Be yourself/ know yourself: split from WTF GIRLS

[Moonbear]

The mind is more complicated than you give it credit for. See experiments by Gazzaniga (1995, 1998) on split-brain patients where patients would give rationalizations for otherwise irrational behavior initialized in a sector of the brain that no longer communicated properly with the sector that produced the rationalization.

Note that the discussion began with me making the point that if you don't know yourself, you should seek pscyhological/psychiatric help. Such patients as described would need such help. The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself. Everytime we say something, we've gotten the answer "but it's not about that" (paraphrasing). So, we're trying to find out what it IS about if someone wants to argue it is possible.

 

[slider142]

Note that the discussion began with me making the point that if you don't know yourself, you should seek pscyhological/psychiatric help. Such patients as described would need such help. The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself. Everytime we say something, we've gotten the answer "but it's not about that" (paraphrasing). So, we're trying to find out what it IS about if someone wants to argue it is possible.

The patients described have a well-defined neurological disconnect; as such their behavior reveals the functioning of a brain without the physical disconnect; ie., it's like removing a part of a machine to see what that part does. As such, the experiment's result begs the question of how much rationalization is given to our "selves" by our brains on behavior that may or may not benefit long-term goals or personal ideals, whereas the action was taken for some short-term goal whose origins are questionable (see mathwonk's post earlier in this thread). The appeal of introspection is to better serve long-term ideals that we can internalize as being "personal", as opposed to those actions that can be rationalized, but do not actually serve "our" purposes. We tend to appreciate those types of actions better., ie, you get a great feeling after working hard and earning a degree and you probably always will vs. you feel like you wasted time last night going to that bar and that action will diminish in memory such that you really did waste that time for an action that will never be remembered for any reason. A silly extreme example of a non-introspective would be someone who never questions any impulse that enters their mind since "they are themselves", while at the other extreme we have an introspective who never does anything because they spend too much time rationalizing their impetus to action. I'm no good at explaining this stuff either. A psychologist or neurologist would be better suited to this thread. :D

The debate is whether there is any reason why a healthy person would not know themselves. But, we're still waiting for someone who thinks this is possible to give an example or clear-cut definition of just what they mean by not knowing oneself.

If a person ever gives the answer "I don't really know why I did that." to a question about a past action and means it (at least on the surface), I would define that person as not really knowing that aspect of themselves. While it's arguably impossible to know every single aspect, large holes like not knowing why you went to that party last night or why you stayed in and studied is definitely a noticeable measure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How can we possibly understand ourselves without understanding every psychological impulse, every hormonal reaction... every physiological and psychological influence that determines how we feel and react to situations, when it is a given that no expert could?

I don't think it is possible to fully know ourselves. And beyond that, we never stop changing. Part of a marriage is adjusting to who your mate becomes over time.

 

[verty]

How is looking back and thinking that you would act differently if you knew what you know now consistent with that you knew yourself back then? If it is your former self then it is still you, so either the present you or the past one is/must have been mistaken.

Now if the people here continue posturing about how it hasn't been explained, then no more response will be forthcoming.