Personhood

[myself_i_must_remake]

Something I struggle with a lot is how one person can mistreat another simply because he feels socially more adept than the other, or, in more biological terms, he's a better specimen (read: more likely to reproduce) than the other. I see in a lot of this here in Athens. It's a college town. There are a bunch of late adolescents who have nothing better to do with their energy than to assert themselves over each other. If, for example, you go for a jog and a car-full of nineteen-year-olds drives by, one of them will shout something at you, something which he would not do on his own. This behavior is somehow socially acceptable, and even desirable in some circles.

 

So: when you insult someone, what do you insult? When you dislike someone, what do you dislike?

 

For me, everything about a person is traceable back to history and heredity. This is an essentially determinist view of things. There is no soul, there is no self outside of upbringing and genetics. For me, to like someone means to look favorably upon his genes and how he was raised. To insult him is to try to make him feel bad because of things that were entirely out of his control. This is a bleak and uncomfortable view for many people because in this view it becomes difficult to blame someone or give someone credit.

 

What do you think makes a person? Is there some third factor that can't be traced back to history or heredity? When does it come into play, and what makes you entitled to make such a claim? Just because you feel like you are in control, does that make you in control? (Cue Gnarles Barkley.)

 

 

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

To me a person is simply the collection of their subjective experiance on this planet. Yes to some extent genes have an influance on a persons natural ability but we've long since moved past the nature v nurture debate at least in psychology. As for why we miss treat each other I hold alot of worth to the idea that people project their own insecurities or short comings onto others to divert away from their own inadequacy. People who have been mistreated by others previously will also (not always) want to experiance what it felt like to be the one doing the mistreating as a means of experiancing power.

 

As for what I dislike, I've never liked the whole say something behind a person's back/gossip thing some people enjoy doing. If you have an issue tell it to the person, more often then not it can be resolved.

[Tipdin]

Something I struggle with a lot is how one person can mistreat another simply because he feels socially more adept than the other, or, in more biological terms, he's a better specimen (read: more likely to reproduce) than the other. I see in a lot of this here in Athens. It's a college town. There are a bunch of late adolescents who have nothing better to do with their energy than to assert themselves over each other. If, for example, you go for a jog and a car-full of nineteen-year-olds drives by, one of them will shout something at you, something which he would not do on his own. This behavior is somehow socially acceptable, and even desirable in some circles.

 

So: when you insult someone, what do you insult? When you dislike someone, what do you dislike?

 

For me, everything about a person is traceable back to history and heredity. This is an essentially determinist view of things. There is no soul, there is no self outside of upbringing and genetics. For me, to like someone means to look favorably upon his genes and how he was raised. To insult him is to try to make him feel bad because of things that were entirely out of his control. This is a bleak and uncomfortable view for many people because in this view it becomes difficult to blame someone or give someone credit.

 

What do you think makes a person? Is there some third factor that can't be traced back to history or heredity? When does it come into play, and what makes you entitled to make such a claim? Just because you feel like you are in control, does that make you in control? (Cue Gnarles Barkley.)

 

This is an interesting take on life - one that I have never heard anyone articulate so well, if at all...

I appreciate what you said and how you said it - but I hope you're wrong. I like thinking that we are more than what we see - that we do, in fact, have a soul and that there is a self outside of what we can hear, feel, touch, etc. If we're just biological machines, then I'm left wondering why? What's it all about? And if one chooses to commit suicide, that in the overall scheme of things, it wouldn't matter one iota.

 

However, while people are here - even if it is for no reason, many feel a need to do what they think is necessary to be accepted by others. That often means doing things they might not otherwise do. Insecurities about self are natural to a point, but most of the time I think, those insecurities are exacerbated by misguided parents - or lack of parents.

 

 

I think a person is mostly their genetic makeup. There is always the nature vs. nurture issue but I believe there is a third factor. It is called many names and described in many ways, but it is an influence that we cannot easily explain or trace back to its roots. Call it karma or cosmic, or our deceased loved one trying to guide us from beyond, it really doesn't matter what name you give it, but it's there. Some etherial influence.

