Identity

[vaguely dissatisfied]

There seems to be a pervasive human need to 'have an identity'.

Why do you suppose this phenomenon exists?

What are the criteria for identity?

Is this need for identity useful or harmful to individuals and to the species?

[thod]

An identity is achieved both by deciding what you are and what you are not.

As social animals humans have a need to belong to part of a group. If no such group is self evident they pick criteria to form a group. Being part of a group is necessary for resource contention. In a group ones actions are magnified and things can be achieved that are not achievable alone. The group offer protection against other groups.

Consider Africa with its tribes. They are genetically similar, they are cultural similar etc. Yet the tribes fight amongst each other for limited resources. Without a tribe the individual is easy to destroy. Thus all surviving people are those that wanted to form a tribe.

In the US you see people divide themselves into white, blacks, hispanics and asians because this is easy to identify. Its much harder to use ideas as identifiers since these cannot be seen and are easy to fake. In the middle ages, race was not important. There was Christendom, the Christians, that would fight Muslims and pagans. You see youths divide themselves in punks, goths, emos etc based on music preference. It gives them a sense of belonging whilst define another non member group. It can be anything at all. Blood lines through family are the most common.

Wherever you get contention for limited resources grouping in order to secure a larger share, whilst denying others offers an advantage.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Thod

Do you think this is useful or harmful today?

[thod]

There is no doubt that from a systemic perspective it is harmful. An ideal meritocracy would select the best candidate from everyone. However you can rise higher than your attributes would merit by belonging to the right group. The ivy league guys do favors for each other to ensure their club stays at the top. The individual neither offering nor receiving such favors is at a disadvantage.

There is basic contention in doing what is best for the group and doing what is best for yourself, in this case the sub group. It is better to be king in a slightly poorer land than to be a serf in a rich land.

[Crawdaddy1975]

It is better to be king in a slightly poorer land than to be a serf in a rich land.

Thus it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.

Do you mean identity as defined as an ego or as belonging to a certain clic?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Thus it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.

Do you mean identity as defined as an ego or as belonging to a certain clic?
Both.

Personal identity seems to involve alot of aspects, but particularily social criteria.

[sriv]

This form of identity probably exists where there is sentience.

Do you think this is useful or harmful today?

It is what makes us unique. It is useful and harmful, but it is not a thing to be given up.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Why should we not give this up? Also, what's the big deal about being unique and sentient?

[sriv]

What life would you enjoy better? The oppressed or the free? It is human nature to be free and have an identity of his own separate than everyone else. Then again, there are always the people that go into the Oversoul bs. IMO most people get completely corrupted by power, so if we did not have this need for identity, the men with the power would turn us into slaves. 1984! It might just be YET another defense mechanism promoting competition between life, and members of the same species.

[Motor Jax]

i have my own identity

but it seems there are many cliches anywhere you go

i never gotten into the cliche though

i mean, i know people

but i dn't hang with people

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What life would you enjoy better? The oppressed or the free? It is human nature to be free and have an identity of his own separate than everyone else. Then again, there are always the people that go into the Oversoul bs. IMO most people get completely corrupted by power, so if we did not have this need for identity, the men with the power would turn us into slaves. 1984! It might just be YET another defense mechanism promoting competition between life, and members of the same species.
To me, identity seems to rob people of their freedom. They are tied to a group and 'group think' when they try to take on an identity.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 17 seconds later...

i have my own identity

but it seems there are many cliches anywhere you go

i never gotten into the cliche though

i mean, i know people

but i dn't hang with people
I'm also referring to racial identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity............

[thod]

What is it to be an individual? You could say its about making choices, the choices you make define your individuality. This is mostly to do with mental matters, not physical. You select the areas of knowledge and the ideas from that to build your picture of the world and your place in it. Our picture of the universe is very different from that of the medieval scholars and so our concept of identity is different. Although we all believe we are individuals, most people only slightly vary from the norm. This means that they are not unique.

If everyone is individual, then what is the basis for society. Without some shared themes rule is by the majority imposing via men with guns. Such a state is open for conquest. This may be by a foreign state, such as the European colonists did with the disorganized third world. The alternative is that the individuals are replaced by more group oriented cultures. This is akin to the immigration problems seen in the developed nations. Countries I have been every job is taken by locals, you cant even drive a cab. There is no way for you to move and live there. The US/UK has no such barriers because its residents cannot group to defend their interests.

