Last night my friend and I had an extended IM conversation on the subject of why people turn out as they do. This comes back to some of the old issues of contention between us – free will, determinism and nature vs nurture. As the Symposium seems to be a bit sluggish, I thought that I would bring some of these issues of genuine philosophy up.
I have abridged the conversation and divided into three parts. My comments are in italics, and my friend’s is in plan text. After each section, I pose a question. Feel free to answer the questions or to make any other comment on the matters that we discussed.
PART I: NATURE VS NURTURE
Did you have a big word document to send me? You spoke of it yesterday.
Oooooh yeah. I'll summarise -
Assumption #1: ego is how you interact with the world in every way.
Assumption #2: you inherit your ego from your same sex parent.
Assumption #3: if you want to interact with the world with a different ego, all you can really do is alter the intensity of your own ego. Like turning up a volume knob but not being able to change the song.
I challenge assumption #2: you inherit your ego from your same sex parent. The same-sex parent is a very big influence, but I would argue not totally decisive. Some things are [determined by] nature. Your same-sex parent does not totally determine the way you interact with the world - which is determined by type - nor the confidence with which you do so - which is determined by multiple factors, eg, the environment in which you grew up, your education, the qualities you were taught to value, the people who influence you.
Don’t you dare bring type into this, lol.
A discussion on personality is hardly complete without it.
[here goes a discussion on validity of inbuilt personality types such as the MBTI. It eventually turns into a discussion on people’s true nature]
From people ive known, most personal problems come from not being yourself.
Well, that depends on what 'yourself' really is.
Well, MBTI is apparently about who you really are. I mean, look at the title of kiersey's book, 'please understand me'. Psychological problems and lack of solid identity go hand in hand.
Yea, but there is more to a person's fundamentals than their type. Many problems are caused by people perpetrating the bad habits that they learned as children.
[here goes a collection of personal comments and observations and associated discssion]
What is interesting is that you make your current state seem inevitable based on your father's character. [ie] because I am X, and my father is Y, I'm destined to stuff up. You play down the role of choice on both sides.
Well that's the thing, i'm destined to my father's ego. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, I can see dozens of positives.
You do not think that your parents could have shaped you more by their teaching (either by direction or example?)
My parents did not effect me with their teachings in any single way. They complain about that to this day - lol.
How about with what they did, rather than what they are?
Oh by example, they definitely taught me - that's what i'm talking about here. I inherited my ego totally from dad.
[Is that] what they chose to do? You see, I have an alternative explanation.
[Here goes a discussion in which I tease out my theory – the way people are is a result of a) their type b) their environment/upbringing and c) their choices]
a) is totally forbidden in this assumption free-conversation
[Here goes a little more trivial discussion]
Well, consider this - a) is there, else everyone raised the same way in the same environment by the same people would turn out the same - eg: twins would be identical in character - or there would be massive personality divisions across cultural and socio-economic divides. People can change things in their lives - either with conscious choices or by determining who or what influences them.
ok, I'm going to create an analogy to respond to this statement - 'people can change things in their lives either with conscious choices or by determining who or what influences them'. Think of people as computers - when we learn new behaviours we install new programs, when we revise behaviours we update, when we make big changes in our lives maybe we defrag.
Or uninstall programs.
Yep, but say you want to change the operating system. Uninstall windows, sure, but then what's there? Nothing, except maybe bios or whatever - let's not get too technical. The point is, the basic interface you have for regulating and integrating computer programs and updates into your life - the operating system - is a piece of software that you cannot remove unless you kill yourself. In this analogy, type is a popular notepad file that operating systems trade between each other, a popular notepad file which contains the idea that there are 16 types of operating systems
The problem with computers is that they have two levels - hardware and software. A good analogy for us requires three: type (unchangeable), influences (constantly developing, somewhat changeable) and choices (always changeable and often short-term)
[a pause]
I’ve got it - a car. The body frame and stuff is type, the added details like CD players and tires are influence/environment and how you drive it is your choices: eg: if you want to drive fast in the wet, be sure you have good tires.
Car assumes free will, which is destructive to my whole argument.
On a level - and here we probably won't agree, because I consider choice to be important
Actually no it's not - existence of free will is irrelevant, why do i keep forgetting that (slaps face).
It isn't - it is important.
It doesn't effect anything.
I assume that there is that extra level there…
Yeah but that doesn't have to be 'free will' - it can just be will.
…that people can be held responsible for varying degrees for their actions. If their actions are pre-determined, then how can they be held responsible for them? There is the difference. I say that people need to, at the end of the day, own the choices that they make (damn, talking like Dr. Phil now).
[laughter]
But anyway, I say that people can change things.
Can you change your introversion?
No - but you can chose what to do with it.
Of course
Can you cnage the fact that your car's a Honda? No, but can you decide how to drive it? Yes.
You're assumign that introversion is unchangeable and who you are – ie. type is unchangeable and who you are
On a basic level, yes.
I don’t think type is relevant to our discussion.
