I don’t know if this is the place for this or if it has been discussed before [if it has would someone be willing to provide links?], but what is the general consensus around here on social psychology, specifically the Symbolic Interactionist approach. To rephrase to mean what I’m looking for by asking this, what do you all think about the idea that we’re social animals shaped purely by our environments, that there’s no non-social self, and that reality is shaped by our perspectives of reality?
To throw in another thing I’ve been curious about, does anyone here hold a postmodernist view [that morality and general thinking is simply based on culture, so we say boo murder because the culture we live in says boo murder]? If not, what would you respond to a postmodernist making such a claim?
To rephrase to mean what I’m looking for by asking this, what do you all think about the idea that we’re social animals shaped purely by our environments
I say “don’t underestimate the genetic component”! The amount of influence of DNA on personality is surprising sometimes.
that there’s no non-social self
I’m not sure what that means.
and that reality is shaped by our perspectives of reality?
Not too sure what that means either. But I do like the quote “Mankind’s greatest invention is ‘reality’”.
To throw in another thing I’ve been curious about, does anyone here hold a postmodernist view [that morality and general thinking is simply based on culture, so we say boo murder because the culture we live in says boo murder]?
Mostly true. With instinctive intuitions adding a significant bias.
I say “don’t underestimate the genetic component”! The amount of influence of DNA on personality is surprising sometimes.
Can you give me a link to any findings on this?
that there’s no non-social self
I’m not sure what that means.
Take Charles Cooley’s looking glass self, which I’ve heard explained as “I’m not who I think I am. I’m not who you think I am. I’m who I think you think I am.” That would be a social self [I gain my identity through being around others and what I think they think of me. I don’t gain it through what I think of me, thus there’s no non-social self, or no me without society.
Not too sure what that means either. But I do like the quote “Mankind’s greatest invention is ‘reality’”.
That is a good quote, even if I’m not sure if I agree. I guess what I was asking was if anyone think that if our perceptions shift, reality shifts accordingly. Say there were three sheep in a field and I look and say ‘There are four sheep in that field.’ I don’t think a fourth sheep would appear in the field, but since I can’t change my perceptions with a snap of my finger, which one is true? If it’s the fact that there are three sheep in the field, and I’m just crazy, how do you know? Aren’t your perceptions just telling you that? [That last question is how it seems the postmodern view reacts e.g. nothing is real but what I think is real, and nothing is right except for what we this is right]
Not from memory, but I know there have been multiple identical-twins-raised-apart studies. I was particularly fascinated to read that those said twins tended to become more alike over time as they matured despite never coming into contact and living different lives.
Take Charles Cooley’s looking glass self, which I’ve heard explained as “I’m not who I think I am. I’m not who you think I am. I’m who I think you think I am.” That would be a social self [I gain my identity through being around others and what I think they think of me. I don’t gain it through what I think of me, thus there’s no non-social self, or no me without society.
There is an awful lot to that. Of course, If I killed everyone else except you, you’d still exist and I would argue that you still have a ‘self’ too. If the concepts you describe were not phrased in a way that was sufficiently exaggerated as to be absurd I would agree with them.
Dating gurus often talk about ‘inner game’. Basically, they work on changing the internally stored “who I think you think I am” self through things like eliminating unhealthy beliefs and physical development. They find that other people’s “who you think I am” is actually determined to a large degree by “who you think I think you think I am”. The interplay between that internal representation and the social reality is startling. PJeby’s recent self analysis comments touched on this.
I guess what I was asking was if anyone think that if our perceptions shift, reality shifts accordingly.
If ‘reality’ is defined by human perception. For most practical purposes it is. It is only on the fringes of the tribe where having a ‘reality’ that matches, you know, the quarks and stuff actually matters. In the center of the pack the social reality, what people believe or are obliged to believe, is what matters.
Can you elaborate on this without linking to something like The Simple Truth. Not to say that linking is bad, but I’m more curious of your [and anyone else who wants to chime in] take on what you said.
“There’s a cliff right there,” observes Inspector Darwin.
There’s another one about ‘subjective objective’ that is worth look at too.
In my own words: Yes, there are three sheep there. I can see three sheep there. According to the prior information I have about the universe this process of perception involves light, reflection, absorbsion, nerve conduction, processing in specialised area in the visual cortex and suchlike. I don’t have all the information, and my priors are not perfect, nevertheless I can’t change reality by thinking about it. Similarly, other people’s ‘opinions’ and ‘perspectives’, which don’t match up to what I see with my own eyes are sometimes worth respecting for social purposes but they certainly aren’t going to significantly influence the expectation of reality. If your perspective is that there is some other number of sheep then you’re just wrong and you’ll make terrible decisions if you act on your stupid belief and you might die.
Excuse me as I adjust my estimate of my own inclusive genetic fitness downwards somewhat for, as, ciphergoth puts it, focusing my attention back at concepts we’ve moved past. I actually find even thinking of how to explain how stupid the “that’s just your perspective” intuition is. Being more confused by fiction than reality is a habit that is worth fostering. I actually tend to find some kinds of philosophical debates do more harm than good to your thinking process.
Excuse me as I adjust my estimate of my own inclusive genetic fitness downwards somewhat for, as, ciphergoth puts it, focusing my attention back at concepts we’ve moved past. I actually find even thinking of how to explain how stupid the “that’s just your perspective” intuition is.
My immediate response to this is that this is a problem. I think I need to foster flexibility of thought, along with fostering correct thought, and often practice empathizing with the incorrect point of view. If it isn’t clear how to get out, then I’ll practice empathizing with the original view again to make sure I don’t get stuck anywhere really sticky, but this time with less confidence that one view is really more correct than the other. My favorite place to be is perched right between them, and from there I try to formally describe my escape routes from each of them.