[D_of_Hazzard]

I think the 3rd factor to nature vs nature is that the whole becomes greater than the sum of either nature or nurture individually added together and that in itself becomes a 3rd factor.

Edited May 10, 2011 by D_of_Hazzard

[Y_B]

Those types of behavior aren't really socially acceptable if you zoom out and look at a grander scale. There are people who do that sort of thing everywhere, but they aren't the fortunate ones. It's actually quite simple to me; that group of 19 year olds who drive by people to insult them are unaccomplished teenagers who have undeveloped senses of how the world works, who they are and how to earn respect. When you think about people's behaviors in terms of animalistic instincts, those types of behavior are assertions of dominance when there is nothing else to compete with. Adolescence who are already relatively insecure and eager to please more readily try to put themselves on top through whatever means. When they insult you, it's almost a challenge, and when you cower, they have won. In my experiences, young adults who do that to feel socially superior are the ones who have the highest likelihood of becoming socially deemed losers very soon.

 

To me, a person is a complicated mix of nature and nurture. The nature molds your general shape and nurture goes a long way and it's often obvious what kind of nurturing a person has had for him/her self. i.e. the unfortunate ones who try hard or the fortunate ones who don't give a sh*t. I think when someone disrespects you for being a certain way, instead of seeing you as someone who is made for that way, they see you as someone who's accepted it and made no efforts to change. i.e. the hereditarily obese individual who walks towards McDonalds will be seen in a different light than the hereditarily obese individual who walks towards the gym. In a world of constant and relentless competition, we are all expected to challenge ourselves, even our natures. We may or may not have true control over ourselves but there is little to no good to believing in a lack of control and letting chance take your life thereof.

[JamesSavik]

Don't mistake acting like a jackass for socially acceptable.

 

To klansmen, being hyper-racist is socially acceptable to other klansmen. Most people see the behavior as douche-baggery.

 

Same logic applies to a bunch of dumbass kids in a car driving around yelling at people. The only people that see it as acceptable are the jerks in the car.

 

 

[John Galaor]

Something I struggle with a lot is how one person can mistreat another simply because he feels socially more adept than the other, or, in more biological terms, he's a better specimen (read: more likely to reproduce) than the other. I see in a lot of this here in Athens. It's a college town. There are a bunch of late adolescents who have nothing better to do with their energy than to assert themselves over each other. If, for example, you go for a jog and a car-full of nineteen-year-olds drives by, one of them will shout something at you, something which he would not do on his own. This behavior is somehow socially acceptable, and even desirable in some circles.

 

So: when you insult someone, what do you insult? When you dislike someone, what do you dislike?

 

 

This behavior you comment has two sides. One is natural. It is a tendency of young people to demean others, specially if they are not in the group.

The group gives the young people some force. It is suppose they protect one another from outside dangers or enemies. But even within the group itself there are some quarrels to establish a natural rank, with a pecking order routine. The concept comes from the study of the hens.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Pecking_order

 

This happens also among the girls within a group. Sometimes, the boy or girl with the lowest rank flee the group, for is often the target of some pecking. The girls can be quite bitching among them also.

 

So, the natural social condition of human beings is to form groups and establish a social rank within it. Then, within the group is more pleasant to harass those that are outside, that to going pecking again one another, for the rank has been well established. If a group has much stress within it ends dissolving, or many people would desert of it.

 

So, if you are running on a road and a group of boys see you, they are probably going to harass you, just for sport. It is less probably that the harassment comes from a group of girls if you are a male. In general, there is little harassment between groups of girls and boys.

 

Then to feel sure while jogging, by example, the best way is to go with a bunch of other people. That gives some safety, but not much if the group is small.

 

The conclusion is that all solitary guys, or girls, are going to be harassed by the main groups. There is nothing that can be done to solve this problem, till some years later, when all these people would be spread out in the country.