The nation of individuals is short sighted. Each man doing what is best for himself is limited. In helping the group you belong to you also help yourself as an individual. The first thing any totalitarian does is divide and conquer. Only groups are able to oppose groups, the individual is too easy to remove. As everyone finds, they as an individual are ineffective, they are swept along by whatever currents pass. To have an effect on anything means grouping.

[Motor Jax]

i wouldn't say that i have a racial or ethnic identity, but if you're asking if i would stand by my fellow country, i would have to say yes

every country, every commitee, every organization comes together simply because of identity

now, cliches work the same way also

i really cannot see myself hanging out with Wall St or Lawyers

why?

cause i really don't identify with them

but in order for a group to stand together and get something done, there has to be a common identity with something to bind them together

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What is it to be an individual? You could say its about making choices, the choices you make define your individuality. This is mostly to do with mental matters, not physical. You select the areas of knowledge and the ideas from that to build your picture of the world and your place in it. Our picture of the universe is very different from that of the medieval scholars and so our concept of identity is different. Although we all believe we are individuals, most people only slightly vary from the norm. This means that they are not unique.

If everyone is individual, then what is the basis for society. Without some shared themes rule is by the majority imposing via men with guns. Such a state is open for conquest. This may be by a foreign state, such as the European colonists did with the disorganized third world. The alternative is that the individuals are replaced by more group oriented cultures. This is akin to the immigration problems seen in the developed nations. Countries I have been every job is taken by locals, you cant even drive a cab. There is no way for you to move and live there. The US/UK has no such barriers because its residents cannot group to defend their interests.

The nation of individuals is short sighted. Each man doing what is best for himself is limited. In helping the group you belong to you also help yourself as an individual. The first thing any totalitarian does is divide and conquer. Only groups are able to oppose groups, the individual is too easy to remove. As everyone finds, they as an individual are ineffective, they are swept along by whatever currents pass. To have an effect on anything means grouping.
This does sound right to me. I suppose, for someone like myself, there is little hope that I can hold out in society for any length of time.

[zoophilia]

I tend not to have a very strong non-fluctuating identity. I do not think humans need one. Autistics in particular tend to form weaker identities than the average person. I`ll go look up the neurological functioning this has been correlated to. I think brains with higher representational capability (particularly those w/ high maths abilities) are more capable of "floating" their personalities as needed. //edit// related to a signal within the cingulate cortex

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I tend not to have a very strong non-fluctuating identity. I do not think humans need one. Autistics in particular tend to form weaker identities than the average person. I`ll go look up the neurological functioning this has been correlated to. I think brains with higher representational capability (particularly those w/ high maths abilities) are more capable of "floating" their personalities as needed. //edit// related to a signal within the cingulate cortex
Cool. I'd like to hear whatever you find on the subject.

[Jgib5328]

I think it's important to have an identity for two reasons.

One, if you are one of those kinds of people who likes to be associated with a group of people, then a shared identity can be sort of a comfort to you. Most minority groups that went to my high school took great pride in their identity and were happy because of it. They were able to find common ground with someone and were allowed to have friends and people who cared about them,

Two, if you are an individual who prides yourself on uniqueness, then identity is important as well. It is an important thing for individuals to be unique and somewhat separate from the crowd. That's what makes people interesting. Why shouldn't we have our own identities? Should we all dress, think, talk, and act the same as each other? People are all different and have different personalities and that should show in their identity.

It can be harmful, mainly in the first case I described. Most of those minority groups wouldn't pay attention to the people who weren't in their group. There was almost no interaction between them. That's kind of like how my college is. There's a group of minorities and they have their own little culture and don't seem to let anybody in. So it's bad because there is a lack of integration between people and there will always be a misunderstanding and some form of discrimination.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

If there were no groups, then there would be no minority groups.

But, why do we have this need to be unique or to have an identity? Why's it so important to us?

[Motor Jax]

its all part of building a community, i think

[Jgib5328]

If there were no groups, then there would be no minority groups.

But, why do we have this need to be unique or to have an identity? Why's it so important to us?

