Going from “deterministic universe” to “a bit deterministic” is quite a shift. Yes, my theory is that our emotional make up is pretty much determined in childhood which seems to match my observations. But, that theory has to accommodate the observed fact that adults can learn new behaviors in responding to emotional circumstances.
In my own personal case I have identified a fear that I have of meeting new people. I would rather not do it. However, I have learned to rise to the occasion and get the job done, even though I have continuing trouble with names and faces. I also know that other people have no such fear. They actually want to meet new people. I have been this way all my life, and no amount of training and lecturing seems to make a difference. My conclusion is that this condition evolved during childhood, and can’t be changed. Although I have learned to cope with it, my initial gut reaction is still that I’d rather not meet another new person.
— I’m afraid i take a much more optimistic stance. I don’t believe that our makeup is set in stone. “May our differences unite to become greater than the sum of our parts.” I used to have problems meeting new people too, but i do much better now. I work a variety of different jobs which has brought me into contact with many diverse peoples, races, cultures, etc., You have to realize that they have fears and share common ground along with you.
I have no trouble with an optimistic stance and believe in giving people a chance to prove themselves. On the other hand, when repeated observations of a person’s makeup are consistant, I no longer hope for or expect a change. I just accept them as they are and behave toward them accordingly. When I get to know someone well, I can detect anamolies and inconsistancies in their behavior particularly under stress. I accept these as expressions of who they are and allow for them. I am very cautious about calling attention to anyone’s foibles, because I know it would take a monumental effort for them to change their behavior.
As far as public policy is concerned we do what we can with punishment to either remove people from society, or forcibly make them aware of their anti-social behaviors. We hope they will change, but the evidence is that few do. Those that do change just learn to avoid circumstances that trigger or tempt anti-social behavior rather than experiencing any fundamental change in personality.
Your micro-stance is fairly accurate. I agree with it. The second paragraph which describes your macro-stance may be right in some cases, but behaviors can be sublimated, etc. (see the sublimation thread in psychology).
I have this tendency. ive enjoyed the comments both you and Marshall McDaniel have made here. i see this more as a problem of interest: if as a child i grew up in a big family, with many individuals in a household then perhaps meeting new people (or been around people) isnt as much of a issue. I for instance wasnt, i dont tend to pay much interest to a new persons name (as im usually concentrating on finish the conversation as quick as possible) i usually get a strange problem of people knowing me, but i havent a clue what there name is; this is very embarassing and annoying for both me and them. I to have been from job2job as a student and although ive always had a good laugh, i still feel slightly unright working with a bunch of strangers for many weeks, to the point were i have no work ethic (at all).
f7u2p wrote:
Something ive noticed in a micro-environment were you share time with people all the time, is some working to some sort of ideal similaritys. i notice very much so, that people use the same words to describe a emotion as a other more influencal characater would; in terminology, style
even attitude in all fields of interest; A dominating person or alpha male type. When having a joke around and picking out particular traits they do unconsciously, this more then most things drives people crazy; some subliminal trait that one notices is soon changed to in a way mirror others. I have this habit that i didnt realize until pointed out of chewing things!- which i see as sublimation from some sexual urge. When someones points something out like this it code lauguage for “stop it” so eventually most of the annoying traits that the groups personality once had are taken out.
Marshell McDaniel:
Id say its the taking out of differences that leads to a united sum of parts.
Doing this is working towards some ideal unity or ideal relation of peoples interests; in a society peoples interests may varie drastically, to the point were there cant be a unity; people are driven to a different moral interpretation of different extremes, so theyll always be a lower jail class.
— You can not take out all of the differences! If you do, we will be relegated to asexual reproduction or we’ll be reproducing in test tubes like in Brave New World. Equal does not imply same.
Equal implys equal to the equal, unequal to the unequal. the taken away of strong differences and replacing them with the differences of the strong more orgiastic consciousness always prevails. In society today i dont know about your test-tube babys analogy, certainly i see a more sexual state after religions anti-sexual stance nolonger exists; a liberal society today is anti-agressive, anti-instinctive, protect property orientated were many people turn to been judged for immoral behaviour and locked away, out of society for simply been non-altruisic; more instinctive.
Its a problem that will never go until attitudes change, i look at a film from today and it has the morality of a “old women”; looking at a film from just 30 years ago, theres less altruisic behaviour and alot more realist attitudes and charaters that can be respected; its almost like each generation is getting more effeminate! court systems SERIOUSLY need to change, particularly in the US and France as ive voiced before: they need take in reasoning more than resting on morals that differ from situation to situation.
— The problem is how to maintain diversity while at the same time promoting equality and not letting this slip into the ethical relativism and situational ethics which you referred to earlier.
— I’m not so sure that altruism is anti-instinctual. As i’ve pointed out before, there are numerous examples in nature to the contrary, perhaps i have misunderstood you.
— I totally agree with your movie insight. It is as if today’s culture exists in a superficial, artificial vacuum without feeling; but perhaps past peoples have felt this too. There have always been those who are deep and insightful and those who are broad and superficial, perhaps the nature of reality is such that both are required, i don’t think it would be wise for everyone to be deep and introspective like myself. What do you think?