Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

waytogoal OP t1_jatckhs wrote

Reply to comment by papyracanthus in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal

So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?

The problem is with the glorification, the dose is the poison, at what point in evolutionary history do we have the extent brought out by modern-day Instagram and Tiktok? Are the current societal norms ever seen in the history of human evolution? How do you know it will be advantageous?

−13

papyracanthus t1_jav1t21 wrote

I'm not sure how you read that as me agreeing, could you explain why you think I was?

6

waytogoal OP t1_jazxnx5 wrote

Since you mentioned the advantage of social mimicry. People are not just mimicking to get some (I don't know what) advantages, without their idea of self being influenced in the midst.

If you claim there is some large-scale evolutionary advantage/reason of social mimicry, then most people are surely being influenced by societal norms and values, no? And now you start to ask, are the current societal norms and values "good", or are close to anything of our evolutionary past?

1

papyracanthus t1_jb5fzuq wrote

I think I understand where you're coming from now.

There's plenty of information out there that shows the evolutionary benefits of social mimicry, an off-hand example being shared expressions used to alert others in our social circles of danger, and in turn them using the same behaviours to alert us of danger.

Outside of a traditionally evolutionary context, the use of spoken language itself can be considered to be, or at least to be borne of, social mimicry and I think it'd be hard to argue that spoken language isn't beneficial to human interaction.

Social mimicry, however, is merely a part of what most consider the 'self'. It could even be argued that the true 'self' is a representation of the individual in the absence of these external influences.

Could you explain how you define the 'self'? This will allow me to have a better understanding of your concept of 'glorification of the self' and explain why, if I am already understanding correctly, my opinions differ.

1

ClintFlindt t1_javn1pd wrote

You should look up evolutionary and cultural psychology, specifically the Gene-Culture Co-evolution approach, which is trying to scientifically investigate the synergy between genes and culture, and what consequences it has for our evolution.

2

VitriolicViolet t1_jayo2fv wrote

>So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?

no.

i spent 6 months alone in a tent many kms from any other humans, the 'self' i consider myself to be is ever changing and has nothing to do with the rest of society (fitting in is one of the least important goals a person could have).

what does social media have to do with anything? personally i dont use any outside of reddit and i have no social life outside my partner. my life revolves around gardening and epicurean pleasures (as distinct from hedonism) from art to study.

what 'self' am i cultivating for people i spend no time with or care for? (self-employed too so i only deal with those i wish too)

to top it off despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions, ive housed homeless people ive never met, i help do animal rescue with my partner etc).

this entire article is about the risks and dangers of focusing on the self and yet i stand testament to the fact that focusing on the self can be a good thing for all.

2

waytogoal OP t1_jazx717 wrote

Sorry, lost track a bit since there are too many comments, but you made some interesting points.
It seems you live quite close to what the article suggests: just go do what you like and find meaningful, and be conscious about that. And there is no need to try to fulfill a particular idea of self, it should always be changing, ideally changed by empirical data (that way you connect with the whole), not by some internal data of who you think you are.

But I see a problem when I read: "despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions"

Why you would say you live for "myself", if you are trying to do a lot for others? It reads a bit like stamp collection here to try to fulfill a particular image, you have to be conscious about the consequence of your actions (e.g., many studies have concluded that tree planting, if not done rightly, have a very bad effect on the ecosystem, and is a green-washing technique to fulfill "carbon offset"), it is not about reaching on a particular fix number, it is not a race, it is about the long-term effect.

1