Because we are different people. People form groups with people who have some shared difference or commonality between them. If everyone were the same, then there'd be no need for groups, because you'd be indifferent between hanging out with person 1 or person 2.

We need to be unique because we are. If we were all the same, then uniqueness wouldn't exist, but since we are different, not having a unique identity, would be restricting our expression and being untruthful to ourselves. In reality I'm different from you, you're different from me, she's different from him, etc. We need identity and uniqueness, because that is innate to each human being.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Because we are different people. People form groups with people who have some shared difference or commonality between them. If everyone were the same, then there'd be no need for groups, because you'd be indifferent between hanging out with person 1 or person 2.

We need to be unique because we are. If we were all the same, then uniqueness wouldn't exist, but since we are different, not having a unique identity, would be restricting our expression and being untruthful to ourselves. In reality I'm different from you, you're different from me, she's different from him, etc. We need identity and uniqueness, because that is innate to each human being.
Yes, but it sounds contradictory...we need to feel unique (which means different from everyone else) yet we also need to feel like we are the same as everyone else.

[Jgib5328]

Yes, but it sounds contradictory...we need to feel unique (which means different from everyone else) yet we also need to feel like we are the same as everyone else.

Nope, I said there were two different groups of people. Ones who wanted to share a collective identity, and ones who wanted their own individual identity. I'm sure there are also those who are in between as well.

[Taberculosis]

Eh. Everyone is unique. .... Just like everyone else.

I really cannot stand "nonconformists" and people who try to be "different". Seriously. No one really cares what you do unless it involves them directly.

[Metafire]

Maybe the tendencies to have the need for having an identity as member of a group and the complementary tendency to have the need for having an identity as unique individual are just expressions of two different strategies to become interesting for others. The first strategy would be to join a group to have something in common with others and sticking together to increase the chance of useful social contact. Someone could seem interesting to others just because he or she is a member of the same group. On the other hand such people don't stand out too much if they are surrounded by too many similar guys. So they won't attract real attention to themselves personally. So some people use the other strategy and try to be different and emphasize individual traits to get seen or so. If you don't have a group you'd like to identify yourself with the latter would be the preferrable strategy. At least I would explain my strategy like that ;)

In practise both strategies are used at the same time but to an individual degree. Just look at this forum. INTJs tend to be individualistic, but stick to an INTJ forum.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Maybe the tendencies to have the need for having an identity as member of a group and the complementary tendency to have the need for having an identity as unique individual are just expressions of two different strategies to become interesting for others. The first strategy would be to join a group to have something in common with others and sticking together to increase the chance of useful social contact. Someone could seem interesting to others just because he or she is a member of the same group. On the other hand such people don't stand out too much if they are surrounded by too many similar guys. So they won't attract real attention to themselves personally. So some people use the other strategy and try to be different and emphasize individual traits to get seen or so. If you don't have a group you'd like to identify yourself with the latter would be the preferrable strategy. At least I would explain my strategy like that ;)

In practise both strategies are used at the same time but to an individual degree. Just look at this forum. INTJs tend to be individualistic, but stick to an INTJ forum.
It seems to me that people who are group joiners (in whatever capacity) are looking for acceptance and that people who are seeking uniqueness and are not group joiners are looking for as much independence as they can possibly get.

Whatya think?

[thod]

Not really. Group joiners may well be joining the group for personal advantage (masons), or for empowerment (political party). They do not subsume their personality to the group but accept some limitations and responsibilities on themselves in order to gain the advantages of the group. This is no different to going to work where you give up something, your time, for the advantages of having an income. The simple equation of what you lose to what you gain determines if you join.

The ultimate independent is the hermit. Hermits do not effect the world but are still effected by it. They may be unique but nobody knows it. A balanced life is best.

A big problem in the US is people have no fall back systems. Whereas 30 years ago if the husband got sick, the wife could go to work. They would earn less income, but with the husband looking after the kids they survived. Now with both partners at work, they barely stay afloat. If one of them loses the job the family is in big trouble and they lose the house. The advantage of socialist (group) systems is this is covered. Independence is fine for the strong young man with no dependents, or the rich. The weak and the vulnerable always do better in a group system. Few people manage to pass through life without hitting some bumps where they become dependent. One of the problems with INTJ forum is all the young male college kids yakking on about libertarianism. They have no experience of life and think they will always be strong and independent.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes..........sad to say, but I mourn my independence like a death in the family. It was probably all an illusion anyway, but it kept the endorphins flowing.

