Buddha taught that peoples perspective of reality is skewed by there personal biases and prejudices. That is why he taught detachment. We have to be detached from our own beliefs and emotions in order to see reality objectively. When we detach from our thoughts and emotions, via meditation, we begin to realize that we are neither and that everything is transient and in a constant state of change, hence the doctrine of impermanence. In reality there is no self because there is nothing that is in a fixed state of existence. Our existence, if you can say we even have one, is one totality that is in a constant state of flux. Everything is continually rising and falling, coming in and going out again. Everything is a result of cause and effect there is no one doing anything.
I think the concept is that what you focus on is true. So when you focus on what you find valuable that will be your true self. It's not an absolute value, it's just a measurement which can change at any given time.
Perhaps the true self can be the actions that we do? Every action that we do is the "right" action for the time, so it could be an indication of what you truly judge to be correct.
I would say, the true self of marcus(or mark or any human), is how he/she reacts to the outside world tho his inner self(emotions). 1. He is homosexual, but says it is wrong. he travels across the world just to tell everyone that it is a sin. Which says, more about his personality, than JUST the fact that he is gay. Bc he cant chose to be gay. But his beliefs is something he can choose... In the other example, its the same. 2. He travels across the world to tell others, to accept gay people, even tho he hates them(an emotion he cant really choose neither). Marcus may hate gays, but the fact, that he still goes out there to open the minds of others, defines his real self. The choices we make, is what we are. And while emotions can be temporary(gay mark is a bad example)... and we cant really controll them, i think the beliefs we represent by our acts, is what makes our true self. (english is not my native language, sry)
Should we really define our "true self" trough the opinions of other people rather than through ourselves? Personally I believe, that humans naturally have contradictive ideas and beliefs, therefore the "true self" is just a mixture of our reason AND emotion. Why should we abandon either reason or emotion if both of them make up or personality even if they contradict?
I really really want to be true in my self so here I am searching about being true to yourself all the time I hate my self cause I just feel that I'm fakeee😢
Yeah.... Then compared queen N God N saviour.... I's There a human being?... A to O... N LETS Do research on less cost...Not Pers you... LETS See the ways related to N defining properties of self when emotions then of... To My understanding not just mad N therefore know cognitivism difference of murdered rights N freedom N... WILL!! Good wilL! Huntsman N snowflake unique.. Who is a Who... N not bluffed ro those blueprints that... Hey... Every Non valid argument RAUS! ;)
Ok. To u. What we r. N what we do. Now the less charged to absurd tilt of placed weight... No Have to fight to try to save the... Gone a the wind :')':
My true self is not defined by my beliefs alone or my emotions alone, yet a self-reflecting analysis of both these elements from which I choose due to the gift of freewill who I want to be and that is exactly who I am.
I can only write from my own experience. I don't care about anyone's sexual orientation but I did grow up in a very tumultuous childhood and because of that everyone questions me even though I have made repeated claims that I am not gay. both my parents were alcoholics My mother was the kind that passes out drunk and my father was a functioning alcoholic. my mother abandoned me to a psychiatric facility at around six and I stayed there until eight After that I was taken into state custody to a kind of orphanage which stayed there until I was ten. Then I stayed with foster parents until was almost nineteen after a stupid mistake they disowned me and I tried to reconnect to my remaining biological family but that didn't work out either. because of all that chaos which most of it I had no control tried to keep friends as long as possible to replace what I had lost...I considered that one person like my foster brother because we had such similar experiences. none of that mentions any of my education either in which I constantly had deal legitimate Lunch money bullies and not your average internet troll. essentially I have always treated everyone on the basis of their actions since in the macroscopic picture everything is dependent on voluntary actions even the people you consider family....it is something most people wouldn't understand.