Nevertheless, even in a place of work, there is some bitching among co-workers. If you are a little queer or solitary they would even try to demean your work with the boss. Then, even in the work you need some allies. You need to befriend others to feel a little safer. Then you have to lick some asses as well, to be accepted in the group.

 

So, in general, it is like humans hate one another a little bit, at least. You can see this fact, anywhere. Unless you are natural leader you have to be a follower. Even among us, we are not equally queer. A few of us are more queer than the rest.

Then any frictions among us are also due to exercises in the pecking procedure. It is like a need to teach who is over whom. So, if you are not the leader, you have to duck as a sign of subordination.

[John Galaor]

Those types of behavior aren't really socially acceptable if you zoom out and look at a grander scale. There are people who do that sort of thing everywhere, but they aren't the fortunate ones. It's actually quite simple to me; that group of 19 year olds who drive by people to insult them are unaccomplished teenagers who have undeveloped senses of how the world works, who they are and how to earn respect. When you think about people's behaviors in terms of animalistic instincts, those types of behavior are assertions of dominance when there is nothing else to compete with. Adolescence who are already relatively insecure and eager to please more readily try to put themselves on top through whatever means. When they insult you, it's almost a challenge, and when you cower, they have won. In my experiences, young adults who do that to feel socially superior are the ones who have the highest likelihood of becoming socially deemed losers very soon.

 

To me, a person is a complicated mix of nature and nurture. The nature molds your general shape and nurture goes a long way and it's often obvious what kind of nurturing a person has had for him/her self. i.e. the unfortunate ones who try hard or the fortunate ones who don't give a sh*t. I think when someone disrespects you for being a certain way, instead of seeing you as someone who is made for that way, they see you as someone who's accepted it and made no efforts to change. i.e. the hereditarily obese individual who walks towards McDonalds will be seen in a different light than the hereditarily obese individual who walks towards the gym. In a world of constant and relentless competition, we are all expected to challenge ourselves, even our natures. We may or may not have true control over ourselves but there is little to no good to believing in a lack of control and letting chance take your life thereof.

 

I will put it in a different light. Many of the leaders of some aggressive groups are social "winners". I had not been even in a high school, but for what I had read in the nifty in the section high school, the stereotype leader in high school are the winners in sports. They are often the children of rich people, but even if they do not had good grades, will be in the future our bosses in work, our political leaders, senators, chiefs of financial institutions, in wall street, officers in the army, the navy, etc We will be submitted to their power later in life, with all probability. They would be bulling us later in life in the work and in the army. Then, as for a gregarious instinct we have, most people is worshiping them, and applauding their niceties, their jokes and their triumphs, for quite often they are the winners, the jocks, the football players and so on.

 

It is a little like in the video THE BYSTANDER EFFECT, on youtube.

 

If you have enough patience to watch the video until minute 3, you would see how different was the attitude to the actor that impersonated a "gentleman" of Wall Street, or the finances. It took exactly "six seconds" for a little crowd to crouch around him to help. While the lady took only 4 minutes and a half for a street worker to crouch near her. But the common folk did not deserve any attention at all. He was simply nonexistent. It was invisible for 20 minutes when the experiment was called off.

 

This explains to us that we are rather a bunch of baboons always at the ready to lick the ass of the alpha male. We are not more than that. It is written in our genes. We cannot change this in a significant way. But sometimes this is concealed by the make-up of social manners. But if the make-up wears a little with the rain, or the UVA rays of the sun, our primate nature pops-up and outmaneuvers our polite manners.

[Y_B]

I will put it in a different light. Many of the leaders of some aggressive groups are social "winners". I had not been even in a high school, but for what I had read in the nifty in the section high school, the stereotype leader in high school are the winners in sports. They are often the children of rich people, but even if they do not had good grades, will be in the future our bosses in work, our political leaders, senators, chiefs of financial institutions, in wall street, officers in the army, the navy, etc We will be submitted to their power later in life, with all probability. They would be bulling us later in life in the work and in the army. Then, as for a gregarious instinct we have, most people is worshiping them, and applauding their niceties, their jokes and their triumphs, for quite often they are the winners, the jocks, the football players and so on.

