Psychologists put 'character' under the microscope - and it vanishes!

[~jet]

Psychologists put 'character' under the microscope - and it vanishes!

Interesting read, and one I can understand. It seems like if we have eras or regions of 'poor' character, we need to be addressing the environment that subtly or obviously influence people to be 'bad.' I do think there is a good and bad, but that people are being contorted and smashed between the two.

 

[not sure]

Good article [MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION]. I have noticed that my own behaviour is affected by the physical environment and the people with whom I associate. I think I have mentioned it in some form on these forums before. It is not impossible to hold to moral ideals in a negative environment but it is much easier to do in a positive environment where there are people who also have high moral standards. I suppose it encourages us to be mindful of our influences.

 

[~jet]

Good article [MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION]. I have noticed that my own behaviour is affected by the physical environment and the people with whom I associate. I think I have mentioned it in some form on these forums before. It is not impossible to hold to moral ideals in a negative environment but it is much easier to do in a positive environment where there are people who also have high moral standards. I suppose it encourages us to be mindful of our influences.

Such, and perhaps try to spread positive influence around a bit, too

 

[Skathac]

And we're right back to...you gotta teach yer kids the difference between right and wrong.

They make some interesting points in that article, much obliged for the read Jet.

 

[~jet]

And we're right back to...you gotta teach yer kids the difference between right and wrong.

They make some interesting points in that article, much obliged for the read Jet.

Agreed; I guess it's like how our education system is failing right now... it order to make it cost effective, they just try to cram things into people's brains. Memorization. A, B, C and D. This, instead of understanding WHY things are so that one can adapt to changing circumstances. Saying X, Y, and Z are wrong is helpful, but if the child only comes away with having memorized that but not understanding why, they may not be well-equipped to adapt when circumstances do.

 

[Skathac]

I honestly believe there are much better ways of teaching people than beating information into their heads through memorization. When I was younger I wanted a revolution to change the way the country works...now I'd happily settle for a complete reform of the education system. Public schools are pretty bad in my state.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Lol, amateurs. If they wanted to actually understand character, they'd have been better off paying a bit more attention to the Greeks.

"We have discovered that character as we defined it varies greatly across different circumstances and therefore hurrdurrdurrdurrrr". Guys, we know all this shit already, and this is a total strawman of how people view character - Socratic nonsense! If you're intelligent, you realise both that this is the case but also that it is a significant oversimplification. You would learn way more just by reading a book of the Bible.

So like, when are psychologists going to discover something useful?

 

[~jet]

I honestly believe there are much better ways of teaching people than beating information into their heads through memorization. When I was younger I wanted a revolution to change the way the country works...now I'd happily settle for a complete reform of the education system. Public schools are pretty bad in my state.

Hah; Frankly, I'd suggest that starting with education is all that needs be done. That generation, better equipped in terms of skills and outlook would be hugely empowered to distribute further reforms and goodwill.

 

[InvisibleJim]

In other news, Psychologists erroneously oversimplify character and then fail to find erroneous definition.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Hah; Frankly, I'd suggest that starting with education is all that needs be done. That generation, better equipped in terms of skills and outlook would be hugely empowered to distribute further reforms and goodwill.

It's that simple guys! And no one has ever thought of this before now!

 

[Skathac]

Oh I'm sure people have thought about it before [MENTION=3846]Artsu Tharaz[/MENTION]; . I figure their will gets crushed or they get bought out by the system, otherwise things would have already changed.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Oh I'm sure people have thought about it before @Artsu Tharaz; . I figure their will gets crushed or they get bought out by the system, otherwise things would have already changed.

Also the fact they probably knew nothing about education, nor how to spread ideas, to begin with.

Spreading good will and cheer is cool and all, but you're gonna need a slightly better understanding to actually get somewhere.

 

[Nixie]

@~jet;
This article reminds me of something I was reading in Jung's works. One idea stuck in my mind. It talked about the Ego being the center of conscious but the move toward Indvidualization occured when you shifted your understanding to incoroporate the unconscious aspects. It stated that Self was between the conscious and the unconscious. It made me think that we spend a great deal of our time defining who we want to be which is the core of our Ego. This Ego process requires that we make distinctions and value judgements about who we want to be and push things, ideas, and such into our unconscious.