I wonder what the results would be like with a topic less controversial than homosexuality. *e.g. Tim believes its unhealthy to smoke but just can't stop himself from smoking.* I do feel the pull of the "select whichever you think is good" hypothesis. In the smoker's case, I'd like to think that his belief that it's an unhealthy habit is more important to himself than the chemical addiction to nicotine. What would the opposite case for the smoker be? Perhaps *Tom believes everyone should have the right to smoke in public places but thinks smoking is disgusting* What's your reaction to Tom?
_"Does our ordinary notion of a “true self” simply pick out a certain part of the mind?"_ Is there an ordinary notion of a "true self"? This video is the first time in my life I've seen the term used. And it doesn't tell me what it's used _for_.
I think true self is feelings but after you've cleared all the negative beliefs you have. For instance, say I think I'm ugly. Is that the truth, what I truly feel, or is that a belief ? That's a belief . Society determined what characteristics were ugly. I think I'm ugly based on society's rules. But what about my own rules? My true feelings? My true self? My true self I don't even think about being pretty or ugly. I'm just me.
I can't help wanting to introduce "The Lie" If I believe a lie: "you're dumb, you're stupid, you're won't amount to anything, you're bad, you are ugly" These mask the true self, both in the area of belief and feelings. Thus the whole argument breaks down.
The answer becomes obvious when you consider everyone else's perspective. To disregard this is an assertion that one's agency is more, or the only one, that is valid. Additionally the brain has two hemispheres capable of independent thoughts. The true self is defined by your actions on the world stage.
to me it seems obvious that the choices you make are you. it doesn't matter if you feel in love with Matt if you choose to not be with Matt. what defines you is the personal act of saying yes to this or not to that. your choices make up who you are because they show when you think emotions should be listened to and when you think logic should rule. it shows your priorities which are ruled by the conscious AND the unconscious self
Both true selves are found in the conflict emergent between their beliefs and desires. Neither is 100% the image they present but they have balanced their rationale and beliefs to present the self they feel most genuine.
I still think emotions reveal true self and beliefs are formed by what we think is the reason why we feel that way. Personally, it seems to me that the liberal and conservative thinkers were just trying to pick the 'right' answer.
The issue stems from the fact that many people struggle to see that ones thinking, believing, and emotions are all ontologically the same stuff differing only as a result of emphasis. It's always about belief. To have certain desires (even carnal immoral ones like homosexuality) means that there is a part of you that *does* believe that it's good. The Scriptures call this the lust of the flesh. Whereas when one speaks of beliefs that are so central to the person such that even with the emotional desire (fleshy/carnal belief like an animal) the more central desire/belief that is located in the core of your person/soul, which is comprised of spirit, is the part that might, for example, hate homosexuality and desire heterosexual monogamous relationship or celibacy. This is what the Holy Scriptures often refer to as believing in your heart, that is, core. God desires that we crucify the flesh daily and its desires. So, we are identical with BOTH since we are both. But God knows that none of us will make it if every aspect of us is moral FIRST. So it is the desire of the heart that carries the greater weight.
Along the lines of the conclusion of the study, it seems the "true-self" is a coping mechanism. We're often told to tick one box or the other when it comes to issues, or to have a single static identity, yes or no, liberal or republican, but we have superbly flawed minds, and whenever someone has conflicting views, or indecision on an issue, true-self seems like another way to cope with the uneasiness a lot of people feel with uncertainty.
+Christopher Waldorf Tbh, I think there's a flaw in separating beliefs and emotions when it comes to the subject of a true self, because beliefs, at the heart of it, are emotions in their own right, only that they are codified in the form of language and stored in the realm of consciousness. A more accurate distinction in this topic would be to determine whether our true self constitutes that which we consciously know about ourselves or that which is unconscious within us. My answer to this is the latter. To me, the unconscious self is our true self as it consists of the most quintessential elements that make us unique individuals.
This completely ignores the components of our minds which regulates our unconscious selves. It seems you're saying the superego, and/or ego are not part of the thing you want to call "true-self". There is already a label for what you're describing and I think it's "id". if that's the case. Is that really how "true-self" is used in everyday language? If people mean "true-self" as a synonymous with id, that's fine, I don't really care about the label, but I find it to be a bit of a misnomer, and it's used much more liberally than that, and with more fuzzy meaning that usually.
