![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 7:47:13
some think of the self as an entity that persists through time relatively unchanging... rather like a soul.
descartes thought that his essential nature was that he was an immaterial entity that cognizes (thinks, believes, perceives, remembers, desires): 'cogito ergo sum' roughly 'i think, i exist'. identity is determined by the same immaterial substance and so the particular thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, memories, and desires can come and go in the immaterial mind.
locke similarly thought that ideas (thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, memories, desires) reside in an immaterial entity (the mind). he thought that personal identity was determined by the persistence of the thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, memories, and desires over time, however.
animalist theorists consider the persistence of the body to be the relevant criterion for personal identity. they think of the identity of a person through time the same way they think of the identity of dogs through time. in a sense... they are worried about a different question... like considering the self to be a 'featherless biped' (aristotle) or a 'rational animal' (plato) or a member of the species homo sapiens (darwin).
hume thought that the self was just a bundle of perceptions. no matter how much he tried to see the entity that was having the perceptions, all he became aware of was more perceptions. he looked within himself (via introspection) and never could locate himself (the object that does the thinking).psychologists tend to think of the self as a social construct. people exhibit different traits in different contexts, and there can also be considerable variation across time.
buddists think that instead of focusing on the notion of a persisting self (which is an illusion), instead of focusing on attachments and projects true happiness comes from focusing on the eternal present.
dennett thinks of the self as a 'certain kind of mind'. as a heuristic, or abstract object, or organising principle for a bundle of behaviours.
behaviorists think of the self as a cluster of behaviours (or more plausibly behavioural dispositions)
Posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 8:09:41
In reply to what is a self?, posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 7:47:13
>The term “self-esteem” appears to be first coined by William James in 1890 which makes it one of the oldest concepts in psychology. In addition, self-esteem is the third most frequently occurring theme in psychological literature and has already resulted in over 25,000 articles, chapters, and books refer to the topic (Rodewalt & Tragakis, 2003). Given such a long and varied history, it is not surprising to find three major types of definitions in the field, each of which has generated its own tradition of research, findings, and practical applications. The original definition presents self-esteem as a ratio that is found by dividing one’s successes in areas of life that are important to a given individual by the failures in them or one’s “success / pretensions” (James, 1890). A problem with this approach is that making self-esteem contingent upon success means that it is inherently unstable because failure can occur at any moment (Crocker and Park, 2004). In the mid 1960s Maurice Rosenberg and social learning theorists defined self-esteem in terms of a stable sense of personal worth or worthiness that can be measured by self-report testing. This approach became the most frequently used definition but now it is known that feeling good about oneself in healthy ways is difficult to differentiate from such things as narcissism (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Nathaniel Branden (1969) defined self-esteem as a relationship between one’s competence and one’s worthiness. This definition sees self-esteem as the result of dealing with challenges of living in a way that is worthy or respectable and doing so consistently over time. This two-factor approach, as it has also been called, is a balanced definition that seems to be capable of dealing with limits of defining self-esteem primarily in terms of competence or worth alone (Mruk, 2006).
Hrm. I wonder who decides what is 'worthy' and / or 'respectable'.
I think...
I thought...
Having self esteem was about liking yourself. Being kind to yourself. Accepting yourself. I thought that was what it was about.
I thought the narcissist had self esteem that was 'too high' in the sense that they don't have similar esteem for others.
Maybe some cultures have this notion of the 'happy and adjusted well rounded person' which seems to imply that self esteem is something that has to be earned by 'worthy' 'competent' and 'consistent' acts...
http://www.utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/selfesteem/selfest.html
ah...
of course...
a matter of 'illogic'
:-(
Posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 9:29:25
In reply to Re: what is a self?, posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 8:09:41
okay. deep breaths... in a grumpy mood sorry... yeah its okay. that wiki article was pretty bad... uh... sorry
Posted by Declan on August 5, 2006, at 12:45:38
In reply to what is a self?, posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 7:47:13
At 3.30am I can't do your post justice Alex. I've looked 'heuristic' up lots of times because of the Brian Eno song (Blackwater) the relevant part of which which goes
His daughter
Was slated for becoming divine
He taught her,
He taught her how to split and define
But if you study the logistics
And heuristics of the mystics
You will find that their minds rarely move in a line
So it's much more realistic
To abandon such ballistics
And resign to be trapped on a leaf in the vine.Which leads me to ask you what heuristic means.