I agree that there are alot of people who join groups because they have no other choice, however, there does seem to be an enormous amount of people who join to belong. What I find interesting is that these same people who join groups to belong or to indentify themselves with a particular way of thinking or behaving, also want to seperate themselves from others by linking with the aforementioned group.

Also, for the most part, human identity appears to be completely defined by social, external criteria.

[Lrigyttiw]

a really really good book that addresses the roles of "identity" and "ego" is "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle. It actually relaxed me and made me embrace my INTJness.

[HAL]

identity is closely linked to our sense of self awareness.
you're stuck with yourself whether you like it or not.
we have a need to define in some way that which is persistently with us.
and identity is the way we do it.
definitions vary.
and depending on the strength of the sense of self, the individual may choose to identify more strongly with an individual identity like us intjs or subsume themselves to the group letting that be their main identity.
i see the latter as weaker. i think people who only adopt the group identity never fully enjoy life. they are existentially handicapped in a sense.

[Motor Jax]

oh HAL, i love that avy!!!

from Terminator, right?

anyways, the young have it all. no independence, no bills, no job... no wonder we miss our days of youth... all we had to do was have fun...

damn, that was over a couple of decades ago...

[mkay]

Motor Jax, is "no independence" a typo?

I had a pretty good youth, but I much prefer being an adult. I feel very comfortable with my responsibilities because I've consciously chosen them. I feel immense freedom as an adult.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Hal
"....i see the latter as weaker. i think people who only adopt the group identity never fully enjoy life. they are existentially handicapped in a sense."

Would you care to elaborate? It seems to me that individuals identify their own traits as strengths and 'others' traits (ones they don't share) as weaknesses.

[HAL]

vaguely dissatisfied...
what you said is very true. i take my own preferences into account in my opinions. i am simply saying because of the way i live my life, i have trouble imagining how another person synthesizes the same experiences and emotions.
for me there is less enjoyment in the group identity than most people seem to derive.
the gatherings, the customs, the collective milestone events. in my logic, if you've invested a lot of energy into the collective you don't have as much left for yourself.
my life has been made so much richer in the realization of the things that i love. the things that make me myself.
that is why i just have trouble placing myself in the shoes of someone totally invested in the group.

[mkay]

the gatherings, the customs, the collective milestone events. in my logic, if you've invested a lot of energy into the collective you don't have as much left for yourself.

I think that's part of the disconnect both ways: Someone who likes being in a collective draws energy from that, while that would drain you. You see it as a negative. The other "side": Joiners sometimes see only from their perspective, too, that not being in a group must be some form of deprivation. That's of course a false assumption when applied to INTJs, at least to some degree.

I don't see either way as better. I think they're just different. I can see the argument from an INTJ perspective, that there's strength in independence. From the other perspective, one could argue that there is strength in numbers.

Personally, I think of my "real" identity as being very specific -- more my thoughts and such, which no one will ever know completely. Those are separate identities from how people know me in various roles in life. All are part of the whole. ... Squishy, but when I tell someone I'm Chinese American in a forum context, for example, I offer that as a background info, to try to help explain what helped shaped my perspective. But that doesn't mean I see that as my identity, if that makes any sense.

[zoophilia]

I think identity is formed by the sensoral data that you have access to via your eyes, ears, hands, etc. I think identity forms in people only because they do not have access to a stream of continual exponential expansion of this sort of data.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

vaguely dissatisfied...
what you said is very true. i take my own preferences into account in my opinions. i am simply saying because of the way i live my life, i have trouble imagining how another person synthesizes the same experiences and emotions.
for me there is less enjoyment in the group identity than most people seem to derive.
the gatherings, the customs, the collective milestone events. in my logic, if you've invested a lot of energy into the collective you don't have as much left for yourself.
my life has been made so much richer in the realization of the things that i love. the things that make me myself.
that is why i just have trouble placing myself in the shoes of someone totally invested in the group.
I am completely the same way, however, I've noticed that these people who invest in 'the group' can be very fulfilled and happy. This makes me think that it is just a matter of following your own individual 'path' (for lack of a better expression) and really not about which is a strength or weakness at all.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 8 seconds later...

mkay

"I think that's part of the disconnect.... "

This always brings me back to my original theory that INTJ's are loners and more individualistic and so on, not because these, in and of themselves, are personality traits, but because INTJ's are hypersensitive and, therefore, need to disconnect in order to survive emotionally/mentally.