This video had quite a few flaws, firstly is that I'm the second test both his emotions and his belief was that homosexuality is wrong and he just said it wasn't without truly believing it. Like if someone said they liked chicken but inside they could not stand chicken because they thought it was wrong to eat an animal and it tasted disgusting to them. This meant it was not a reverse of the first one when a guy was secretly attracted to men however both truly thought homosexuality was wrong and said it wasn't. Like if a Jewish person thought it was wrong to eat pork and therefore was disgusted by the idea of eating it and warned other people to not, he himself may like the smell of pork but still thinks it would be bad to eat it and is disgusted of the idea of doing so because it, to him, is a bad thing. In both instances they both had what they thought to be rational beliefs and felt very deep feelings not one or the other. The 'emotions' this talks about is just an uncontrollable impulses that have nothing to do with someone's true self. Someone's true self would be made of beliefs and values that they held deeply and could cause them to feel very emotional about them and control how they act
As a man (male or female) thinks, so is he. The way we think leads to what we do. What we do makes us who we are. You choose to be who you are, or others fill the vacuum formed by your intellectual laziness.
That is a really interesting experiment. It could be argued though that disgust towards homosexuality is a learned response, which his rational mind is strong enough to overcome with his beliefs that everyone is equal. Whereas secret homosexual desires are not something that could be learned. The rational mind is therefore adopting the learned attitude that homosexuality is a sin. Taking society's influence into account, the truest self could be said to be the one that both listens to one's instincts and also that chooses love and tolerance over hate and disgust.
Thank you for this! Which of the conflicting concepts would "Mark" and "Marcus" assign as being representative of their 'True Self'? One must also take into consideration the fact that the beliefs that people hold - such as the belief that homosexuality is wrong - aren't naturally-occurring (unlike sexual orientation). Children don't come into the world pre-packaged with prejudiced beliefs. They must be taught to be prejudiced from others who, themselves, were taught to be prejudiced.
I would like to have seen something to establish that people had a notion of a true self prior to being asked how their notion played out. That is, I wonder if the answers people give are just them riffing on the words 'true' and 'self' on the fly. If you were to invent some subject, say "the farm aid bill Obama wants passed", and asked what people thought about it, you'd receive plenty of opinions despite your question being the first they'd ever heard of the thing. How do we know this isn't what's happening generally with the true self?
Seeing the result of the experiment, I'm drawn to believe that that belief is more fundamental to the true self since each side favors that claim that supports what their belief of homosexuality is.
Maybe this is a more psychological problem, kind of reminds me of Freud's ego, super ego and id. I think the true self is the ego's conclusion from the thoughts of the id and super ego.
Well duh. Tell me something I don't know. This video didn't answered my questions at all. It only raised a new ones. First of all the answers were just an opinions-the cognitive beings that were born in the participants' minds that suits their own priorities and beliefs. It has nothing to do with how human feels about himself. He is conflicted between his beliefs and his emotions so he just has to choose what is more important to him. But still if he chooses one option that doesn't mean that the other one was wrong at all. It's still a part of him. That's the kind of situation where your personality is split between ego, shadow and persona. I think the core of being true self is reflecting your real priorities through your persona and accepting your shadow as a natural part of you. So the answer is: Both options are the part of his true self. And I exclaim that their aren't his true self but rather the part, the small piece of his true self.
Hmm. I am not sure the conclusion follows from the premise. It shouldn’t be surprising that if a group of people are presented with a person with such a conflict that they might be confused. If we present them with a picture of some one who has completely androgynous features, should we be surprised when the group can not agree the person is male or female? And I fail to see how the opinion of a group is relevant to the notion of what is “the true self.” I don’t even know what is even meant by “the true self” as this video never presents any thoughts on what it is or what it might be. Is there such a person as a “false self?” Just me asking questions.
