It seems that more folks with innate athletic talent create and promote ideals of athletic virtue, while folks with more innate cognitive talent lean toward ideals of intellectual achievement.
You would think so, but a key symptom in this type of “ideal” is whether it’s also Serious and Important And In Capital Letters, because that’s an indication of an aversive component. People with talent usually don’t elevate the subject of their talent to a Serious Ideal (as opposed to something they just think is fun and wonderful) until they develop some kind of fear about it.
And when the ideal itself is framed negatively -- celibacy, teetotaling, etc. -- one may be a bit more certain that aversion is involved. Pledging these things is likely a signaling of the form, “don’t punish me for nonconformance, I am conforming and promoting conformance to tribal standards”.
In any case, whether the tribe explicitly makes the ideal a goal, or if you just create it personally because of a bad experience, the same machinery and behaviors end up on the case.
From my own experience, I never thought about being “smart” until some kid bugged me about it… and then I wound up making it a part of my identity, which then had to be defended. Before that, it was not a Serious Ideal, and didn’t negatively affect my self-esteem or behavior. After, it was something I had to expend lots of energy to protect and avoid challenges to.
Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to know when you have one of these ideals, as the more pervasive they are, the less visible they become. And, when confronted about one, the natural response is to shy away from the subject—after all, the ideal exists precisely so we can avoid its opposite.
This mechanism is also the root of hypocrisy—talking about an ideal frees us from having to do anything we don’t actually want to, because it’s really only about avoiding the opposite. Any time we don’ want to do something, we can always rate it as a poor way of fulfilling the ideal, even if the act will improve* things with respect to that ideal.
Pledging these things is likely a signaling of the form, “don’t punish me for nonconformance, I am conforming and promoting conformance to tribal standards”.
That may well just be the evolutionary origin of the signal. I’m no ev-psych expert, but I’d be surprised if all or most signaling behavior involved fear somewhere in the brain. It seems entirely plausible to just produce a brain that wants to conform and promote conformance, given enough time to adapt.
In any case, whether the tribe explicitly makes the ideal a goal, or if you just create it personally because of a bad experience, the same machinery and behaviors end up on the case.
For non-adapted ideals (meaning the desire isn’t built-in), agreed.
Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to know when you have one of these ideals, as the more pervasive they are, the less visible they become.
Completely agree. About the only cue I have for noticing them is picking up on reflexive emotional reactions that seem disproportionate to their cause, but these only tell me that a background operator is acting, not necessarily much about the nature of that operator. Do you know of any others?
I’d be surprised if all or most signaling behavior involved fear somewhere in the brain.
I said it was probably for avoiding punishment; some conformance behavior is approach- rather than avoidance-driven. Ideals that you go after because you admire them, not because you’ll be a bad person if you don’t. Note that part of the evolutionary punishment mechanism is also punishing non-punishers… we don’t generally see people being zealously evangelistic about truly positive ideals, only ones where there’s punishment involved. So we tend to see most of the problems with idealism when there’s an aversive component.
About the only cue I have for noticing them is picking up on reflexive emotional reactions that seem disproportionate to their cause, but these only tell me that a background operator is acting, not necessarily much about the nature of that operator. Do you know of any others?
A few off the top of my head:
The “push” test—ask what happens if you don’t get the result you want. Does it make you feel bad?
The “should” test—do you find yourself angry at others or the world because things should be different?
The criticism test—are you criticizing yourself or others for not living up to some standard?
The “yes but” test—have you arrived at some conclusion that seems reasonable to you, but you respond to the idea of implementing it with “yes, but...”?
The “afraid I’m” test—how would you complete the sentence, “I’m afraid I might be...”, with an emotionally-negative label?
(And yes, by the above tests, some of my not-too-long-ago comments on LW would qualify me for harboring such an ideal… which is why I took a little time off and then dropped certain subjects I was “shoulding” on, once I noticed what was happening.)
(And yes, by the above tests, some of my not-too-long-ago comments on LW would qualify me for harboring such an ideal… which is why I took a little time off and then dropped certain subjects I was “shoulding” on, once I noticed what was happening.)
You would think so, but a key symptom in this type of “ideal” is whether it’s also Serious and Important And In Capital Letters, because that’s an indication of an aversive component. People with talent usually don’t elevate the subject of their talent to a Serious Ideal (as opposed to something they just think is fun and wonderful) until they develop some kind of fear about it.
And when the ideal itself is framed negatively -- celibacy, teetotaling, etc. -- one may be a bit more certain that aversion is involved. Pledging these things is likely a signaling of the form, “don’t punish me for nonconformance, I am conforming and promoting conformance to tribal standards”.
In any case, whether the tribe explicitly makes the ideal a goal, or if you just create it personally because of a bad experience, the same machinery and behaviors end up on the case.
From my own experience, I never thought about being “smart” until some kid bugged me about it… and then I wound up making it a part of my identity, which then had to be defended. Before that, it was not a Serious Ideal, and didn’t negatively affect my self-esteem or behavior. After, it was something I had to expend lots of energy to protect and avoid challenges to.
Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to know when you have one of these ideals, as the more pervasive they are, the less visible they become. And, when confronted about one, the natural response is to shy away from the subject—after all, the ideal exists precisely so we can avoid its opposite.
This mechanism is also the root of hypocrisy—talking about an ideal frees us from having to do anything we don’t actually want to, because it’s really only about avoiding the opposite. Any time we don’ want to do something, we can always rate it as a poor way of fulfilling the ideal, even if the act will improve* things with respect to that ideal.
That may well just be the evolutionary origin of the signal. I’m no ev-psych expert, but I’d be surprised if all or most signaling behavior involved fear somewhere in the brain. It seems entirely plausible to just produce a brain that wants to conform and promote conformance, given enough time to adapt.
For non-adapted ideals (meaning the desire isn’t built-in), agreed.
Completely agree. About the only cue I have for noticing them is picking up on reflexive emotional reactions that seem disproportionate to their cause, but these only tell me that a background operator is acting, not necessarily much about the nature of that operator. Do you know of any others?
I said it was probably for avoiding punishment; some conformance behavior is approach- rather than avoidance-driven. Ideals that you go after because you admire them, not because you’ll be a bad person if you don’t. Note that part of the evolutionary punishment mechanism is also punishing non-punishers… we don’t generally see people being zealously evangelistic about truly positive ideals, only ones where there’s punishment involved. So we tend to see most of the problems with idealism when there’s an aversive component.
A few off the top of my head:
The “push” test—ask what happens if you don’t get the result you want. Does it make you feel bad?
The “should” test—do you find yourself angry at others or the world because things should be different?
The criticism test—are you criticizing yourself or others for not living up to some standard?
The “yes but” test—have you arrived at some conclusion that seems reasonable to you, but you respond to the idea of implementing it with “yes, but...”?
The “afraid I’m” test—how would you complete the sentence, “I’m afraid I might be...”, with an emotionally-negative label?
(And yes, by the above tests, some of my not-too-long-ago comments on LW would qualify me for harboring such an ideal… which is why I took a little time off and then dropped certain subjects I was “shoulding” on, once I noticed what was happening.)
What subjects were those, praytell?