What do you think?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 59 seconds later...

I think identity is formed by the sensoral data that you have access to via your eyes, ears, hands, etc. I think identity forms in people only because they do not have access to a stream of continual exponential expansion of this sort of data.
So........you're saying that if we had a constant stream of different sensory information coming at us throughout our entire lives, then we would not feel the need for an indentity?

[zoophilia]

Imagine if you were getting constant live video feeds, audio feeds, and even the tactile sensations of everyone on the planet as well as their thoughts, emotions, etc through extensive real time neurological scanning (of course we would have to assume that "you" had a giant brain of some sort to process all of this information. I think "you" would have no "local identity" you would be cosynonymous with your "avatars" and other "representations" (digital expressions of yourself). Basically, I think whenever input < output you have "identity." When you have input > output you have insanity/shifting "self" apprehension.

[mkay]

zoophilia, I understand what you're driving at. But in my framework of identity, based on how I process information, my identity would remain consistent. The inputs might vary and stream relentlessly, but my wiring would continue to determine how I process that information vs. how someone else would process that information. ... Along the same lines: A person's personality typically remains consistent throughout life. For example, optimists stay optimistic despite life's setbacks.

vaguely dissatisfied, my experience with INTJs is overwhelmingly based on this forum, so I offer observations from that. (Many on the forum are young, so what've observed might be a skewed representation of INTJness.)

INTJs as a group (not necessarily every one) are arrogant. I see many posts that are dismissive of characteristics and values that INTJs don't possess, many claims of MBTI type superiority. I think that, combined with the possibility of sensitivity or hypersensitivity (I don't have enough information to make that observation), help shape how INTJs see the world.

And because of J-ness, INTJs are compelled to reach an "answer" for finality's sake and to systemize / categorize things. This is contrasted against P-ness, which makes me comfortable with not categorizing and with not reaching an answer unless I think necessary. (I think wanting to categorize things is more useful in situations that are technical, scientific, academic and so on. I think INTJs overuse that tool when it comes to people, and that creates blind spots.)

Sorry if this is a garble -- I see things as a whole, so it's hard to give a simple answer.

[zoophilia]

I fundamentally disagree. I think that we will be able to completely reconstitute neuronal structure to allow personality to flow in a fluidic manner one day. I also think "having to reach an answer" is a characteristic of people who have not learned/are physically incapable of integrating information across various neuronal bundlings.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Imagine if you were getting constant live video feeds, audio feeds, and even the tactile sensations of everyone on the planet as well as their thoughts, emotions, etc through extensive real time neurological scanning (of course we would have to assume that "you" had a giant brain of some sort to process all of this information. I think "you" would have no "local identity" you would be cosynonymous with your "avatars" and other "representations" (digital expressions of yourself). Basically, I think whenever input < output you have "identity." When you have input > output you have insanity/shifting "self" apprehension.
Seven of nine?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 3 minutes and 56 seconds later...

zoophilia, I understand what you're driving at. But in my framework of identity, based on how I process information, my identity would remain consistent. The inputs might vary and stream relentlessly, but my wiring would continue to determine how I process that information vs. how someone else would process that information. ... Along the same lines: A person's personality typically remains consistent throughout life. For example, optimists stay optimistic despite life's setbacks.

vaguely dissatisfied, my experience with INTJs is overwhelmingly based on this forum, so I offer observations from that. (Many on the forum are young, so what've observed might be a skewed representation of INTJness.)

INTJs as a group (not necessarily every one) are arrogant. I see many posts that are dismissive of characteristics and values that INTJs don't possess, many claims of MBTI type superiority. I think that, combined with the possibility of sensitivity or hypersensitivity (I don't have enough information to make that observation), help shape how INTJs see the world.