I really really want to be true in my self so here I am searching about being true to yourself all the time I hate my self cause I just feel that I'm fakeee😢 What should I dooo😭
The initial question is flawed and not useful. Belief vs. Emotions; which is the true self? The question assumes that one of the two IS the true self, and that is such an absurd leap of illogical faith my head spun. (No, not literally! LOL)
Well I can confidently state that I'm not the person that I truly am. Seriously though, why should we believe that there even is such a thing as a true self?
It's not about whether there 'truly is' a true self or not - people believe that there is such a thing, and their related intuitions are therefore worth examining
Niall Ward-O'Brien Well according to the results I got the opposite impression, this didn't seem like an issue that most people thought about and thus when confronted with the scenario and the term "true self" they formed a definition of the term ad hoc which conformed to their biases. At least, that's how it seemed to me.
9 ปีที่แล้ว
Paradoxarn Agreed. Philosophy at its worst. IMO the experiment shows that the questions are problematic, not the answers. It doesn't matter if people think there is such a thing as a true self, belief in it just tells us that they will be capable of giving us an answer as to what it might be.
Paradoxarn I don't know about you but I regularly hear people say things like "so-and-so is a good person really" or "that's not _really_ him" or things along those lines - statements that refer to some 'true nature' that people possess. It's not an idea that Knobe just came up with
Earl Minime Why doesn't it matter? People clearly have strong and also conflicting ideas about what our 'true selves' consist of and this seems like it has significant implications for our understanding of other people's actions, motivations and beliefs.
I have an interesting history with the morality of being gay. I used to be an atheist, and then a Muslim, and am now an agnostic. As a Muslim I switched my previously held belief that being gay is okay and natural, and thought that it was morally wrong and unnatural. It was reason (albeit cult reasoning), that lead me to switch positions. I don't know what the true self is, but I do think that a healthy balance of emotion and reason are always good.
matthew barnard That which is prior to the belief and the emotion. Beliefs are not always self-generated, but "borrowed". The origin of the emotion may have to be defined, too.
Has anyone ever thought maybe there is no "True Self" and that we're all really just bits of information coming and going about our lives, in whichever way our programming dictates us to go.
Who designed this study? Are we blind to the blatant biases in this entire video? A scientific study would have used a politically neutral subject and divided the participants into liberal and conservative... On the contrary, they could have used the same study with a politically neutral group and measure the results. I would estimate the results wouldn’t have been 50/50 emotion to beliefs. You can’t have two conflicting variables in a study. “Homosexual rights” is a politically charged issue and the groups are organized into political parties. Therefore, the data is irrelevant and renders this video obsolete. The analysis of the study is incorrect since the study itself is biased. In fact, from this study, you could make an argument that beliefs are an indication of one’s true self since the participants always stuck to their belief systems when surveyed. No matter which way you slice it, this video is complete trash. I would have expected better from Yale University.
![PHILOSOPHY - Metaphysics: The Problem of Free Will [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iSfXdNIolQA/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Mind-Body Dualism [HD]](/img/n.gif)
True self is the combination of the two. If a conflict arises, you are what you chose to act on.
I wanted to say that!
Neither beliefs or emotions are the true self. The true self is that which experiences the beliefs and emotions.
This comment exactly encapsulates my view of identity.
these videos are baby talk for idiots.
could you explain this more? im curious. maybe give an example?
i thought your true self was the actions you do
I Am Awareness
Buddha taught that peoples perspective of reality is skewed by there personal biases and prejudices. That is why he taught detachment. We have to be detached from our own beliefs and emotions in order to see reality objectively. When we detach from our thoughts and emotions, via meditation, we begin to realize that we are neither and that everything is transient and in a constant state of change, hence the doctrine of impermanence. In reality there is no self because there is nothing that is in a fixed state of existence. Our existence, if you can say we even have one, is one totality that is in a constant state of flux. Everything is continually rising and falling, coming in and going out again. Everything is a result of cause and effect there is no one doing anything.