 

Social winners are at a clear advantage for sure, however I wouldn't make the quick assumption based on Nifty stories that those winners are always jocks and sports stars. At the same time, I wouldn't make the assumption that athletes don't make good grades. The stereotypical concept of the otherwise-unachieved high school jock who is virtually a deity is as incorrect as it gets as far as I have experienced. There's a fine line between a jock and an athlete and from what I've been able to witness, not many jocks get anywhere or are looked up to, while those who were great and happen to also be athletes are admired and go on to do great things. You are right in some of your assertions but it's not because dumb jocks took over the world. People don't follow others blindly without some sort of credibility and you must award credit to those who deserve them.

 

An large portion of the male population here at my school were former high school athletes, but we are also one of the most highly acclaimed public universities in the US. In other worlds, we don't let "dumb jocks" in but how did these other athletes do so well? It's interesting to wonder about cause and effect.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Yang Bang

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

Everytime I watch/read something to do with the diffusion of responsibility it does make me cringe. I suppose the hope is that if enough people know about these tendencies it can reduce the chances of it happening again. As for who people listen to and being the lead social "person" often requires persuassion there are many factors which play into it. There credibility, trustworthiness, attractiveness, similarity, wether or not whats being said impacts the audiance directly (often why as John put it 'girl bitching') all of these and I'm sure ive forgotten a couple play into the alpha male/female of the group being created.

[Docile]

Something I struggle with a lot is how one person can mistreat another simply because he feels socially more adept than the other, or, in more biological terms, he's a better specimen (read: more likely to reproduce) than the other. I see in a lot of this here in Athens. It's a college town. There are a bunch of late adolescents who have nothing better to do with their energy than to assert themselves over each other. If, for example, you go for a jog and a car-full of nineteen-year-olds drives by, one of them will shout something at you, something which he would not do on his own. This behavior is somehow socially acceptable, and even desirable in some circles.

 

So: when you insult someone, what do you insult? When you dislike someone, what do you dislike?

 

For me, everything about a person is traceable back to history and heredity. This is an essentially determinist view of things. There is no soul, there is no self outside of upbringing and genetics. For me, to like someone means to look favorably upon his genes and how he was raised. To insult him is to try to make him feel bad because of things that were entirely out of his control. This is a bleak and uncomfortable view for many people because in this view it becomes difficult to blame someone or give someone credit.

 

What do you think makes a person? Is there some third factor that can't be traced back to history or heredity? When does it come into play, and what makes you entitled to make such a claim? Just because you feel like you are in control, does that make you in control? (Cue Gnarles Barkley.)

 

 

 

 

 

I've thought a lot on this topic. Is what we are defined solely by the combination of external stimuli and our initial state? If this is the case, would that absolve murderers? Would it demerit 'heroes'? What knowledge I currently have on this subject is worth roughly nothing at all, and so I have decided I am not allowed to have an opinion on the subject. I have also decided it is ultimately pointless.

 

The most bizarre phenomenon I have encountered is the strange way the public seems to feel toward explanation. Let us assume that your view is in fact correct, and turn it back upon the punks. Understanding that societal pressure caused them to become who they are does not absolve them from your or my scorn. It only makes sense to scorn people for bad behaviour, because then operant conditioning works to change them toward presenting a more desirable societal image. (Hey Billy, is that not amusing coming from me?)

 

Many people, unfortunately, let their base instincts rule them in ways they don't perceive. I doubt any of them in the car actually dislikes joggers, but instead have friendships similar to the relationship tyrants have with their country. By turning eyes outward toward a common enemy, local famine can be more easily ignored.

[Michael9344]

A person is composed of his genetic make up, history and his physcological view on life. What genetics didn't influence, then history has played a part in it. From my perspective, most behaviours are adapted from the environment. And nuture has more to do with personhood than nature.When I dislike someone is majorly because I don't like his behaviour. It often has nothing to do with things beyond his control. When I insult someone is for something that he could control. And when I like someone is because he could control and maybe because of his 'genes'.But I do believe that things like Karma. There are things we never can't control.

