Social/Human Behavior Question

[Nathair/|\]

I'm a social idiot. I get that. I will never understand human behavior. There is one thing, however, that really vexes me. When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

Yours under the frustrated oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Storm Rider]

I'm a social idiot. I get that. I will never understand human behavior. There is one thing, however, that really vexes me. When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

Yours under the frustrated oaks,

Nathair /|\

When we try to "be ourselves" we generally are appealing to our carnal natures; we focus on our passions while attempting to stifle our spiritual side. On the other hand, some try to focus on their "spiritual" side, but they chase after murmuring spirits rather than the Light that has always been there.

Why are your oaks frustrated?

[Kenngo1969]

If I realize that I'm a Spiritual Being Having a Mortal Experience, then "being myself" might not be such a bad idea. If, however, I succumb to the natural man, who is "an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he putteth off the natural man, and yieldeth to the enticings of the holy spirit, and becometh a Saint through the atonement of Christ, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him even as a child doth submit to his father," then that might not be such a good idea.

Good luck dealing with the all-too-human side of your brothers and sisters!

[CV75]

When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

I must say I've not heard it used in this fashion. I've heard it said when people are nervous about the unwelcome pressure they feel from themselves or others to measure up or perform before an audience or act in an inauthentic way in order to be accepted by a larger group. It's usually used to as a confidence-builder to recognize and bring out the best in themselves. I don't see why they would use it to describe their acting like the "natural man" since that is something we really don't have to try to do--it comes most naturally. I don't see how a person who sees himself as a child of God would actually put forth the effort to see himself as something less and act accordingly.

Edited July 30, 2011 by CV75

[Nathair/|\]

Storm Rider, my oaks are frustrated because they don't act that way. From an acorn, they know their sacred destiny and strive to fill the measure of their creation.

The times I see this behavior is when someone is asking the person to behave well, maybe to dress appropriately for a setting that requires a slightly higher standard or to live up to a basic standard of responsibility. The person says "I want to be myself" in an attempt to get out of it.

[Palerider]

Storm Rider, my oaks are frustrated because they don't act that way. From an acorn, they know their sacred destiny and strive to fill the measure of their creation.

The times I see this behavior is when someone is asking the person to behave well, maybe to dress appropriately for a setting that requires a slightly higher standard or to live up to a basic standard of responsibility. The person says "I want to be myself" in an attempt to get out of it.

The search for "self" is usually more of a search for a life paradigm in my estimation. As Plato said...."How do we govern ourselves?" Self government involves the use (and at times mis-use) of free agency. It's the ability to be either a "jerk" or a "class act" while not being in the presence of Heavenly Father which would entail instant justice for mistakes.

This way we get to learn from our mistakes in judgement and have a grace period to try to reconcile our disharmony with God.

Consider it part of the "journey".

[katherine the great]

I'm a social idiot. I get that. I will never understand human behavior. There is one thing, however, that really vexes me. When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

Yours under the frustrated oaks,

Nathair /|\

Gosh Nathair, there are so many answers to choose from! 1. They are immature and don't know who they are so they are experimenting to find out. 2. They like to be casual and don't want to dress up. 3. They like to misbehave and don't feel ready to grow up and be responsible yet. 4. They are really French and refuse to act British. 5. They are insecure and are engaging in flamboyant, attention seeking behavior. 6. They know they are children of God, but don't feel worthy and it shows in their behavior. (Do any of those reasons apply?) Just keep in mind that God is a loving parent and will send lots of character building experiences their way in good time because He loves them!

[Calm]

I'm a social idiot. I get that. I will never understand human behavior. There is one thing, however, that really vexes me. When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

I think the more common way of expression of this is to say "that's just the way I am" or some variation on that theme like going on some sort of quest of exploration to try and find the "real me" which may be used as justification for trying anything that comes along. At least in the past, "trying to be oneself" was usually used in context of trying to relax and not be all uptight and nervous in a social situation of some kind.

We are not completely consistent beings, some aspects of our current self are carnal, some may be christlike, others in a state of flux between the two. People behave consistently with what they are, it just may be the less noble part of themselves they are allowing to surface or dominant. Generally speaking, whatever is a less common way of behaving will be require more effort and concentration to perform so if one is used to promoting the carnal side of one's behaviour, than that is the side that will 'feel' most like oneself in that it will be the most 'natural' or effortless to achieve.

Edited August 1, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Nathair:

Want to be famous and rich? Just explain why people do the things they do.

[LeSellers]

Want to be famous and rich? Just explain why people do the things they do.

Perceived self interest.

Now, where's my money?

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Good, but I like mine better. Because they want to. Unfortunately neither addresses the perceived self interest or the why they want to.

I guess it is back to writing my magnum opus of "Why people do the things they do".

Edited August 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

Want to be famous and rich? Just explain why people do the things they do.

Perceived self interest.

Now, where's my money?

Good, but I like mine better. Because they want to. Unfortunately neither addresses the perceived self interest or the why they want to.

I guess it is back to writing my magnum opus of "Why people do the things they do".

At this point, we are going to have to develop the largely undefined science of Praxeology: the study of human action. The only well-developed subset of this science is Economics. But nearly all the primary features of Praxeology are repesented in Economics, so it ought not be an insurmountable task.

In Economics, as in Praxeology, "perceived self interest" drives all interactions between/among people. The concept of "altrusim" is an illusion (even Jesus acted to please Himself, because, as he said, His own will was subordinate to that of Father).