I think the concept is that what you focus on is true. So when you focus on what you find valuable that will be your true self. It's not an absolute value, it's just a measurement which can change at any given time.
Nice comment!
more reasons as to why mbti is fake
Perhaps the true self can be the actions that we do? Every action that we do is the "right" action for the time, so it could be an indication of what you truly judge to be correct.
I would say, the true self of marcus(or mark or any human), is how he/she reacts to the outside world tho his inner self(emotions). 1. He is homosexual, but says it is wrong. he travels across the world just to tell everyone that it is a sin. Which says, more about his personality, than JUST the fact that he is gay. Bc he cant chose to be gay. But his beliefs is something he can choose...
In the other example, its the same. 2. He travels across the world to tell others, to accept gay people, even tho he hates them(an emotion he cant really choose neither). Marcus may hate gays, but the fact, that he still goes out there to open the minds of others, defines his real self. The choices we make, is what we are.
And while emotions can be temporary(gay mark is a bad example)... and we cant really controll them, i think the beliefs we represent by our acts, is what makes our true self. (english is not my native language, sry)
Should we really define our "true self" trough the opinions of other people rather than through ourselves? Personally I believe, that humans naturally have contradictive ideas and beliefs, therefore the "true self" is just a mixture of our reason AND emotion. Why should we abandon either reason or emotion if both of them make up or personality even if they contradict?
I really really want to be true in my self so here I am searching about being true to yourself all the time I hate my self cause I just feel that I'm fakeee😢
Emotions are dynamic, as are beliefs. To try and infer there is a static (easily identifiable) 'true self' is a fools errand.
Yeah.... Then compared queen N God N saviour.... I's There a human being?... A to O... N LETS Do research on less cost...Not Pers you... LETS See the ways related to N defining properties of self when emotions then of... To My understanding not just mad N therefore know cognitivism difference of murdered rights N freedom N... WILL!! Good wilL! Huntsman N snowflake unique.. Who is a Who... N not bluffed ro those blueprints that... Hey... Every Non valid argument RAUS! ;)
Ok. To u. What we r. N what we do. Now the less charged to absurd tilt of placed weight... No Have to fight to try to save the... Gone a the wind :')':
My true self is not defined by my beliefs alone or my emotions alone, yet a self-reflecting analysis of both these elements from which I choose due to the gift of freewill who I want to be and that is exactly who I am.
I can only write from my own experience. I don't care about anyone's sexual orientation but I did grow up in a very tumultuous childhood and because of that everyone questions me even though I have made repeated claims that I am not gay. both my parents were alcoholics My mother was the kind that passes out drunk and my father was a functioning alcoholic. my mother abandoned me to a psychiatric facility at around six and I stayed there until eight After that I was taken into state custody to a kind of orphanage which stayed there until I was ten. Then I stayed with foster parents until was almost nineteen after a stupid mistake they disowned me and I tried to reconnect to my remaining biological family but that didn't work out either. because of all that chaos which most of it I had no control tried to keep friends as long as possible to replace what I had lost...I considered that one person like my foster brother because we had such similar experiences. none of that mentions any of my education either in which I constantly had deal legitimate Lunch money bullies and not your average internet troll. essentially I have always treated everyone on the basis of their actions since in the macroscopic picture everything is dependent on voluntary actions even the people you consider family....it is something most people wouldn't understand.
I wonder what the results would be like with a topic less controversial than homosexuality.
*e.g. Tim believes its unhealthy to smoke but just can't stop himself from smoking.*
I do feel the pull of the "select whichever you think is good" hypothesis. In the smoker's case, I'd like to think that his belief that it's an unhealthy habit is more important to himself than the chemical addiction to nicotine.
What would the opposite case for the smoker be? Perhaps
*Tom believes everyone should have the right to smoke in public places but thinks smoking is disgusting*
What's your reaction to Tom?