Our discussion is about why people turn out how they are - I argue that type, influence and choice are the determiners.
[The] presence of 16 inborn personality types and people inheriting their egos from their same sex parents aren't mutually exclusive.
If you define ego as every way that people interact then they are.
How so?
How you interact with the world around you is your personality, no?
So that's how we're defining personality?
Do you have an alternative?
Hmm…nope. I'm satisfied with that definition.
Excellent - then, here's the rub. If ego comes entirely from parent and personality is ego then personality comes entirely from parent. Ergo, personality cannot be determined by nature in any way. You seem to argue that environment = everything. I argue that nature, environment and choice all play a part. BTW, I see a huge philosophical tract coming on from all this a la the Dialogues of Plato. I'll work hedons and utils in and everything [LM note: see below]
[laughter]
Yeah well the convenient thing about my point of view is that i don’t have to agree about nature/nurture. Actually, I’ll just say it's both, because it is - the ego is inherited genetically and through mimicry.
I still that that personality is a better word than ego.
Yeah - ok, let's forget ego. […] You agree that personality inherited genetically and imitatively by the same sex child, but challenge to what degree.
Indeed. And on top of that I say that personality isn’t everything - let's go back to hedons and utils.
Question 1 – does free will really exist, or are people bound to make the choices that they do by their nature and nurture? To what extent do nature, nurture and choices effect a person’s personality?
PART II: THE EASY CHOICE VS THE RIGHT CHOICE
[LM note: Utility is the term in politics, economics and philosophy for the net benefit that a person receives from a particular action. In my theory, units of benefit comes in two types, which I refer to as hedons and utils. Hedons measure the immediate gratification or pleasure derived from something, while utils measure the net objective benefit. This is to distinguish and clarify the reason why people make choices]
What gives you hedons is determined by your personality [in part] but you can chose utils over hedons. a perfect person would not need to face that choice - for them hedons would always = utils.
Or in other words, they would be able to find immediate gratification in any long-term goal set pragmatically.
Util does not necessarily imply long term goal, simply net benefit – eg: maintaining a relationship, being healthy, being wealthy, being safe.
well that's what a util is, something that rewards you in the long-term (later) as opposed to the short term (now) - it's a hedon waiting to happen.
[discussion on utils and hedons]
I'm pretty sure what you’re talking about is basically hedons as being pleasure and utils as being the delay of pleasure for equal or greater pleasure later on.
That works, but they're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together quite often – eg: putting warm clothes on in the cold, getting sleep when tired, while hitting onself with a hammer is productive in neither the hedon not util department.
[laughter]
Explain to me how putting warm clothes on in the cold is both hedons and utils at once.
you don't catch cold and you feel nice and warm.
ok, I’ve realised my mistake. I've mistakenly equated delaying comfort with long term benefits, and also mistakenly equated giving into comfort with not getting long term benefits.
An easy mistake to make. My argument is this - a perfect person would always chose utils by choice because they gave them hedons too. However, it doesn't work like that in reality. We all face cases where we want hedons over utils, in different ways and degrees based on type and environment. But we can chose to take utils over hedons and become better and more successful people (when the two conflict, that is). So type and environment have their roles, but we can chose - either directly or indirectly (by chosing to change our environment and influences) [to better ourselves]. That is my position.
Question 2 – What is benefit, exactly? Why do people chose certain things? Is the hedon/util distinction valid?
PART III: THE PERFECT PERSON
So we have to ignore comfort. Starting again: in order to be perfect, we have to ignore comfort and make decisions based purely on benefits that we will receive.
Yea.
Good theory
That requires perfect balance of personality though, which is impossible. So we must make do - so that is why people turn out like they do. They have type, they are developed by their environment, and they make choices.
what is perfect balance of personality?
In MBTI terms, being able to use every function naturally, having no inherent flaws such as greed or sloth and being raised in such a way to encourage perfection, which would no doubt involve a balance of good experiences and bad experiences to build virtue and character. OK, I'm sounding like a eugenist now or some writer from some sort of dodgy enlightenment philosophy tract that inspired Fascism or something. [Anyway], perfection [also] involves flexibility - the perfect person would be able to live in civilised society and in a savage wildnerness, understanding the differences of behaviour and outlook required.
The perfect person would be able to live in civilised society and in a savage wilderness - such a good point
What was our agreed system for receiving compliments again?
[laughter]
I don't know, but originality demonstrated above is sufficient to please me
[laughter]
Any objections to my theory at all?
I'm too ADHD to remember how it relates to my full personality inheritance theory
OK, my theory is [this] - influence is by type, environment and choice. We can be predisposed towards unproductive behaviour, but we can choose better. That's about it - taking into account that I'm refering to an objective standard of unproductive behaviour, not a type-biased one. BTW, can I save this and post in on a philosophy-related messageboard?
Go for it! I'm honored.
excellent - it shall be done.
Question 3 - Is a perfect person even possible to comprehend? If so, what qualities would such a person possess? How should people work to make themselves better?
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login
