h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey, I didn't invent CBT. Don't blame me that there's more to it than that, but there is.

Clothes definately has a huge affect on ones behavior, and personality, just by wearing... err... differnt clothes, you can quite easily slip into an entirely differnt 'mindset', and personality... err, sort of...

I kinda retaught myself what hunger was, and what a portion was, and now regularly eat for my main meal of the day, about 1/3 of what I used too, though I've done several tricks to myself in order to do this, and it wasn't even that* painful, to do, some way to go, but nearly four stone lost, without feeling hungry or going on some utterly mental fad fashion diet rubbish and not giving up any of the food I like in the process seemed to be compensation enough for the little effort it required to do... and no shrink required, which was lucky for the shrink I think...

Some great replies concerning cognative therapy and 'being the change'.


Hoo>>I've done this to myself several times.


Care to give an example?

I kind of did, in post 18. Didn't you spot it?

Does it involve the word "vapid" ?

I thought he stopped putting his hands in his pockets

More variations on personality theory, one has a basic hierarchy of personality needs, what Sigmund Freud called Id, libido, ego and superego, taken together with social self image, manipulative needs, passive observation needs, critical thinking needs and generalization needs.

The meaning of 'libido' has changed since Freud introduced the term and many authors these days refer to 'tribal needs' rather than libido, where 'libido' in context of the theory of 'constant libido', these days connotes something more like 'constant basal rate'.

'Superego' is restricted to the merely self protective functions of conscience, while 'social self image' relates instead to higher developments of conscience whereby one begins exercising a proactive concern for the well being of others. An alternative term for 'social self image' that has some currency and is useful for some constructions to which that phrase does not lend itself well is 'sociocentric'.

'Manipulative needs' in context has to do with needs for useful hands-on work, that of a capable secretary or craftsman, for example.

Of the remaining three categories of personality needs, passive observation on the one hand is the mentality of the hunter laying in wait for his prey, of alternatively the contemplative outlook of the existential mind; critical thinking needs can be characterized as analytical or intellectual; generalization needs as 'cerebral'.

So, rephrasing a bit, one can make that basic hierarchy of personality needs: 1) Id, 2) Tribal, 3) Ego, 4) Superego, 5) Social Self Image, 6) Manipulative, 7) Existential, 8) Intellectual, 9) Cerebral.




There is also an exclusion principle at work to the effect that one can interact socially in terms of only one of those categories at a time.

The natural tendency if one stressed while interacting at a given level is to respond in the next lower category, in deonotgenic order in other words. This is also sometimes called 'reactive' thinking or behavior.

With training and application, one can learn to respond in terms instead of higher order personality needs, which Erich From called 'transcendence needs'.

This discussion brings to mind the free will debate & determinism. If someone is able to alter their personality, doesn't it follow that theirs is the type of personality capable of that feat?

Hmmm you could be right.

Then again, I do think that any "personality" is capable of that feat, if the possibility of and techniques for doing so are brought to their attention.

We are what we do, and we choose what we do. Our entire justice system is based on the latter assumption. If you posit a state of affairs where you CAN'T choose what you do, then free will is an illusion.

(I happen to think free will IS an illusion, as it goes, but I can't picture any alternative method of organising a functioning society other than assuming it exists... but I can't help that )

If the personality is fixed, then what physically is it that's fixed? A pattern of electrical impulses and chemicals? Surely not. The brain matter itself? We know that changes. What then?

>> Hey, I didn't invent CBT. Don't blame me that
there's more to it than that, but there is. <<


So what's a CBT then?

And judging from the most recent posts from Hoo, ITIWBS
and Rudy, it seems there really is more to it than costume
changes. Or, far too much thinking about how we may or
may not be capable of change.

Drugs I believe are well established as agents for change.

I met a junkie once who had no regard for the actual chemical
contents or properties of whatever pills he could obtain for
his injections, telling me that any change of conciousness
is a good change of consciousness. He certainly seemed
to have faith in his proposition but it was not a theory
I was prepared to test. And that never changed.


~jwf~

And over the years I've seen some boozers
who went through changes. And never for
the better.


~jwf~

You'll all know this story:

The Frog & The Scorpion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jLec_LLp90

I didn't know my personality had feet... and neither did I...

Personality test.
Takes less than 2 minutes to prove
you don't trust strangers, the web, etc:

http://youtu.be/kHF0VXPanU8


~jwf~

"then what physically is it that's fixed? A pattern of electrical impulses and chemicals? Surely not. The brain matter itself? We know that changes. What then?"

You're satisfied that brain activity is a matter of electrical impulses and chemicals. It obeys the laws of physics. So where's the room for free will? I what sense can "you" (whatever that means) affect your behaviour, if your behaviour is the result of chemical and electrical processes which are not fundamentally under "your" control?

(I repeat - I believe this to be the case but don't like the implications. I prefer, therefore, like most people, to persist in behaving as though the fiction of "free will" were true - after all, what's the alternative?)

Hoo, I am familiar with the work of Susan Blackmore on the subject of the illusion of free will, and I can't fault it. But maybe future discoveries will allow for free will after all.

If "I" am just a collection of physical and chemical processes then "I" am capable of making free choices (that is, choices not entirely determined by processes external to "me"). The fact that they are deterministic choices isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. It seems to me that this whole "free will is an illusion" problem (that I got stuck on for years) just stems from a failure to fully identify with the collection of physical and chemical processes that constitute us.

Free will is not a problem once you allow that freedom is relative. Mankind is distinguished by being freer -- more flexible -- than anything else in the world. We respond to subtler influences than any others. The exercise of our freedom is also the exercise of our physics.

I'm with Chris in Post 11. Our personality is our story. Our story changes every day.

Can we *make* the changes happen, or can we not? That is at best a trick question.

>>..failure to fully identify with the collection of
physical and chemical processes that constitute us. <<

In an expanding universe it is only natural that we
should be expanding as well.

Which is in no way to fault your point with which
I totally agree. We simply do not yet know enough
about the the universe and our place in it to know
how it works. On a local, internet-connected level
I am fairly certain we do make individual decisions
of personal will which are entirely selfish and self
directed - though I confess to feeling compelled to
applaud your insightful, experience-based conclusion.

~jwf~