_"Does our ordinary notion of a “true self” simply pick out a certain part of the mind?"_
Is there an ordinary notion of a "true self"? This video is the first time in my life I've seen the term used. And it doesn't tell me what it's used _for_.
I think true self is feelings but after you've cleared all the negative beliefs you have. For instance, say I think I'm ugly. Is that the truth, what I truly feel, or is that a belief ? That's a belief . Society determined what characteristics were ugly. I think I'm ugly based on society's rules. But what about my own rules? My true feelings? My true self? My true self I don't even think about being pretty or ugly. I'm just me.
I can't help wanting to introduce "The Lie" If I believe a lie: "you're dumb, you're stupid, you're won't amount to anything, you're bad, you are ugly" These mask the true self, both in the area of belief and feelings. Thus the whole argument breaks down.
The answer becomes obvious when you consider everyone else's perspective. To disregard this is an assertion that one's agency is more, or the only one, that is valid. Additionally the brain has two hemispheres capable of independent thoughts. The true self is defined by your actions on the world stage.
to me it seems obvious that the choices you make are you. it doesn't matter if you feel in love with Matt if you choose to not be with Matt. what defines you is the personal act of saying yes to this or not to that. your choices make up who you are because they show when you think emotions should be listened to and when you think logic should rule. it shows your priorities which are ruled by the conscious AND the unconscious self
Both true selves are found in the conflict emergent between their beliefs and desires. Neither is 100% the image they present but they have balanced their rationale and beliefs to present the self they feel most genuine.
I still think emotions reveal true self and beliefs are formed by what we think is the reason why we feel that way. Personally, it seems to me that the liberal and conservative thinkers were just trying to pick the 'right' answer.
It´s neither. The true self is That-Which-Perceives the both me-selves or sub-personalities.
The issue stems from the fact that many people struggle to see that ones thinking, believing, and emotions are all ontologically the same stuff differing only as a result of emphasis. It's always about belief. To have certain desires (even carnal immoral ones like homosexuality) means that there is a part of you that *does* believe that it's good. The Scriptures call this the lust of the flesh. Whereas when one speaks of beliefs that are so central to the person such that even with the emotional desire (fleshy/carnal belief like an animal) the more central desire/belief that is located in the core of your person/soul, which is comprised of spirit, is the part that might, for example, hate homosexuality and desire heterosexual monogamous relationship or celibacy. This is what the Holy Scriptures often refer to as believing in your heart, that is, core. God desires that we crucify the flesh daily and its desires. So, we are identical with BOTH since we are both. But God knows that none of us will make it if every aspect of us is moral FIRST. So it is the desire of the heart that carries the greater weight.
Along the lines of the conclusion of the study, it seems the "true-self" is a coping mechanism. We're often told to tick one box or the other when it comes to issues, or to have a single static identity, yes or no, liberal or republican, but we have superbly flawed minds, and whenever someone has conflicting views, or indecision on an issue, true-self seems like another way to cope with the uneasiness a lot of people feel with uncertainty.
+Christopher Waldorf Tbh, I think there's a flaw in separating beliefs and emotions when it comes to the subject of a true self, because beliefs, at the heart of it, are emotions in their own right, only that they are codified in the form of language and stored in the realm of consciousness. A more accurate distinction in this topic would be to determine whether our true self constitutes that which we consciously know about ourselves or that which is unconscious within us. My answer to this is the latter. To me, the unconscious self is our true self as it consists of the most quintessential elements that make us unique individuals.
This completely ignores the components of our minds which regulates our unconscious selves. It seems you're saying the superego, and/or ego are not part of the thing you want to call "true-self". There is already a label for what you're describing and I think it's "id". if that's the case. Is that really how "true-self" is used in everyday language? If people mean "true-self" as a synonymous with id, that's fine, I don't really care about the label, but I find it to be a bit of a misnomer, and it's used much more liberally than that, and with more fuzzy meaning that usually.