To add to this, or to change the question, what do people around here consider the useful finding(s) of social psychology? And where do you think the field oversteps it’s bounds [if ever]?
I find it hard to answer that question. My brain just doesn’t tend to store theories according to field. The line between fields just feels blurry and lacks salience.
I don’t know if this is the place for this or if it has been discussed before [if it has would someone be willing to provide links?], but what is the general consensus around here on social psychology, specifically the Symbolic Interactionist approach. To rephrase to mean what I’m looking for by asking this, what do you all think about the idea that we’re social animals shaped purely by our environments, that there’s no non-social self, and that reality is shaped by our perspectives of reality?
To throw in another thing I’ve been curious about, does anyone here hold a postmodernist view [that morality and general thinking is simply based on culture, so we say boo murder because the culture we live in says boo murder]? If not, what would you respond to a postmodernist making such a claim?
I say “don’t underestimate the genetic component”! The amount of influence of DNA on personality is surprising sometimes.
I’m not sure what that means.
Not too sure what that means either. But I do like the quote “Mankind’s greatest invention is ‘reality’”.
Mostly true. With instinctive intuitions adding a significant bias.
Can you give me a link to any findings on this?
Take Charles Cooley’s looking glass self, which I’ve heard explained as “I’m not who I think I am. I’m not who you think I am. I’m who I think you think I am.” That would be a social self [I gain my identity through being around others and what I think they think of me. I don’t gain it through what I think of me, thus there’s no non-social self, or no me without society.
That is a good quote, even if I’m not sure if I agree. I guess what I was asking was if anyone think that if our perceptions shift, reality shifts accordingly. Say there were three sheep in a field and I look and say ‘There are four sheep in that field.’ I don’t think a fourth sheep would appear in the field, but since I can’t change my perceptions with a snap of my finger, which one is true? If it’s the fact that there are three sheep in the field, and I’m just crazy, how do you know? Aren’t your perceptions just telling you that? [That last question is how it seems the postmodern view reacts e.g. nothing is real but what I think is real, and nothing is right except for what we this is right]
I hope some of this cleared things up.
Not from memory, but I know there have been multiple identical-twins-raised-apart studies. I was particularly fascinated to read that those said twins tended to become more alike over time as they matured despite never coming into contact and living different lives.
There is an awful lot to that. Of course, If I killed everyone else except you, you’d still exist and I would argue that you still have a ‘self’ too. If the concepts you describe were not phrased in a way that was sufficiently exaggerated as to be absurd I would agree with them.
Dating gurus often talk about ‘inner game’. Basically, they work on changing the internally stored “who I think you think I am” self through things like eliminating unhealthy beliefs and physical development. They find that other people’s “who you think I am” is actually determined to a large degree by “who you think I think you think I am”. The interplay between that internal representation and the social reality is startling. PJeby’s recent self analysis comments touched on this.
If ‘reality’ is defined by human perception. For most practical purposes it is. It is only on the fringes of the tribe where having a ‘reality’ that matches, you know, the quarks and stuff actually matters. In the center of the pack the social reality, what people believe or are obliged to believe, is what matters.
Not all opinions are equal.
Can you elaborate on this without linking to something like The Simple Truth. Not to say that linking is bad, but I’m more curious of your [and anyone else who wants to chime in] take on what you said.
The simple truth does seem to sum it up nicely:
There’s another one about ‘subjective objective’ that is worth look at too.
In my own words: Yes, there are three sheep there. I can see three sheep there. According to the prior information I have about the universe this process of perception involves light, reflection, absorbsion, nerve conduction, processing in specialised area in the visual cortex and suchlike. I don’t have all the information, and my priors are not perfect, nevertheless I can’t change reality by thinking about it. Similarly, other people’s ‘opinions’ and ‘perspectives’, which don’t match up to what I see with my own eyes are sometimes worth respecting for social purposes but they certainly aren’t going to significantly influence the expectation of reality. If your perspective is that there is some other number of sheep then you’re just wrong and you’ll make terrible decisions if you act on your stupid belief and you might die.
Excuse me as I adjust my estimate of my own inclusive genetic fitness downwards somewhat for, as, ciphergoth puts it, focusing my attention back at concepts we’ve moved past. I actually find even thinking of how to explain how stupid the “that’s just your perspective” intuition is. Being more confused by fiction than reality is a habit that is worth fostering. I actually tend to find some kinds of philosophical debates do more harm than good to your thinking process.
Thank you. I’m sorry if this is something most people here are past and you’re losing fitness for falling back into explaining it :)
Proving quotes and a take on it helped more thank just a link would. So, once again, thank you.
Also, thanks for for this:
It was needed.
My immediate response to this is that this is a problem. I think I need to foster flexibility of thought, along with fostering correct thought, and often practice empathizing with the incorrect point of view. If it isn’t clear how to get out, then I’ll practice empathizing with the original view again to make sure I don’t get stuck anywhere really sticky, but this time with less confidence that one view is really more correct than the other. My favorite place to be is perched right between them, and from there I try to formally describe my escape routes from each of them.
Frankly, no, we are past this question here.
Dang. I’m still getting used to this. How do you quote someone quoting you and their response?
wedrifid, that middle quote is supposed to be my original statement and your reply. They just got fused.
“>> what you said”
line break
”> what they said”
Looks like:
Thanks! And edited.
To add to this, or to change the question, what do people around here consider the useful finding(s) of social psychology? And where do you think the field oversteps it’s bounds [if ever]?
I find it hard to answer that question. My brain just doesn’t tend to store theories according to field. The line between fields just feels blurry and lacks salience.