Consistency is important because there is none. If it was a given then it wouldn't be important, it would just be.
I'm not sure what you mean, but what I'm saying is that people don't knowingly hold inconsistent beliefs, rather, they either change them or rationalize them (dissonance reduction) in such a way that they are no longer inconsistent.
Quote:
Most psychologists, whether Freudian or not, accept that an approximation of Freud's id, ego and super-ego exist and clearly these are often in conflict. The question is really not 'do they exist ?' but more 'to what degree do they possess the attributes of personality ?'.
It seems obvious that people experience urges that may or may not be resisted, and that maybe we have a moralistic conscience (though I think that may have been more prominent in Freud's Victorian era than today). Anyway, I don't disagree with this, but the impulse/conscience idea is so basic that it's not surprising that most people accept it.
Quote:
People do not walk around with conflicting opinions because only one 'you' is in the driving seat at any given time and these are (usually) unaware of the other's existence. Hence, the multiplicity is only observable to an outside observer.
I just don't buy this. People have different opinions that they're unaware of at different times?
Quote:
And further - the disparate personality theory does not hinge on divergence of those personality's opinions - they could all agree and think exactly the same yet still be separate personalities. they may just have different wants or needs for example.
Actually, this last situation is most often the case which is why it is so difficult to observe or accept.
And finally, most psychologists do actually accept MPD - true, not many accept that it is an extension of an existing division but the idea that an abused or traumatised individual creates 'safety' and escapes by compartmentalising the personality ('this isn't happening to me' for example) is pretty universally accepted.
I'm not sure what percent of psychologists "believe in" DID, but:
1) I think every serious person realizes that many questions are raised by the massive escalation of diagnoses over the past 25 years or so.
2) In my experience there is a direct association between the acceptance of DID and the general wackiness of the therapist - use of hypnosis/sodium amytal, belief in repressed and recovered memories, belief in satanic ritual abuse, etc. - and a direct association between skepticism toward DID and the seriousness of the psychologist. I'm sure that others would have a different view of wackiness vs. seriousness, but that's my view.
3) Your trauma dissociation definition is the traditional view, but maybe you'd find it interesting to know that many of the skeptics believe that it IS an extension of our normal personalities rather than some new phenomenon. Here's an example by a "non-believer." I've read it - it's a great book if you want to read about the skeptics' position on DID and related crap.
Well, we can follow that train of thought all the way to "it all depends upon how the individual defines 'order,'" but the fact remains that if they have to rationalize something, it is an inconsistency.
But I see you're point. You're talking about "negative capability" here. No time to go into detail on this. More later.
Right, what I'm saying is that people don't usually walk around believing they're inconsistent. Subjectively they convince themselves they're perfectly consistent. It might seem problematic to define consistency so subjectively, but I think it would be even more problematic if we start trying to objectively decide that other people's beliefs are inconsistent. There are always ways to rationalize. Trust me, I'm good at it.
I think it's one of the great human weaknesses. It prevents us from realizing we might be wrong, or that we might need to change. We should reduce dissonance by changing, not by rationalizing.
All human persons are individuals, I believe we can assert the universality of that
I don't think we can.
Of course it depends on the definition of individual but really, psychological and scientific theory has finally come round to the view that we are at best, a conglomeration of disparate parts and conflicting opinions.
Perhaps you refer to the iteral interpretation ?which is not divided?, but I'm not a literalist.
While individuals are complex beings, often conflicted and full of contradiction, mutiple-personality disorders are rather the exception than the rule, although I heartily reccommend the ?I didn't do it, Octavius did? line of defence if need be.
If we observe human variations around the world we can see that nowhere can we find anything approaching in practice the hive or the ant city (despite numerous attempts aspiring to emulate such forms of organisation. We might find otherwise in the future should more apt technologies be devised), human collective unanimity of thought or action in unisson being at most a superficial mirage achieved at extenuating effort (no wonder totalitarianism is so wasteful and short-lived); yet we also find no culture where all individuals are loners, even in those cultures most concerned with individualilsm, loners are rather marginal.