This video had quite a few flaws, firstly is that I'm the second test both his emotions and his belief was that homosexuality is wrong and he just said it wasn't without truly believing it. Like if someone said they liked chicken but inside they could not stand chicken because they thought it was wrong to eat an animal and it tasted disgusting to them. This meant it was not a reverse of the first one when a guy was secretly attracted to men however both truly thought homosexuality was wrong and said it wasn't. Like if a Jewish person thought it was wrong to eat pork and therefore was disgusted by the idea of eating it and warned other people to not, he himself may like the smell of pork but still thinks it would be bad to eat it and is disgusted of the idea of doing so because it, to him, is a bad thing. In both instances they both had what they thought to be rational beliefs and felt very deep feelings not one or the other. The 'emotions' this talks about is just an uncontrollable impulses that have nothing to do with someone's true self. Someone's true self would be made of beliefs and values that they held deeply and could cause them to feel very emotional about them and control how they act
Why can all parts be the true self, and there be conflicting parts?
This guy gets it
It's a combination of the two: emotions and beliefs
I think that
I think the two aren't mutually exclusive. Your true self can be your belief and emotions , even if they seem to contradict on some levels.
As a man (male or female) thinks, so is he. The way we think leads to what we do. What we do makes us who we are. You choose to be who you are, or others fill the vacuum formed by your intellectual laziness.
This just explains ego and cognitive bias. The true self just observes and doesn't make judgements
With the exception of the artificial and abstract thinker in you, you are pure Nature.
Sorry, this presenter mixes personality with self.
thank you Sylar for explaining this.
That is a really interesting experiment. It could be argued though that disgust towards homosexuality is a learned response, which his rational mind is strong enough to overcome with his beliefs that everyone is equal. Whereas secret homosexual desires are not something that could be learned. The rational mind is therefore adopting the learned attitude that homosexuality is a sin. Taking society's influence into account, the truest self could be said to be the one that both listens to one's instincts and also that chooses love and tolerance over hate and disgust.
That was amazing journey for my mind, thanks :)
Thank you for this!
Which of the conflicting concepts would "Mark" and "Marcus" assign as being representative of their 'True Self'?
One must also take into consideration the fact that the beliefs that people hold - such as the belief that homosexuality is wrong - aren't naturally-occurring (unlike sexual orientation). Children don't come into the world pre-packaged with prejudiced beliefs. They must be taught to be prejudiced from others who, themselves, were taught to be prejudiced.
I would like to have seen something to establish that people had a notion of a true self prior to being asked how their notion played out. That is, I wonder if the answers people give are just them riffing on the words 'true' and 'self' on the fly.
If you were to invent some subject, say "the farm aid bill Obama wants passed", and asked what people thought about it, you'd receive plenty of opinions despite your question being the first they'd ever heard of the thing. How do we know this isn't what's happening generally with the true self?
Seeing the result of the experiment, I'm drawn to believe that that belief is more fundamental to the true self since each side favors that claim that supports what their belief of homosexuality is.
I think it's both.
Maybe this is a more psychological problem, kind of reminds me of Freud's ego, super ego and id. I think the true self is the ego's conclusion from the thoughts of the id and super ego.
It's a combination of the two: emotions and beliefs
I think that
Excellent 👏🏽
Im having an identity crisis so Im here lol
Well duh. Tell me something I don't know. This video didn't answered my questions at all. It only raised a new ones. First of all the answers were just an opinions-the cognitive beings that were born in the participants' minds that suits their own priorities and beliefs. It has nothing to do with how human feels about himself. He is conflicted between his beliefs and his emotions so he just has to choose what is more important to him. But still if he chooses one option that doesn't mean that the other one was wrong at all. It's still a part of him. That's the kind of situation where your personality is split between ego, shadow and persona. I think the core of being true self is reflecting your real priorities through your persona and accepting your shadow as a natural part of you. So the answer is: Both options are the part of his true self. And I exclaim that their aren't his true self but rather the part, the small piece of his true self.