Declan
Posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 0:48:23
In reply to Heuristic? » Estella, posted by Declan on August 5, 2006, at 12:45:38
Psychology
In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules of thumb which have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information. These rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to systematic cognitive biases.
For instance, people may tend to perceive more expensive beers as tasting better than inexpensive ones. This finding holds true even when prices and brands are switched; putting the high price on the normally relatively inexpensive brand is enough to lead experimental participants to perceive that beer as tasting better than the beer that is normally relatively expensive. One might call this "price implies quality" bias. (Cf. Veblen good)
Much of the work of discovering heuristics in human decision makers was ignited by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, who shared an important influence on behavioral finance. Critics led by Gerd Gigerenzer focus on how heuristics can be used to make principally accurate judgments rather than producing cognitive biases — heuristics that are "fast and frugal".
Theorized psychological heuristicsWell-known:
* Anchoring and adjustment
* Availability heuristic
* Representativeness heuristicLesser-known:
* Affect heuristic
* Contagion heuristic
* Effort heuristic
* Familiarity heuristic
* Fluency heuristic
* Gaze heuristic
* Peak-end rule
* Recognition heuristic
* Scarcity heuristic
* Similarity heuristic
* Simulation heuristic
* Social proof
* Take-the-best heuristicPhilosophy
In philosophy, especially in Continental European philosophy, [ugh] the adjective "heuristic" (or the designation "heuristic device") is used when an entity X is there to understand or to find out about some other entity Y. A good example is a model, which, as it is never identical with whatever it models, is a heuristic device to understand the latter. Stories, metaphors, etc., can also be termed heuristic in that sense. A classic example is the notion of utopia as described in Plato's best-known work, Politeia. This means that the purpose of the "ideal city" as depicted in the Politeia is not to be pursued or to present an orientation-point for development, but rather, that it shows how things would have to be connected, and how one thing would lead to another—often with highly problematic results, if one would opt for certain principles and carry them through rigorously.
so the self is a 'useful fiction' according to Dennett (though I object to the term 'fiction').
the self is a useful construct for explaining and predicting behaviour (of our body and of others bodies)
the mystics...
have limited information about the person...
and they use a few 'cheap tricks' to get a prediction.
kinda like... using the notion of the self...
Posted by Jost on August 7, 2006, at 12:32:49
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 0:48:23
What type of philosophy are you studying, Estella?
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 4:14:00
In reply to Re: Heuristic? » Estella, posted by Jost on August 7, 2006, at 12:32:49
analytic.
and i guess i have a lot of sympathy for the naturalistic framework. so i see the role of philosophy - or at least the role of the philosophy i do - as being on a continuum with the natural sciences where there is a reciprocal relationship between philosophy and the natural sciences.i shouldn't have said ugh about what i do not understand (sorry about that).
philosophy of mind / psychology / biology kinda stuff.
are you doing philosophy too?
Posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 21:44:24
In reply to Re: Heuristic? » Jost, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 4:14:00
No, but I'm very interested in philosophy. I probably would have been much happier if I had studied that.
You'll have to tell me what you're reading sometime. I'm always looking for good reading.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 10:23:27
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 21:44:24
:-)
I will read the article that you mentioned over on social. I've just been really really busy. Two conferences over the next week... Just finished my paper now (1.15am) and conference starts tomorrow!!! Oh sh*t. I mean tonight!!! I'm presenting on Sunday though so that gives z heaps of time to scribble little black lines through it over the next 2 days ;-)
I'm fairly happy with it. Phew. I've written it up and a guy talked on the topic today and the fireworks flew and I actually had sympathy for the fireworks too!!! I think that fireworks fly when people feel passionately. Then everyone trots off for a beer (except the poor suckers who are still working on their papers) and it gets friendlier until people have had a few beers and then the fireworks start up again. All in good fun really. I realise. But then... Manner means a great deal. People are KIND. They might be intense and passionate but most people are KIND. And the hostility I've witnessed... Defensiveness. Better than my natural defence which is to cry I suppose sigh.
