they are less perfect creatures than God.

You don't always understand the greater good of suicide, but that is your ignorance. Take any so-called evil: plague, murder, torture, rape, cancer...all part of god's plan for the best of all possible worlds. God is benevolent and omnipotent and can only create the best of all possible worlds. 

I just want Mayfield and Mahomes to explain this to the grieving, the parents in the cancer wards, and the starving, and those suffering.

The Image of god

What does it mean to say that humans are image-bearers of god?

What does it mean to say humans bear god’s image?

What does it mean when Alabama court chief justice Tom Parker says, “...all human beings have the image of god.”

Let us at least provide the definition of image. 

im·age

/ˈimij/

noun

noun: image; plural noun: images

• 1.

• a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.
  "her work juxtaposed images from serious and popular art"

• 
  

• a visible impression obtained by a camera, telescope, microscope, or other device, or displayed on a computer or video screen.
  "Voyager 2 sent back images of the planet Neptune"

• 
  

• optical representation

• reproduction

• an optical appearance or counterpart produced by light or other radiation from an object reflected in a mirror or refracted through a lens.

• 
  

• MATHEMATICS
  a point or set formed by mapping from another point or set.

• COMPUTING
  an exact copy of a computer's hard disk, made for backing up data or setting up new machines.

• a mental representation or idea.
  "he had an image of Uncle Walter throwing his crutches away"

• 
  

• a person or thing that closely resembles another.
  "he's the image of his father"

• 
  

• semblance or likeness.
  "we are made in the image of God"

• (in biblical use) an idol.

• 
  

• 2.

• the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public.
  "she strives to project an image of youth"

• 
  

• 3.

• a simile or metaphor.
  "he uses the image of a hole to describe emotional emptiness"

So we can, via google, claim that it means semblance or likeness. 

How do humans resemble god? 

Which god do we resemble?

Is it the creator (of the universe) god or the anthropomorphic god of the old testament? 

We resemble the (sic) god that created matter and time?

How? How do we resemble an uncaused cause? How do we resemble the thing that breaks the infinite regress? How? 

If we resemble the anthropomorphic god of the old testament, isn’t that insulting to god? Don’t we really mean to say, and at the same time meanly say it, is that it's the other way round, and god resembles us?

To which Nietzsche might say, “Human, all too human.”

Teenage humans that supposedly bear god’s image are dying after being beaten and bullied in Oklahoma schools. 

But Ryan Walters comforts us, when he says, “There’s not multiple genders. There’s two. That’s how god created us.” Comforting to know that Mr. Walters believes that neither nonbinary nor transgender people exist. 

Still more comforting to know that Mr. Walters says that “You always treat individuals with dignity and respect, because they’re made in god’s image.”

I’m just not so sure being beaten and bullied in Oklahoma is treating people with respect. 

I wonder if Mr. Walters thinks that Ardi bears god’s image.

god’s image is a red herring. It is meaningless to say humans bear god’s image. This is meant to drag you away from christian machinations and the fear of secular progress and the ebb of absolutism. 

It’s a public health issue. If you don’t believe me, ask Nex Benedict. 

I wonder if Mr. Walters and Mr. Parker know that Benedict means blessed.