It looks like you just stumbled onto a form of self-serving bias. The "true" self is whatever reinforces my beliefs more.
Hmm. I am not sure the conclusion follows from the premise. It shouldn’t be surprising that if a group of people are presented with a person with such a conflict that they might be confused. If we present them with a picture of some one who has completely androgynous features, should we be surprised when the group can not agree the person is male or female? And I fail to see how the opinion of a group is relevant to the notion of what is “the true self.” I don’t even know what is even meant by “the true self” as this video never presents any thoughts on what it is or what it might be.
Is there such a person as a “false self?”
Just me asking questions.
Read the Upanishads.
Or read silence of the heart by Robert Adams, if you don't have time for the entire Upanishads and Vedas.
I really really want to be true in my self so here I am searching about being true to yourself all the time I hate my self cause I just feel that I'm fakeee😢
What should I dooo😭
Be more kind to yourself. Give up the search it can't be found you are it.
The initial question is flawed and not useful. Belief vs. Emotions; which is the true self? The question assumes that one of the two IS the true self, and that is such an absurd leap of illogical faith my head spun. (No, not literally! LOL)
Well I can confidently state that I'm not the person that I truly am. Seriously though, why should we believe that there even is such a thing as a true self?
It's not about whether there 'truly is' a true self or not - people believe that there is such a thing, and their related intuitions are therefore worth examining
Niall Ward-O'Brien Well according to the results I got the opposite impression, this didn't seem like an issue that most people thought about and thus when confronted with the scenario and the term "true self" they formed a definition of the term ad hoc which conformed to their biases. At least, that's how it seemed to me.
Paradoxarn Agreed. Philosophy at its worst. IMO the experiment shows that the questions are problematic, not the answers. It doesn't matter if people think there is such a thing as a true self, belief in it just tells us that they will be capable of giving us an answer as to what it might be.
Paradoxarn I don't know about you but I regularly hear people say things like "so-and-so is a good person really" or "that's not _really_ him" or things along those lines - statements that refer to some 'true nature' that people possess. It's not an idea that Knobe just came up with
Earl Minime Why doesn't it matter? People clearly have strong and also conflicting ideas about what our 'true selves' consist of and this seems like it has significant implications for our understanding of other people's actions, motivations and beliefs.
is it much to say that this presentation has some 'unphilosopical' philosophy behind it?
I'm innocent leave me alone
Hmmm
I have an interesting history with the morality of being gay. I used to be an atheist, and then a Muslim, and am now an agnostic.
As a Muslim I switched my previously held belief that being gay is okay and natural, and thought that it was morally wrong and unnatural. It was reason (albeit cult reasoning), that lead me to switch positions.
I don't know what the true self is, but I do think that a healthy balance of emotion and reason are always good.
i might be just conservative
The true self is no-self.
deepak is that you?
matthew barnard That which is prior to the belief and the emotion. Beliefs are not always self-generated, but "borrowed". The origin of the emotion may have to be defined, too.
Just read Stirner and leave this pseud nonsense in the trash where it belongs.
Not compatible yet W sociology? Lol mhohhohohahsh
Has anyone ever thought maybe there is no "True Self" and that we're all really just bits of information coming and going about our lives, in whichever way our programming dictates us to go.
Who designed this study? Are we blind to the blatant biases in this entire video? A scientific study would have used a politically neutral subject and divided the participants into liberal and conservative... On the contrary, they could have used the same study with a politically neutral group and measure the results. I would estimate the results wouldn’t have been 50/50 emotion to beliefs. You can’t have two conflicting variables in a study. “Homosexual rights” is a politically charged issue and the groups are organized into political parties. Therefore, the data is irrelevant and renders this video obsolete. The analysis of the study is incorrect since the study itself is biased. In fact, from this study, you could make an argument that beliefs are an indication of one’s true self since the participants always stuck to their belief systems when surveyed. No matter which way you slice it, this video is complete trash. I would have expected better from Yale University.
Self doesnt exist