So individuals as well as societies are human universals.
If we observe human variations around the world we can see that nowhere can we find anything approaching in practice the hive or the ant city
Hang in there just awhile longer - it's in the post.......
While being fortunate enough to have been spared their rule, I'm rather familiar with totalitarian regimes, and while they succeeded in varying degrees to subdue, persuade, and coerce individuals, they did not annihilate individuality itself, which is why individual responsibility is still required of the said individuals, and that's also why ?I was following orders? is not a valid line of defence when on trial.
You see, the thing is that dictatorships which try to impose uniformity on the people by force in reality do not work,?
Precisely because of the univerality of human individuality across cultural and conditional cirsumstances, and of the present inability to nullify it.
Quote:
After 4000 years of 'civilization' where the concept of totalitarian rule has been fully and minutely explored, the dictators finally realized that people cannot be cowed into conformity that way - the human spirit is just too strong.
So they've evolved a new method. It has several phases and is applied exponentially:?
[detailed description follows]
So it's either crediting the ?dictators incognito? with quasi-super-human foresight and methodical efficiency which are therefore not humaly attainable, or crediting the ?stealth system of totally irresistible govenrance? with such a flawless ?invisible hand? compensating and overcoming the medicority and shortcomings of its smiling tyrannical operators; I already found both propositions laughable when expressed by bourgeois students back in the heyday of rock'n'roll.
Quote:
There is always a chance for Iraq, Syria or whatever your favourite blend of dictatorship is - always a chance because the people never support those oppressing them.
In an actual dictatorship (particularly a totalitarian one) it's still possible to secretly disapprove of the regime, overt expression of that disapproval moreover acting upon it even in the most harmelss ways are prosecuted in a violent, ruthless, and summary manner; for they are actually subversive to a regime based on fear, since fear loses credibility if allowed to be challenged . Although such subversion is generally weeded soon enough so it's of little effect if any.
We then see most dictatorships ending either by commiting political suicide (as in post-Franco Franquismo), by drowning in the wave of change caused by the ruler's attempts at reform (as Gorbachev's USSR) or by falling as a result of being defeated at war (examples abound).
Of course, the fall of one dictatorship does not preclude it won't be replaced by another.
In a regime based upon consultation and representation rather than fear, experssion and harmless actions of disapproval cannot be subversive to a regime where toleration of disapproval is a given.
In the West it is actually possible for individuals not to support the government and keep living in relative safety and prosperity like you, me, and most forum participants.
In the West it is actually possible for individuals not to support the government and keep living in relative safety and prosperity like you, me, and most forum participants.
Lucky bastards indeed.
Well, maybe our luck will run out oneday soon - Germany, Syria and all the rest of the usual suspects could all have said that at one point. No-one listens in the run-up, it's only when it has you in its icy claw.
I was thinking more about the individuals living in certain countries than the countries themsleves. It's quite accurate for people living in Germany today, and was true to some extent during the Weimar Republic as well. Syrians alas, never had such luck.
Quote:
Anyway, that's not my point. Listen Immanuel, in this glorious civilization of ours you have two choices at the moment (and you don't get to choose either - you get dealt a card and there's no handing it back to the dealer nonsense):
1) You can be a turkey that knows the butcher is gonna one-day head your way with a meat cleaver.
2) You can be a turkey that actively supports and works for the continuation of Christmas (or Thanksgiving if you prefer).
Assuming the human world to be divided between butchers and turkeys, which is a tad simplistic.
Quote:
I guess it doesn't matter much. Either way your just someone else's food - all comes down to how you want to represent your life while in the holding pen.
Growing up years back, I got to know many individuals who graduated from some of last century's actual ?holding pens?, so I wouldn't claim to try and compare my life experience with theirs.
And no, I'm nobody's prey, not a predator either (but I do have claws of my own and would not be reluctant to use them if need be).