And because of J-ness, INTJs are compelled to reach an "answer" for finality's sake and to systemize / categorize things. This is contrasted against P-ness, which makes me comfortable with not categorizing and with not reaching an answer unless I think necessary. (I think wanting to categorize things is more useful in situations that are technical, scientific, academic and so on. I think INTJs overuse that tool when it comes to people, and that creates blind spots.)

Sorry if this is a garble -- I see things as a whole, so it's hard to give a simple answer.
Makes perfect sense to me. I think the arrogance comes from insecurity, which may be another trait of INTJ's. This insecurity may also be explained by hypersensitivity. It is difficult to feel secure in a world that overwhelms you most of the time.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 10 seconds later...

I fundamentally disagree. I think that we will be able to completely reconstitute neuronal structure to allow personality to flow in a fluidic manner one day. I also think "having to reach an answer" is a characteristic of people who have not learned/are physically incapable of integrating information across various neuronal bundlings.
Sounds like you've reached an answer.

[zoophilia]

Sounds like you've reached an answer.

It sounds as though you are incapable of holding multiple inherently contraditory ideas in your head at the same time.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It sounds as though you are incapable of holding multiple inherently contraditory ideas in your head at the same time.
Perhaps. However, I don't really know what that has to do with the fact that you have reached an answer to the question?

[zoophilia]

You treat people's words as though they are inherently true or false rather than an approximation of a reality that they are trying to express. The english languange is too unsophisticated for incredibly nuanced dialogue on certain topics, this is why we invented math. I'm not about to launch into a 15 page discussion on something that should be derived by the reader (namely that the level of sophistication required for the mental flexibility I am describing would most certainly allow for a whole host of possible scenarios).

[zoophilia]

I guess I don't view my language as convoluted. Feel free to ask me to clarify.

I think that human beings are learning to represent all information in a mathematical format. This includes learning how to represent the various processes of the brain in computable formats. One aspect of this is the development of systems of thought such as cybernetics, information theory, etc that allow us to think of biological systems in the same way that we think of inorganic systems. Here is an example of that:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
------------------------------
for more information on cybernetics read here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-----------------------------
for more information on information theory read here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-------------------------------

Good examples of this are the development of brain-computer interfaces and electroencephalography that allow us to transmit the intention of/"read the thoughts" of the user.
------------------------------------
BCI articles:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

for more information read up on bci here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-------------------------------------------
eeg articles:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

for more information on eeg read up on it here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
---------------------------------------------
Here is an awesome website. It has scores of articles on many different subjects relating to how the brain operates. I think it is important to read many of these in order to understand why the brain does what it does chemically/electrically in order to begin to see how we could reproduce these processes artificially.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is a random link related to the above topic:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
------------------------------------------------
We are also learning to integrate biological and artificial systems:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
and we are learning how to artificially represent different brain processes:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
---------------------------------------
If we become able to switch nanowires (such as the ones in the article I posted earrlier) on and off in a precise, targeted, and controlled manner then I believe we will be doing to an artificial brain what we have the capability to do with artificial faces.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Namely, create responses to the environment that can be changed in an arbitrary manner (and thus new forms of personality). Another possibility is actively controlling the processes which already occur within the brain but I believe that is a lot messier. However it is possible to do this with nano-injection technology (such as that which is beginning to be used to treat cancer).

Lastly, I am all but out of time before I do something important which I have to do but I will post the information I have up so far because I don't want to lose it inadvertently. I have MUCH more information. If you would like to know more about the subject then I would be more than happy to discuss it. I would like to make a reference to a recent post on this forum about "impossibility" and how irritating it is for people to scoff at new ideas. I think this extends beyond simply thinking that some things are impossible. I think that when a person questions another person's motives, intelligence, etc without hearing the other person out or asking pointed questions in order to get the information they desire they are acting in similar neurological fashion to those that blatantly dismiss new ideas. I think they are worse people however because their intelligence should allow them to know better. However, I do recognize that we often get caught up in our own neurological processes though and must have them "shaken up" in order to process the information that is coming into our brains in a new manner. I hope this explains part of my extreme reactioin from before. My hope is that through discussion we can learn to actively shift these processes so that we can avoid the errors that occur when one processes information in only a particular manner. I think intjs are more prone to this sort of behavior than other types. Also, I would like to note that because I do not view myself in a holistic manner I will often contradict myself because as I actively shift my brain processing different responses to the same stimulii will result.