What kind of philosophy do you think you would be interested in? I mean... What kinds of topics? There is stuff available online. Stuff that is *fairly* accessible. Especially on the self if you are interested in that. I've read most everything Dennett has written on that and he is terrific. Writes for the educated general reader (though I'll admit it can still be fairly hard going). But he doesn't get too caught up in picky distinctions and terminological disputes that are verrrrrrrrry much an acquired taste that I'm still working on acquiring.
Posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 12:46:07
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 10:23:27
For a while I was interested in consciousness. Is that an area Dennett writes on? I had a book out from the library by him, at the time. This was quite a while ago, but it might be fun to get back into that. I'll have to check online and see what I find. by Dennett
As I remember, I read things by (thinking.....) um Stanley Cavell, and well, my mind is a blank. I read a lot of stuff, but it was ages ago.
Your conference sounds exciting. What's your paper on?
(btw, if you're interested, I can email you a copy of the Sen paper. It came up online, but I'm a subscriber to the New York Rev. of Books, where it was published, so I'm not sure if you could access it easily. Let me know, if you'd like it. It's easy reading, but worth looking at.)
Jost
Posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 12:54:26
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 10:23:27
Now that I think, I read more Hilary Putnam than Stanley Cavell.
Plus other things, more up the alley of Putnam, though.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 19:29:29
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Jost on August 10, 2006, at 12:54:26
Just a quick note...
Yeah Dennett writes on consciousness
"Consciousness Explained"
Though I'd really reccomend Tye
"Ten Problems of Consciousness"
There are also LOTS of articles in the Philosophy of Mind available online from here:
http://consc.net/online.html
Though I'll admit that some of them are fairly hard going.I LOVE the Putnam thought experiments on Water / H2O, don't even get me started on water!
:-)
Posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 19:31:59
In reply to Re: Heuristic? » Jost, posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 19:29:29
Though I should also put in a plug for Chalmers
"The conscious mind" (which is brilliant though IMHO a much much harder read).I'm writing on the conscious experience of pain.
:-)
Posted by Jost on August 12, 2006, at 0:35:27
In reply to Re: Heuristic?, posted by Estella on August 10, 2006, at 19:31:59
Thanks so much Estella! --great references.
The consciousness.net website looks like a good starting point-- I've got so many books that I haven't read, I'm more likely to read more, if it's online.
I already came across an article that I must have read back a while ago by Ned Block, which I still don't agree with -- maybe I don't get it, or we have very different ways of thinking about things.
I'm reading online before I try Tye, just to make sure I have in mind the fundamentals--which I only understand from some probably rather odd, self-taught perspective.
Also, thanks for the Chalmers reference. A bookstore a few blocks away has it on sale used at Amazon--sort of an amusing idea to order it online. Maybe I'll go tomorrow and see if it's still there.
How far along are you in graduate school?
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 17, 2006, at 4:07:55
In reply to Re: Heuristic? » Estella, posted by Jost on August 12, 2006, at 0:35:27
What was the Block article? I'm not sure whether I've read it, but I could read it and we could chat about it if you would like. I know a little bit about his views (though not much I'll admit...)
I'm supposed to be writing my doctoral thesis though I'm still scrambling a bit for a topic. Keep changing my mind. Related issues... But I need to fit in with what other people are doing and feel passionate about something at the same time. Maybe I'm a bit depressed or something... I feel like I'm not too sure what I'm up to really... Conference was so very hectic. I should take tomorrow off really. Went to the library and got all these books on the history of psychiatry... Maybe I could do for psychiatry what I've seen someone do for behavioural genetics? Who knows... Perhaps perhaps. Sigh. Need a bit of a break I think.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Self-Esteem | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.