Comment author: Raemon 02 January 2015 09:04:15PM 1 point [-]

All I can think of was this scene from Anger Management:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-GV46SUcWs

I'm curious what this post was prompted by? I haven't actually been asked this question in this manner for a while (presumably because I hang out with people who ask more precise questions than this most of the time)

Comment author: ozziegooen 02 January 2015 09:26:45PM 0 points [-]

Like I said, it's something I personally spent too long on myself. I keep on seeing it appear online (as in the blog post I cited) and it's the kind of thing that really frustrates me.

That scene is a really good example of what I'm referring to.

Comment author: HalMorris 29 December 2014 01:59:59AM 0 points [-]

I think it's still useful to point out when its done, and that was what I was trying to do here with that point. Just because it's an endemic everywhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be understood and is not a problem towards this one mentality.

Black-and-white thinking is more dangerous the more important the area of thinking is. This area (one's perceived 'purpose' in life) is quite important, so I believed that this was dangerous enough to point out and think about.

I totally agree it's dangerous and worth pointing out. And humankind is is serious danger. I have no idea what the odds are; it's one of my points of agreement with N. N. Taleb that another addiction of human race is thinking we know -- thinking we can calculate the odds.

Have I made you feel defensive? If so, not at all what I intended. I've had enough of those games. If you took my post as saying "Your post is lame and pointless so I'm 1-upping you", I sincerely urge you to question that, and wonder if that was some sort of automatic reaction and if so, where it might have come from.

I was glad to see your post; it's one of the more interesting things to come up here lately -- it just reminded me of my point of view, which is related but somewhat different.

Comment author: ozziegooen 02 January 2015 05:25:36PM 0 points [-]

You have not made me feel particularly defensive; I just wanted to reply to that last comment. That said, I really appreciate that you considered that. I find that lots of people on this site (and others) are used to '1-upping' the rest of a long list of commenting sins, so am happy you pointed that out.

Comment author: peter_hurford 02 January 2015 03:59:32PM 10 points [-]

The question "what part of your identity is of value to you?" sounds like it can rescue the original philosophical meaning of the question, I think.

Comment author: ozziegooen 02 January 2015 05:23:24PM 1 point [-]

That definitely is a better question.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 January 2015 12:53:16PM *  7 points [-]

It's nice that you've figured it out, but I feel that most people here aren't particularly worried or confused about the question, so the tone of the post seems somewhat baffling. The tools you apply are standard. One is formulating the meaning of a question more accurately than its initial phrasing, in order to know what the question means in terms of something you are more familiar with. Another is noting that formulation depends on context, in particular on the goal of asking the question or the use intended for an answer. Depending on the context, the useful formulation of the same question will differ.

Comment author: ozziegooen 02 January 2015 05:21:03PM *  6 points [-]

I realize that Less Wrong people are the least likely to be confused about it, but I got the impression it still made the most sense to be posted here. I thought of it not as much as being posted 'to' Less Wrong, but 'from' it. You're right it's more for outside readers.

The tools are pretty standard. If I felt like I came up with really novel ones I would have made them into its own post.

That said, here are a few quick reasons why I thought it would be useful.

  1. If a reader knew of the tools but hadn't explicitly connected them to this phrase, it seemed like a very quick fix.
  2. It could be useful to link to for people who really do consider these phrases.
  3. It was very short to write and short to read, the the cost is quite low.
  4. My previous post on a very similar topic did much better than I expected.
  5. I bet that not everyone on this site is entirely familiar with these tools or understanding of the phrase.

I realize that the writing may have sounded a bit condescending. I didn't mean it this way, I just tried writing without as many 'reluctancy' words as normal.

Understanding Who You Really Are

7 ozziegooen 02 January 2015 08:44AM

Here are 14 ways in which you reveal who you really are. If you’re brave enough, or if you dare, aim to share who you really are, little by little, everyday, with those you trust.

- A typical 'Who You Really Are' article on Lifehack

Take a minute to consider the following questions.

Who are you?
Who are you, really?
Who do you really think you are inside?


It took me a full year to find the answer to these.  The answer was that these questions, when posed as philosophical dilemmas, were bullshit.  This post is not about ‘understanding who you really are’. It's about understanding, 'who you really are'.

“Who are you” is a question that sounds grandiose.  It’s hard to come up with a philosophically solid answer, and this makes it seem interesting.  It is not interesting.  It just lacks context.

What would you say if you were asked “who are you?” by the police?  By a doctor? By a relative? By a potential boss? By a space alien?

You should say different things, because these people would be using the same words to mean different things. 

What they really want is information about you that is of decision relevance to them.   A police cares where you are from. The doctor cares how old you are. A relative cares about who you are related to. A boss cares what skills you have. A space alien cares about your number of eyes and hands.  “Who are you?” really means, “given your understanding of my position, what simple information about yourself do you think is useful to me?”

So when a young philosopher follows up your response with, “no really, who are you?”, you should respond with asking, “what in particular would you like to know?”

Some may respond to this saying that there does exist a true self. A real self.  This is what the phrase should really mean, and this is what I personally spent a year pondering.

But first, the very idea of there being a true self is specific to a set of religions and philosophies that you may not believe in.  If you’re a empirical atheist, you shouldn’t.  David Hume fought the notion of an inner self 250 years ago. [1] Derek Parfit fought it more concretely in the last 30 years. [2]

Second, even if you do ascribe to a belief system where there is some sort of true self, this would not give you a clear way to describe it.  Should you say that you are a Capricorn inside?  Or that a small fraction of your brain believes in Libertarianism?  Or that you possess soul #988334?

Of course not.  The question of “who are you?” is wrongly worded, and the one of “who are you, really?” should be placed on hold until the questioner can figure out what they are actually trying to ask.  