People always do whatever it is they do because, among the choices/options available (and known) to them, they will always choose the one(s) that they perceive as making them better/the best off. That includes not acting (differently from what they are doing).

Praxeology is, in my terminology, the "study of values and trade-offs". If we know what someone values, we can reliably predict how he will act, what he will give up in order to satisfy his more pressing needs/wants. The problem is, a man's values change from day to day, in fact, from minute to minute. So knowing them is impossible, except fleetingly and partially, because the value he places on anything, at any given time will change if a need is met or newly discovered in the intervening lapse of time.

There are, as implied above, two (or perhaps more) levels of "values". Temporary ones, like food (we need it consistenly, but not constantly), and (at least) permanent (or core) values. These latter are also subject to change, but not so readily, and are, for the most part, fixed by age ten in most people. Some of these may be genetic (as sense of "fair" seems to be), but some are not, and may conflit with most people's values. The son of a mafia Don might value, in a very positive way, murder. Most of us would not, and would find his values system to be barbaric (with all due deference and apologies to any barbarians reading this).

There is also a corollary to the law of perceived self interest. I call this corollary the "Iron Law of Humanity": we can discover what a person (or any human entity/organization, etc.) truly values by observing what he/it accomplishes over time. Because always people stop doing things that do not meet their goals, alter their approach and then attempt a new process. If they get, as in grtf schools, illiterates, and, after changing (or appearing to), continue to get illiterates, then illiterates are what they truly value. Politicians and bureaucrats like illiterates because they who cannot (or will not) read, and more importantly, who cannot or will not) write*, cannot think, and the unthinking are easy to manipulate. That's one of very few primary reasons we have government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools.

* "Writing", as I am using it here, has little to do with grammar or spelling, and

nothing

to to with typing. It is the organization of thought, coupled with the need to communicate that thought to others. The mechanics are trivial.

Lehi

Edited August 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I don't limit it to just economics(unless we're talking the economics of human interaction), because people are far more complicated than just a set of dollars and cents. Which BTW are just an arbitrary value on a collection of bits and pieces of paper, metal, clam shells or what have you's.

My internal debate is the WHY we value some thought, ideas, actions over some apparently equally valued thought, idea, or actions. Why do I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry, but most people prefer vanilla; Or say a Ford over and equally priced Chevy. Why do we choose one particular mate over another, in a LDS construct where the socio-religious underpinnings are essentially the same. I can look to life experiences, compatibilities, commonalities, but they just doen't answer the question for me. Why do people do the things they do?

[LeSellers]

I don't limit it to just economics(unless we're talking the economics of human interaction), because people are far more complicated than just a set of dollars and cents. Which BTW are just an arbitrary value on a collection of bits and pieces of paper, metal, clam shells or what have you's.

I only mentioned Economics because, as I said, it is the only currently developed subset of Praxeology. Economics is not Praxeology any more than Zoology is Biology.

As an aside, since you insist on it, while "money" may be arbitrary, it is not irrational.

My internal debate is the WHY we value some thought, ideas, actions over some apparently equally valued thought, idea, or actions. Why do I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry, but most people prefer vanilla; Or say a Ford over and equally priced Chevy. Why do we choose one particular mate over another, in a LDS construct where the socio-religious underpinnings are essentially the same. I can look to life experiences, compatibilities, commonalities, but they just doen't answer the question for me. Why do people do the things they do?

Because, irrespective of any other thing, from the actor's point of view, he is making himself better off doing "X" than he would be by doing "Y", "Z", "A", "B", or "C".

How he arrived at the set of values that provoked this choice is not even studiable (if that was not a word, it is now). But his values are what prodded him into doing what he did. Given all the options avaialble (and known) to him, "X" was the choice that returned the highest satisfaction of all the options, including doing nothing.

A drunk's next drink is, to him, the best thing available. A hooker's next trick is, to her, the best thing she could do. Their values are dangeroulsy warped, but they are their values.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

"How he arrived at the set of values that provoked this choice is not even studiable (if that was not a word, it is now)".

But that is exactly what I want to know.

[Ahab]

I'm a social idiot. I get that. I will never understand human behavior. There is one thing, however, that really vexes me. When people say they are trying to be themselves, why do they mean they are trying to act like vermin rather than the gods and goddesses, children of the Most High they really are?

Face it, some chjildren of the Most High act like vermin even though they are sons and daughters of God.

They are just being themselves, and that is how they are... regardless of the fact that other sons and daughers of God do not act that way.

[LeSellers]

"How he arrived at the set of values that provoked this choice is not even studiable (if that was not a word, it is now)".

But that is exactly what I want to know.

I answered this some time ago, but the response got lost in a 504 timeout. Arrgh!

Here's what I recall saying:

How do you propose (if you can) measuring these values? I don't know what my temporary values will be from one minute to the next—until options present themselves. The only way I know of to observe this is to see what someone does in the face of real choices.

Permanent, or "core", values are different, but still only verifiable by means of observing the choices one makes. You may tell me that you love your family above all things. But when I see you at the ball game with your friends, knowing it is the night of your son's Cub Scout Pinewood Derby, I can tell what you actually prefer.

I believe that this is how Father will judge the desires of our hearts. If I truly desire to serve Him, I will. If I say I want to serve Him, but do nothing like it, the judgment is easy.

Lehi