I'll provide more links for a lot of the stuff I wrote at the end at a later time. I must away!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

zoophilia

This stuff looks really interesting. I'll definately be checking it out. Thanks for the links, the information, and the interest in discussing this.

[zoophilia]

Sure. Thanks for appreciating it. Sorry if I come off as a crotchety old man, but in the industry I work in I am not surrounded by the most intellectual of people (which is part of why I sought out a forum like this). Tends to make you a bit of an oscar the grouch.

[TheEnlightenedOne]

It seems to me that people who are group joiners (in whatever capacity) are looking for acceptance and that people who are seeking uniqueness and are not group joiners are looking for as much independence as they can possibly get.

Whatya think?

I sincerely doubt it's that simple. As far as not being a group-joiner, i think there are are different motivations/reasons a person may not fit in (or even try to fit in) to a group. One is, simply, that they just DON'T fit into a particular group. There personality/interests/behaviors clash. Another possibility is that they WANT to be special/different, and make a conscious effort to do so.

[mkay]

Yes, I agree about there being many reasons why people join groups, including acceptance. For stuff like community service, you get more done if you combine labor, for instance. There are groups for common interests, like sports and games you can't do alone. For hobbies, people join to share skills and learn. There are networking and professional groups that some people sometimes feel pressured to join just so they're plugged into their industries. There are self-improvement groups where people support each other, like Toastmasters. For more old-boys-network stuff, there are all those clubs with animal names -- a lot of business gets done in those groups across industries. ... If I weren't able to do well on my own professionally, I would make full use of some of those clubs. There are perks to knowing the right people. If I were in sales, I'd be all over those groups.

I don't think not joining groups makes me or anyone else unique. Actually, the trend is that America is becoming less and less a nation of joiners, according to books like "Bowling Alone."

[Genuine]

Why do we name ourselves?

Well for one thing, we can find people more easily.

Another thing:

Self-worth.
-since ancient times we had a desire to survive...
superiority was key to survival.

So, in present times we added traits to ourselves to help distinguish superiority.

Also,we also found that these traits were commonly shared, creating a sense of belonging / security. The reason why we wanted to belong was that we can work together to survive, and having the most effective team would be beneficial.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Sure. Thanks for appreciating it. Sorry if I come off as a crotchety old man, but in the industry I work in I am not surrounded by the most intellectual of people (which is part of why I sought out a forum like this). Tends to make you a bit of an oscar the grouch.
That's O.K. ........ I'm a crotchety old woman myself.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 19 seconds later...

I sincerely doubt it's that simple. As far as not being a group-joiner, i think there are are different motivations/reasons a person may not fit in (or even try to fit in) to a group. One is, simply, that they just DON'T fit into a particular group. There personality/interests/behaviors clash. Another possibility is that they WANT to be special/different, and make a conscious effort to do so.
I'm sure you're right about it not being simple, but of course, I'm trying to simplify a complex subject (which may prove to be impossible).

I'm thinking more along the lines of people who look for groups to join. If one doesn't fit, then they find another. As opposed to those who purposfully avoid group-joining. I'm also thinking more along the lines of the psychology behind this verses the practical reasons.

[mkay]

I'm thinking more along the lines of people who look for groups to join. If one doesn't fit, then they find another. As opposed to those who purposfully avoid group-joining. I'm also thinking more along the lines of the psychology behind this verses the practical reasons.

I have friends who are joiners and they love it. It charges them up. So that's one psychological reason. I don't think they see joining as giving up any uniqueness. Thinking on it, all my joiner friends are confident, mostly extroverts. They get excited about planning things, working on stuff in groups voluntarily. I find the idea draining.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I have friends who are joiners and they love it. It charges them up. So that's one psychological reason. I don't think they see joining as giving up any uniqueness. Thinking on it, all my joiner friends are confident, mostly extroverts. They get excited about planning things, working on stuff in groups voluntarily. I find the idea draining.
I'm exhausted by it. Do you think it has alot to do with the whole oversensitivity thing I keep talking about....where our (INTJ's) environment is often too stimulating for us. I can remember as a toddler sitting and watching the other kids play and that was plenty of stimulation for me. Too much interaction got me frustrated and tired.

