There are probably similar identity-creating elements in other countries, beyond cars.
Digressing a bit, I’m having a hard time comprehending the notion of assigning identity to anything beyond the way my own mind works. Doing that with a car seems completely insane, but as I said I’ve never even been close to that volume of mind-space, so I might be completely misunderstanding.
I’d like to understand what’s going on, though. Would anyone like to try explaining?
Identity is about your place and role in society, and car ownership feels like a role just as much as anything else, so I’m not sure what exactly about it is that you find confusing. (To me, the notion of only assigning identity to the way one’s mind works sounds a little weird.)
My place and role in society are.. just circumstances. Caring about them as ends, rather than means, seems weird to me.
When you put it like that, though..
At some point I read an article, and I think it was here on Lesswrong, about the types of people who survived WW2 camps. The main takeaway was that the survivors were primarily people who defined themselves in terms of their own mind and immutable attributes, rather than in terms of career, friends, etc.
The article also pointed out that such people are fairly rare, which if the common-case identities also includes items such as cars (I rather think it would) would help explain why common attitudes towards cars are as they are.
I don’t suppose you remember the article in question?
During the war, participants engaged in many adaptive and resilient behaviors such as trying to survive in family groups, Greene said. She found their stories often contained information about how they bartered for goods, exchanged favors, bribed guards and organized underground resistance units. Sixty-four percent remembered resolving to live, 50 percent recalled making friends, 55 percent turned to others or banded together, 50 percent found ways to get extra food and 48 percent cared for others. Greene found that although some Holocaust survivors reported feelings of anger and continuing disbelief in their old age, they also recounted that during their time in concentration camps they maintained personal bonds, made choices and “controlled their lives through their own special and sometimes secretive means.” For example, they set up governmental structure and schools, performed concerts and even wrote poetry. “An analysis of the interviews showed positive themes—even within the camps,” Greene said. “Survivors talked of making a conscious decision to go on living, celebrate life and think positively about themselves.”
Some interesting citations and facts:
Of those [child survivors] who were hidden among gentiles, quality of caretaking varied. Many were threatened with death if they did not behave, and one-sixth were sexually molested (Moskowitz & Krell)...One three-year-old appealed to an SS man to not kill her as she had good hands for work (Kestenberg 1990)...Magic was used to connect with parents. For instance, one child (Valent 1994) kept contact with her father through talking to him via the moon.
In his incredibly insightful book, MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING, Viktor Frankl noted that the people in the Nazi concentration camps fell into two groups. The first group consisted of the majority of those interned there, and they were people who defined themselves in terms of their social milieu: if you asked them who they were, they would say, “I am a doctor, a lawyer, a mother...” The second group consisted of a small minority of people who thought of themselves as existing completely independent of any label, any role, or any relationship they had with others, or with society.
When you entered a concentration camp, they took away you clothes, your profession, your family and even your name. For most people, that was the equivalent of taking away their very identity, and thus their will to live. As Frankel observed, it was mostly only the people in second, much smaller group, that survived.
Well, evolutionarily at least it would make a lot of sense to care about your role in society as an end. If the village can only support one smith, for instance, then you better focus your energies on being a damn good smith so that nobody else can replace you.
If the village can only support one smith, and you’re the smith, then if you’re not bloody incompetent you can probably do just fine for yourself as long as you make sure to take on an apprentice eventually (it needn’t be until later in life). Nobody else’s business is smithing, so you don’t have any competition, and as long as your goods perform reasonably well you’re pretty much set.
There are probably similar identity-creating elements in other countries, beyond cars.
Digressing a bit, I’m having a hard time comprehending the notion of assigning identity to anything beyond the way my own mind works. Doing that with a car seems completely insane, but as I said I’ve never even been close to that volume of mind-space, so I might be completely misunderstanding.
I’d like to understand what’s going on, though. Would anyone like to try explaining?
Identity is about your place and role in society, and car ownership feels like a role just as much as anything else, so I’m not sure what exactly about it is that you find confusing. (To me, the notion of only assigning identity to the way one’s mind works sounds a little weird.)
My place and role in society are.. just circumstances. Caring about them as ends, rather than means, seems weird to me.
When you put it like that, though.. At some point I read an article, and I think it was here on Lesswrong, about the types of people who survived WW2 camps. The main takeaway was that the survivors were primarily people who defined themselves in terms of their own mind and immutable attributes, rather than in terms of career, friends, etc.
The article also pointed out that such people are fairly rare, which if the common-case identities also includes items such as cars (I rather think it would) would help explain why common attitudes towards cars are as they are.
I don’t suppose you remember the article in question?
I can’t find that article here, on OB, or in my Evernotes.
Googling, this Holocaust meta-analysis http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/bul1365677.pdf only mentions defensive mechanisms post-Holocaust (focusing on denial); http://amcha.org/Upload/folgen.pdf & http://peterfelix.tripod.com/home/Psychopathology.pdf focused on treatment of survivors and any effects on their children & grandchildren.
Roberta Greene’s ‘resilience’ research sounds relevant, but from this summary http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/Utopian%20Spring%202009.pdf it sounds like it found the opposite—dependence on friends & family:
Some interesting citations and facts:
Here.
Yes, that’s it, thanks!
Now I can go on to actually read the book.
Well, evolutionarily at least it would make a lot of sense to care about your role in society as an end. If the village can only support one smith, for instance, then you better focus your energies on being a damn good smith so that nobody else can replace you.
And nope, afraid not.
If the village can only support one smith, and you’re the smith, then if you’re not bloody incompetent you can probably do just fine for yourself as long as you make sure to take on an apprentice eventually (it needn’t be until later in life). Nobody else’s business is smithing, so you don’t have any competition, and as long as your goods perform reasonably well you’re pretty much set.
At best you take a son as apprentice so that he can feed you when you are too old to work as smith.
I believe you are recalling a remark by Mike Darwin.
I don’t see any hits for ‘Holocaust’ on chronopause.com, and http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/lesswrong_user.php?u=mikedarwin turns up nothing useful for ‘Holocaust’ or ‘survivor’.
Anyways I recall the remark being an unjustified assertion.
It was a fairly long article, probably in PDF format. Does that sound right?
I remember seeing it in a LW comment or article, perhaps quoted from somewhere else.