[John Galaor]

Social winners are at a clear advantage for sure, however I wouldn't make the quick assumption based on Nifty stories that those winners are always jocks and sports stars. At the same time, I wouldn't make the assumption that athletes don't make good grades. The stereotypical concept of the otherwise-unachieved high school jock who is virtually a deity is as incorrect as it gets as far as I have experienced. There's a fine line between a jock and an athlete and from what I've been able to witness, not many jocks get anywhere or are looked up to, while those who were great and happen to also be athletes are admired and go on to do great things. You are right in some of your assertions but it's not because dumb jocks took over the world. People don't follow others blindly without some sort of credibility and you must award credit to those who deserve them.

 

An large portion of the male population here at my school were former high school athletes, but we are also one of the most highly acclaimed public universities in the US. In other worlds, we don't let "dumb jocks" in but how did these other athletes do so well? It's interesting to wonder about cause and effect.

 

Ok. Good grades are quite elastic. Then, to be the son of a wealthy family, not only opens you the doors to Universities of five stars in the US. If you are a star in any sport you can also enter. That elemental facts of life can award you good grades.

 

In general, I have never read about outstanding lawyers, engineers or scientists that were athletic stars, or were of rich families. Perhaps I am quite wrong, but I never read about this fact.

I have some reasons to believe this. Our brain does not perform miracles. Either you are a good athlete or you are a good student. You can be a very good chess player, or you can be a good pianist, or a great swimmer, or a student with great capacity to learn sciences, but you cannot be the whole lot.

The main reason is probably that to learn something very difficult you need a lot of time, a lot of training.

Then, the time is limited, as it is also limited our brain capacity. We have a proverb for this in my language, "we cannot be doing the mass and tolling the bells at the same time".

Then, we can run or swim a little well, we can play some easy pieces on a piano, we play a chess and win the children playing chess, we can make some studies on this or that, but you would not be outstanding in the whole lot of these abilities.

 

So, if you are poor, you have to be a real great star in sports or in sciences, soaring up higher than the highest flayers, for a good university to open their doors to you. For minor universities you have not to be as good, except in sports.

 

Then, there are some options to enter a high class university, either you are of a very wealthy family, you are a great in sports, or you are great in sciences or laws. In general you have to pay, except in the case of great sport stars. For universities use their sport teams to make publicity. Then, the best athletes are often filthy poor, often are black guys, and the university has to buy them to play in their team. If you need them, you can buy them, for they are poor.

[John Galaor]

I've thought a lot on this topic. Is what we are defined solely by the combination of external stimuli and our initial state? If this is the case, would that absolve murderers? Would it demerit 'heroes'? What knowledge I currently have on this subject is worth roughly nothing at all, and so I have decided I am not allowed to have an opinion on the subject. I have also decided it is ultimately pointless.

 

The most bizarre phenomenon I have encountered is the strange way the public seems to feel toward explanation. Let us assume that your view is in fact correct, and turn it back upon the punks. Understanding that societal pressure caused them to become who they are does not absolve them from your or my scorn. It only makes sense to scorn people for bad behaviour, because then operant conditioning works to change them toward presenting a more desirable societal image. (Hey Billy, is that not amusing coming from me?)

 

Many people, unfortunately, let their base instincts rule them in ways they don't perceive. I doubt any of them in the car actually dislikes joggers, but instead have friendships similar to the relationship tyrants have with their country. By turning eyes outward toward a common enemy, local famine can be more easily ignored.