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
Consistency is important because there is none. If it was a given then it wouldn't be important, it would just be.
I'm not sure what you mean, but what I'm saying is that people don't knowingly hold inconsistent beliefs, rather, they either change them or rationalize them (dissonance reduction) in such a way that they are no longer inconsistent.
Most psychologists, whether Freudian or not, accept that an approximation of Freud's id, ego and super-ego exist and clearly these are often in conflict. The question is really not 'do they exist ?' but more 'to what degree do they possess the attributes of personality ?'.
It seems obvious that people experience urges that may or may not be resisted, and that maybe we have a moralistic conscience (though I think that may have been more prominent in Freud's Victorian era than today). Anyway, I don't disagree with this, but the impulse/conscience idea is so basic that it's not surprising that most people accept it.
People do not walk around with conflicting opinions because only one 'you' is in the driving seat at any given time and these are (usually) unaware of the other's existence. Hence, the multiplicity is only observable to an outside observer.
I just don't buy this. People have different opinions that they're unaware of at different times?
And further - the disparate personality theory does not hinge on divergence of those personality's opinions - they could all agree and think exactly the same yet still be separate personalities. they may just have different wants or needs for example.
Actually, this last situation is most often the case which is why it is so difficult to observe or accept.
And finally, most psychologists do actually accept MPD - true, not many accept that it is an extension of an existing division but the idea that an abused or traumatised individual creates 'safety' and escapes by compartmentalising the personality ('this isn't happening to me' for example) is pretty universally accepted.
I'm not sure what percent of psychologists "believe in" DID, but:
1) I think every serious person realizes that many questions are raised by the massive escalation of diagnoses over the past 25 years or so.
2) In my experience there is a direct association between the acceptance of DID and the general wackiness of the therapist - use of hypnosis/sodium amytal, belief in repressed and recovered memories, belief in satanic ritual abuse, etc. - and a direct association between skepticism toward DID and the seriousness of the psychologist. I'm sure that others would have a different view of wackiness vs. seriousness, but that's my view.
3) Your trauma dissociation definition is the traditional view, but maybe you'd find it interesting to know that many of the skeptics believe that it IS an extension of our normal personalities rather than some new phenomenon. Here's an example by a "non-believer." I've read it - it's a great book if you want to read about the skeptics' position on DID and related crap.
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, we can follow that train of thought all the way to "it all depends upon how the individual defines 'order,'" but the fact remains that if they have to rationalize something, it is an inconsistency.
But I see you're point. You're talking about "negative capability" here. No time to go into detail on this. More later.
Right, what I'm saying is that people don't usually walk around believing they're inconsistent. Subjectively they convince themselves they're perfectly consistent. It might seem problematic to define consistency so subjectively, but I think it would be even more problematic if we start trying to objectively decide that other people's beliefs are inconsistent. There are always ways to rationalize. Trust me, I'm good at it.
I think it's one of the great human weaknesses. It prevents us from realizing we might be wrong, or that we might need to change. We should reduce dissonance by changing, not by rationalizing.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
All human persons are individuals, I believe we can assert the universality of that
I don't think we can.
Of course it depends on the definition of individual but really, psychological and scientific theory has finally come round to the view that we are at best, a conglomeration of disparate parts and conflicting opinions.
Perhaps you refer to the iteral interpretation ?which is not divided?, but I'm not a literalist.
While individuals are complex beings, often conflicted and full of contradiction, mutiple-personality disorders are rather the exception than the rule, although I heartily reccommend the ?I didn't do it, Octavius did? line of defence if need be.
If we observe human variations around the world we can see that nowhere can we find anything approaching in practice the hive or the ant city (despite numerous attempts aspiring to emulate such forms of organisation. We might find otherwise in the future should more apt technologies be devised), human collective unanimity of thought or action in unisson being at most a superficial mirage achieved at extenuating effort (no wonder totalitarianism is so wasteful and short-lived); yet we also find no culture where all individuals are loners, even in those cultures most concerned with individualilsm, loners are rather marginal.