 

[1] David Hume's view on Personal Identity, Skinner (2013)

[2] Reasons and Persons, Parfit (1986)

Comments (21)
Comment author: HalMorris 28 December 2014 09:03:28PM *  1 point [-]

Basically, I am in total agreement, although w.r.t.

Problem 2: ‘Changing the World’ Creates Black and White Thinking

Actually, I think human beings can't help being drawn to black and white thinking of one kind or another. Even while thinking this, an insidious something in my mind is trying to turn it into some kind of black and white thinking: There are two kinds of people in the world: people who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and people who don't.

So I suggest you have the causation backwards, and rather, the reason so many heated arguments fall into some dichotomy between two Schelling points (like "Change the World" <--> "Stop the catastrophe caused by the maniacs trying to change the world") is a tendency so central to our being that we can't ever expect to extinguish it -- we can only learn to be vigilant about it, laugh at ourselves (and others).

At bottom, I think it is something like an instinct for orienting oneself, like "my people" vs "those I'd better beware of", which to me seems right for hunter-gatherers, who are very likely to only know of two groups (or they can easily view it this way): the people I live my life with, cooperate with, who are mostly likely to defend me in some way, vs those other people who don't think, talk, or decorate their bodies in the proper way, who have neutral at best, and frequently hostile intentions towards me and my people.

Ask yourself (ozziegooen) whether it's happened to you to some extent. Was there, in the feelings that motivated you to post, an element of anticipation of the agreement of people you'd like to get to know better, and simultaneous head-shaking over all those silly people to whom "Change the world" seems meaningful? There certainly was for me while reading it.

Comment author: ozziegooen 28 December 2014 11:21:27PM 0 points [-]

That's a really good point.

Black-and-white thinking is something that people seem gravitated to in all regards. It's very simple.

However, I think we can understand that it is often wrong. Our tendency to put things into simple categories instead of gradients is to me one of the most important themes behind common human rationality.

I think it's still useful to point out when its done, and that was what I was trying to do here with that point. Just because it's an endemic everywhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be understood and is not a problem towards this one mentality.

Black-and-white thinking is more dangerous the more important the area of thinking is. This area (one's perceived 'purpose' in life) is quite important, so I believed that this was dangerous enough to point out and think about.

Comment author: therufs 27 December 2014 05:57:04PM *  1 point [-]

For what it may be worth, I've historically been pretty cranky about badmouthing religion, and I don't remember anything triggering my "harumph" reaction. (Edit: I went to Solstice in NY.)

This said, my current model of reality is that the atheist community in the US is marginalized to some degree, and it isn't the responsibility of a marginalized community to abide by the expectations of its marginalizers.

Comment author: ozziegooen 27 December 2014 08:16:23PM 2 points [-]

I think we agree a lot here, but that last sentence sounds to me like, "If someone is marginalized at all, they should feel free to act like a jerk".

I don't think any of us think that we need to completely abide by their expectations. But I think that having respect for another group and being careful to be respectful to them shouldn't be an unreasonable ask.

Comment author: robot-dreams 26 December 2014 07:42:31PM 0 points [-]

In all likelihood, you will not make the next billion-dollar nonprofit. You will not make the next billion-dollar business. You will not become the next congressperson in your district. This does not mean that you have not done a good job. It should not demoralize you in any way once you fail hardly to do these things.

At what point have you done a good job? On the other hand, at what point should you be demoralized? Yes, the answer depends on your personal philosophy, but how should someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of their personal philosophy think about such questions?

Comment author: ozziegooen 26 December 2014 10:15:42PM 0 points [-]

The purpose of this blog post was to demonstrate that the phrase change the world did not do a great job with these things. The question of what would be a good replacement or extension of it is a much more philosophical and complicated question that I wanted to leave outside of this for simplicity.

Comment author: shminux 25 December 2014 06:52:50PM 5 points [-]

Steve Jobs is a bad example because the guy did actually change the world, repeatedly. He meant what he said, and he accomplished what he intended. (Personally, I don't use any of the Apple stuff, but what I do use is still Apple-inspired, whether it runs Windows or Android.)

Recognizing that you are no Steve Jobs is a part of assessing the limits of your own skills and abilities for most people, with the subsequent switch from "changing the world" to "making a difference", if you are so inclined.

Comment author: ozziegooen 25 December 2014 07:43:27PM 5 points [-]

Just curious, what are your thresholds for what qualifies as 'changing the world' and 'making a difference'. Where do these come from, and how specific do you think they are?

I know that lots of people seem to believe that the thresholds exist, but I've always found them perplexing.

Comment author: therufs 25 December 2014 05:08:27PM 5 points [-]

Other than human immortality, do you remember specific cringeworthy quirks?

Comment author: ozziegooen 25 December 2014 06:49:02PM 6 points [-]

For one, I don't think that much anti-religion talk is needed at an atheist celebration. It could be about the things we are passionate in instead (like science, the representation of which I liked), but I feel uncomfortable 'dissing' religion.

I have a lot of friends who believe in religions and know of many, many smart people who were religious. Therefore I find a lot of anti-religious writing to easily edge on the offensive, especially when said in the context of a celebration. (Much of it to me sounds a lot like "Obviously smart people shouldn't be religious, anyone who is is stupid", which I feel is incorrect and arrogant). It's a sensitive topic, and hard to do well, so I would recommend just in general avoiding it.

But also, I just find it repetitive. I'm already an atheist (agnostic), I was a long time ago. That's like a really, really basic thing in my philosophical understanding. Hearing someone provide an argument for atheism is like hearing them explain addition. By this point it's kind of uninteresting. I realize that some people here apparently had really important experiences discovering atheism, but I didn't.

View more: Prev | Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit