The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.

Through A Glass Darkly

I find myself making posts on my blog out of very brief Facebook posts. I prefer to go with the brief posts on Facebook and the longer posts on my blog, but some issues are simply so important I feel the need to put them on the blog even if I lack the strength or endurance to make more lengthy presentations. If nothing else, it allows my close friends a clear view of those issues I think are of great importance and which I hope we will be able to discuss in the future.

Case in point:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/09/hurt-people-hurt-people-quote-origin-hustlers-phrase.html

The statement is not entirely accurate, rather it’s terribly simplistic. My own family histories show a deep reflection of the reality of this concept. Several intergenerational examples of individuals being hurt as children who then grew up to inflict similar or related hurt upon their children are well known to me. In one particular case I can track the hurt back to the current “hurter’s” great grandparents. There the trail grows cold. In another case within my family, I can also trace the harm back to the “hurter’s’” great grandparents. In that case, however, the chain was broken and has ceased being passed on down to future generations.

A more accurate statement would be that those who have been hurt find it difficult not to pass that hurt onto next generation, but they can and do accomplish this in many cases. Their are also cases in which the harm originates with a particular individual who was not hurt.

Please note that I am aware my the constant use of the word “hurt” is clumsy but I think it is appropriate in this particular post.

Check...mate?

Here's an interesting thought. Below is Jon Ronson's psychopath checklist [source-- psychologist Robert Hare's widely used psycho diagnostic tool, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)]. How many of these traits do you think apply to Donald Trump?

You have glibness and superficial charm

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Need for stimulation/proness to boredom

Pathological lying

Cunning/manipulative

Lack of remorse or guilt

Shallow affect/emotional range

Callous/lack of empathy

Parasitic lifestyle

Poor behavioral controls

Promiscuous sexual behavior

Early behavior problems

Lack of realistic long-term goals

Impulsivity

Irresponsibility

Failure to except responsibility for own actions

Many short term marital relationships

Revocation of conditional relief (recidivism if paroled)

Criminal versatility

Juvenile delinquency

Idle Thoughts -- Psychological Egoism Redux?

What a day!  Just realized I already did this one.  Look how different the answers are!

Psychological egoism

Psychological egoism is a belief that every action a person takes, any person, any action, is done solely for the purpose of satisfying that individual.  The basic argument is, we do things because our brain directs us to do. Our brain directs us to do things because it receives a stimulus to the reward center for so doing. Therefore, everything we do is done only for our own benefit.

This ignores the the sometimes tremendous sacrifices people make for their children, for their country, even for total strangers. Of course the psychological egoist says they only do those things because it stimulates the reward center of the brain. While that is true, it means that he is being rewarded by doing things for other people.Since the long term result may be intense dissatisfaction on the part of the individual performing the act, it seems clear that he is often performing an act which is not beneficial to himself.  The brief reward of stimulating a section of his brain is often very small compared the ultimate price for his action.  Essentially, the psychological egoist is isolating one small part of the process and claiming that is the entire process.

If you feel a reward for doing good for others that does not necessarily mean that you are selfish. The reward is, after all, for doing good to others, and that can only be described as altruistic.

The evolutionary argument in favor of psychological egoism is essentially the same argument as made by Dawkins in his selfish gene hypothesis. You can look at the arguments there and apply them here.

From Wikipedia, the best critique of psychological egoism that I can find:

Joel Feinberg, in his 1958 paper "Psychological Egoism", embraces a similar critique by drawing attention to the infinite regress of psychological egoism. He expounds it in the following cross-examination:

"All men desire only satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Satisfaction of their desires."

"Their desires for what?"

"Their desires for satisfaction."

"Satisfaction of what?"

"Their desires."

"For what?"

"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum.

Ad infinitum means onto infinity. In other words, it just goes on and never stops.  This is called circular reasoning or circular logic. It means that this is true because I say it's true but I only say it's true because it is true and it is true because I say it's true.  It actually proves nothing just keeps repeating its own argument round and round and round. It's a very common logical error. The elemental flaw here is that it assumes the thing is so and that becomes the basis for all the rest of the so-called reasoning.  Because the assumption has already been made that a thing is true, there's no need to actually prove that it's true.  It's just self-evident.

An afterthought. Just because the reward center of your brain lights up when you do something for others does not mean that other centers are not also stimulated. So, just as there is a desire to feel a reward, other parts of your brain may very well be signaling warnings directing you not to take that action. Psychological egoists ignore this complexity. They seek a very simple solution to a very complicated situation.

Idle Thoughts--Psychological Egoism

Psychological egoism is a broad concept which breaks up into many variants. In its broadest sense, it declares all human actions are based upon self interest. The only reason people do things which seem to be altruistic is because of the reward they expect to get from those actions.  For example, it could be argued that Bill and Melinda Gates are only working to give away their fortune because they wish to benefit from the praise they receive in return.

At first, this concept appears to be obvious on the face of it. All human motivations come from within the individual's brain.  There can be no other source.  All our actions are a result of the biochemical and structural functioning of our brains.

I remember dealing with this problem in high school. It was there I first read Ayn Rands' Atlas Shrugged and realized that even altruistic actions nevertheless came from our brains and gave us some sense of reward for having performed them.  Of course, Rands so-called philosophy ignored this subtlety. She simply stated you should always do what is selfish, with selfish being synonymous with greedy and self serving.  She goes so far as to condemn any altruistic action, declaring that it is, by nature, evil.

But this seemingly obvious factual basis for egoism comes into doubt when the subject is examined more thoroughly. Even acknowledging that the reward center of the brain lights up under functional magnetic resonance imaging when altruistic acts are performed, cannot this really be called selfish? After all, you are making a sacrifice. That sacrifice may cause you serious difficulties. Yet you feel rewarded when you do something which causes yourself discomfort or denial.

It seems to me that the issue here is actually one of definition. Yes, everything we do comes out of the function of our brain and therefore there is some benefit to us in the action, at least in the sense of personal satisfaction or a brief activation of the reward center of the brain.  Nevertheless, human beings acting in defense of their children or their country will subject themselves to death, mutilation, and other horrors.  They will do so even if they know for a fact those will be the result. How can that possibly be called selfish or self interested?

Those who are advocates of psychological egoism, in my opinion, have confused the basic functions of our bodies with a basic reality of our actions in the broader world.  They ignore actual real world consequences to focus upon internal physiological details.  As is generally true, the situation is much more complicated than this nice, simple, on-off explanation allows.