So individuals as well as societies are human universals.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
If we observe human variations around the world we can see that nowhere can we find anything approaching in practice the hive or the ant city
Hang in there just awhile longer - it's in the post.......
While being fortunate enough to have been spared their rule, I'm rather familiar with totalitarian regimes, and while they succeeded in varying degrees to subdue, persuade, and coerce individuals, they did not annihilate individuality itself, which is why individual responsibility is still required of the said individuals, and that's also why ?I was following orders? is not a valid line of defence when on trial.
Originally posted by segovius
You see, the thing is that dictatorships which try to impose uniformity on the people by force in reality do not work,?
Precisely because of the univerality of human individuality across cultural and conditional cirsumstances, and of the present inability to nullify it.
After 4000 years of 'civilization' where the concept of totalitarian rule has been fully and minutely explored, the dictators finally realized that people cannot be cowed into conformity that way - the human spirit is just too strong.
So they've evolved a new method. It has several phases and is applied exponentially:?
[detailed description follows]
So it's either crediting the ?dictators incognito? with quasi-super-human foresight and methodical efficiency which are therefore not humaly attainable, or crediting the ?stealth system of totally irresistible govenrance? with such a flawless ?invisible hand? compensating and overcoming the medicority and shortcomings of its smiling tyrannical operators; I already found both propositions laughable when expressed by bourgeois students back in the heyday of rock'n'roll.
There is always a chance for Iraq, Syria or whatever your favourite blend of dictatorship is - always a chance because the people never support those oppressing them.
In an actual dictatorship (particularly a totalitarian one) it's still possible to secretly disapprove of the regime, overt expression of that disapproval moreover acting upon it even in the most harmelss ways are prosecuted in a violent, ruthless, and summary manner; for they are actually subversive to a regime based on fear, since fear loses credibility if allowed to be challenged . Although such subversion is generally weeded soon enough so it's of little effect if any.
We then see most dictatorships ending either by commiting political suicide (as in post-Franco Franquismo), by drowning in the wave of change caused by the ruler's attempts at reform (as Gorbachev's USSR) or by falling as a result of being defeated at war (examples abound).
Of course, the fall of one dictatorship does not preclude it won't be replaced by another.
In a regime based upon consultation and representation rather than fear, experssion and harmless actions of disapproval cannot be subversive to a regime where toleration of disapproval is a given.
In the West it is actually possible for individuals not to support the government and keep living in relative safety and prosperity like you, me, and most forum participants.
Lucky bastards indeed.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
In the West it is actually possible for individuals not to support the government and keep living in relative safety and prosperity like you, me, and most forum participants.
Lucky bastards indeed.
Well, maybe our luck will run out oneday soon - Germany, Syria and all the rest of the usual suspects could all have said that at one point. No-one listens in the run-up, it's only when it has you in its icy claw.
I was thinking more about the individuals living in certain countries than the countries themsleves. It's quite accurate for people living in Germany today, and was true to some extent during the Weimar Republic as well. Syrians alas, never had such luck.
Anyway, that's not my point. Listen Immanuel, in this glorious civilization of ours you have two choices at the moment (and you don't get to choose either - you get dealt a card and there's no handing it back to the dealer nonsense):
1) You can be a turkey that knows the butcher is gonna one-day head your way with a meat cleaver.
2) You can be a turkey that actively supports and works for the continuation of Christmas (or Thanksgiving if you prefer).
Assuming the human world to be divided between butchers and turkeys, which is a tad simplistic.
I guess it doesn't matter much. Either way your just someone else's food - all comes down to how you want to represent your life while in the holding pen.
Growing up years back, I got to know many individuals who graduated from some of last century's actual ?holding pens?, so I wouldn't claim to try and compare my life experience with theirs.
And no, I'm nobody's prey, not a predator either (but I do have claws of my own and would not be reluctant to use them if need be).