[mkay]

I'm exhausted by it. Do you think it has alot to do with the whole oversensitivity thing I keep talking about....where our (INTJ's) environment is often too stimulating for us. I can remember as a toddler sitting and watching the other kids play and that was plenty of stimulation for me. Too much interaction got me frustrated and tired.


That sounds totally plausible for some INTJs. ... Even as an ENTP, that's the case in many instances for me. Like I'll get invited to something and think of the scene -- lots of people, noise -- and then I'll think of my book room -- full of quiet and books and my laptop -- and it's an easy choice to stay home.

I don't think it's a sensory thing with my INTJ husband. What I notice is that he's almost always bored among groups. Maybe not the whole time, but eventually, unless he can steer the topics to his interests. When he's not interested, you can see his eyes roll into the back of his head. Other types might at least fake interest, but I don't think he has the ability to do it, even if he wanted to, which I doubt he wants to. It's actually kind of funny, like watching a little kid -- you know how kids express stuff, no politeness filter.

It's odd, because I never expect him to go with me on the rare occasions that I go to functions. I'm perfectly happy to go alone. But sometimes he says he wants to go, then gets bored. I've never asked him about it. Maybe he needs some socializing from time to time but can't muster up the full energy or interest to interact when he's actually there. Maybe it would be different in a room full of his programmer types.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

That sounds totally plausible for some INTJs. ... Even as an ENTP, that's the case in many instances for me. Like I'll get invited to something and think of the scene -- lots of people, noise -- and then I'll think of my book room -- full of quiet and books and my laptop -- and it's an easy choice to stay home.

I don't think it's a sensory thing with my INTJ husband. What I notice is that he's almost always bored among groups. Maybe not the whole time, but eventually, unless he can steer the topics to his interests. When he's not interested, you can see his eyes roll into the back of his head. Other types might at least fake interest, but I don't think he has the ability to do it, even if he wanted to, which I doubt he wants to. It's actually kind of funny, like watching a little kid -- you know how kids express stuff, no politeness filter.

It's odd, because I never expect him to go with me on the rare occasions that I go to functions. I'm perfectly happy to go alone. But sometimes he says he wants to go, then gets bored. I've never asked him about it. Maybe he needs some socializing from time to time but can't muster up the full energy or interest to interact when he's actually there. Maybe it would be different in a room full of his programmer types.
That's another thing that I feel may be very different for me than other INTJ's......I would have asked him about why he even wanted to go to a social event .....I probably would have tried to pick his brain about it. I'm extremely curious about why people think and act the way they do. Perhaps this is just a personal thing and doesn't apply to most INTJ's.

[mkay]

Yes, I'm curious about behavior, too. But if I know someone isn't into talking about feelings, I don't press. My husband doesn't talk about feelings much, and when he does, it's basic -- he likes someone or not; he doesn't go into details. He shows people his feelings through actions more than words, which works well for me, because I find that a lot of people talk but don't act accordingly. So I am curious about why he'd want to go to some events, but he has a hard time articulating things related to feelings, so I figure, OK, that's just him, my goofy INTJ. :)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes, I'm curious about behavior, too. But if I know someone isn't into talking about feelings, I don't press. My husband doesn't talk about feelings much, and when he does, it's basic -- he likes someone or not; he doesn't go into details. He shows people his feelings through actions more than words, which works well for me, because I find that a lot of people talk but don't act accordingly. So I am curious about why he'd want to go to some events, but he has a hard time articulating things related to feelings, so I figure, OK, that's just him, my goofy INTJ. :)
So maybe most INTJ's are not like me in this way then? I am constantly examining my feelings and curious about those of others. Maybe this is just an interest in psychology. Although there seem to be alot of posts showing the same sort of interest.

[mkay]

Hard to tell. Psychology doesn't interest everyone, of course. And I figure the INTJs who aren't interested wouldn't be well represented in this forum. Or maybe they're all in the nonpsychology subforums? ... My husband has zero interest in psychology and very limited interest in people in general. I think he's kind of matter-of-fact even about his own feelings, doesn't explore them much. He's a math and science guy. ... I don't know whether he's a "typical" INTJ, if there is such a person.