 

we have a fetish with explanations, in the same way we had invented myths. So, we have myths for heroes, saints and gods. It is a part of human folklore. Then, we still have a need for "human sacrifices". So we have disguise human sacrifices with the concept of responsibility. In other times we would had said "we kill them to placate the wrath of the gods". Now we kill them for "they are responsible of their deeds". It is about the same thing. We kill them to instill fear in the common average soul. For they could easily become criminals if the circumstances change enough. I some circumstances any of us can become criminal if we are not killed previously by more aggressive agents. Those that kill first have a greater chance to win. That is the reason we have a police force and an army. To prevent or destroy the sudden appearance of armed thugs vandalizing the country. Those more prone to violence are always at the ready to destroy society. So, it is a work that never ends. For in some countries there more criminality than in others. In Europe by example, criminality is lower than in the US. For in Europe society is less savage, and care more for the poor classes. Then, the social circumstances play a role in the amount of violence of a country. By far, the most violence comes from people that were raises in poor circumstances, with single mothers that have to enslave themselves for long hours to survive and feed their breed. This conditions are a breeding ground of criminality.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

[Raijen]

What makes a person who they are...? A question that has been wrangled like a mad 'gator since time began.

 

This may be a heretical view, but I think that a person is exactly what he/she/it chooses to be at any particular moment. I am capable of being a jackass at one moment, and of being a messiah in other moments. Which one is the real me? Or is it something higher?

 

Biology is starting to show that the thing we call the "mind" or "soul" is really just a seeming, that we are merely a collection of competing and conflicting desires and needs that sometimes get expressed and sometimes get repressed. Taking into account our ability to become aware of the reasons for our behavior and to adjust behavior accordingly (to self-moderate, in other words), I think that it becomes apparent that while we have genes and experiences that influence what we desire to do, it is the part of us that moderates our behavior that makes us socially coherent (able to be empathized with) and thus leads to a sense of self.

 

The important thing to remember though is that the part of us that we call "our self" is illusory. It is not a constant mental construct but rather just a photograph of whatever particular moment you are looking at. There is nothing more, nothing less, and because of that I say that we are exactly who we choose to be an any particular moment. We must act and be in relation to other humans in order to distinguish our individuality, and that context is just as dynamic as our inner context from which we decide to behave in certain ways. Our "self" is in constant motion, just like the rest of the universe.

 

As for the small-minded people who choose to be assholes... For some reason they simply are assholes, and unless they become aware and capable of explaining their behavior, we just have to assume that they are not as sophisticated as others and, perhaps, the gene that codes for self-awareness and self-moderation is not fully expressed in their phenotype. I would like to think that all people are capable of becoming enlightened and self-aware, but as a scientist, I must go by data and observation, not some pie in the sky idealism.

[Y_B]

Ok. Good grades are quite elastic. Then, to be the son of a wealthy family, not only opens you the doors to Universities of five stars in the US. If you are a star in any sport you can also enter. That elemental facts of life can award you good grades.

 

In general, I have never read about outstanding lawyers, engineers or scientists that were athletic stars, or were of rich families. Perhaps I am quite wrong, but I never read about this fact.

I have some reasons to believe this. Our brain does not perform miracles. Either you are a good athlete or you are a good student. You can be a very good chess player, or you can be a good pianist, or a great swimmer, or a student with great capacity to learn sciences, but you cannot be the whole lot.

The main reason is probably that to learn something very difficult you need a lot of time, a lot of training.

Then, the time is limited, as it is also limited our brain capacity. We have a proverb for this in my language, "we cannot be doing the mass and tolling the bells at the same time".

Then, we can run or swim a little well, we can play some easy pieces on a piano, we play a chess and win the children playing chess, we can make some studies on this or that, but you would not be outstanding in the whole lot of these abilities.

 

So, if you are poor, you have to be a real great star in sports or in sciences, soaring up higher than the highest flayers, for a good university to open their doors to you. For minor universities you have not to be as good, except in sports.

 

Then, there are some options to enter a high class university, either you are of a very wealthy family, you are a great in sports, or you are great in sciences or laws. In general you have to pay, except in the case of great sport stars. For universities use their sport teams to make publicity. Then, the best athletes are often filthy poor, often are black guys, and the university has to buy them to play in their team. If you need them, you can buy them, for they are poor.

 

I don't understand the correlations you are trying to make between athleticism, wealth and the sciences.

It seems to me like you are suggesting too many mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive scenarios when those said things don't necessarily fall into those categories