As we move toward a truer sense of Self, we embrace the idea that we have the potential to act in all those horrific manners that we have suppressed and pushed to our unconscious. I think that most people get stuck in the Ego stage of living. The move toward Self understands that we carry the potential for all kinds of behavior and accepts that they are part of our being. I think that understanding becomes the defining moment of having the ability to live with integrity. The Ego denies that it has these negative emotions and therefore is suceptible to deluding oneself into behaving contrary to belief. I think it is the knowledge of Self that gives one the inner fortitude to make the decision to not act in a certain way because the questions have already been asked with the understanding that the potential exists to behave in all types of ways. I think it is those in their Ego stage who always say "I don't know why I did it" or "Everybody else was doing it" and such things. The Self is aware of the unconscious urges to a greater degree and can make a more informed choice. Just something I have been kicking around.

Edit: I would say that the Self is aware of and making conscious choices which is the key to character. The Ego is merely processing routines and more on auto pilot and since there is no active decision making, more likely to shift course.

 

[Stu]

Why I do not just pull Sonya's hair really hard.

I think it is the knowledge of Self that gives one the inner fortitude to make the decision to not act in a certain way because the questions have already been asked with the understanding that the potential exists to behave in all types of ways.

I think it is those in their Ego stage who always say "I don't know why I did it" or "Everybody else was doing it" and such things. The Self is aware of the unconscious urges to a greater degree and can make a more informed choice. Just something I have been kicking around.

As our ego becomes healthy and strong and enables us with the power to not do whatever whacked out thing pops into consciousness from our unconsciousness, we become more and more likely to repress those urges and instincts deeper and deeper into our unconsciousness.

But they don't go away, they demand consciousness and will burst out in times of ego weakness (fatigue, inebriation, stress) and take over consciousness making us live the meaning that they possess. In living it we do not understand it and often only suffer from it.

The challenge is to engage these unconscious contents in a morally responsible way with the purpose of discerning their meaning, then they can be integrated into consciousness.

 

[Nixie]

As our ego becomes healthy and strong and enables us with the power to not do whatever whacked out thing pops into consciousness from our unconsciousness, we become more and more likely to repress those urges and instincts deeper and deeper into our unconsciousness.

But they don't go away, they demand consciousness and will burst out in times of ego weakness (fatigue, inebriation, stress) and take over consciousness making us live the meaning that they possess. In living it we do not understand it and often only suffer from it.

The challenge is to engage these unconscious contents in a morally responsible way with the purpose of discerning their meaning, then they can be integrated into consciousness.

Yes I can see your point but... I see the move toward Self as being the reintegration of the Other. Ego defintion requires that we make distinctions and separate ourself from the perceived Other. The Other becomes the unconscious or as Jung called it the Shadow. Integrating the Other IMO is the individualization process that Jung speaks of in his writing. I must define Ego by what is different or Mine but to create the balance I must embrace the Other with the understanding that it exists within me despite the fact that I have chosen to not act/be as the Other. My understanding tells me that this completes the circle. Self is more balanced than Ego. I would argue that Character is a product of Self rather that Ego. Character is an active process requiring conscious decision making. IMO Ego does not have the balance of Self and tends to get overglorified and stagnant because Ego doesn't understand the Other is part of them.
Akin to not seeing the forest thru the trees.

PS: Who said I was against a little hair pulling?

 

[Stu]

The ego derives all its strength and power from the Self.

 

[Nixie]

The ego derives all its strength and power from the Self.

Yea, not sure if that is what I believe. I think Ego is the building block of Self and some never move past Ego. However, an understanding of Self arms one with the knowlege that the Ego is part of Self. Meh, the words are escaping me at the moment.

 

[gps]

Psychologists put 'character' under the microscope - and it vanishes!

I suspect that if a characterologist put `psyche' on a scale it would be found as massive as a hurd of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

There may be something to psychology qua `psychology' qualifying as a `soft' science ... if a science at all.
I vaguely recall that empiricists -- remember them? those prototypical scientists? -- use having-mass or/and having-energy as criteria for existence.

I'll take a half kilo of `psyche' and a Megawatt of `character' to go, please.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

I don't like this article. The example he uses to make his argument makes the assumption that homeless drug-addicts are bad people. Homeless drug addicts are good people a lot of times that are being controlled by a substance.

Character is very real. These people are full of shit.

 

[Lark]

I have always thought that while individuals should develop into biophiles, loving life or living things, if that is obstructed they will become necrophiles, loving death or dead things or objects and objectifying others, its based on what I've seen of people, known about myself and read from, mainly, Eric Fromm, but also some of Jung's writings about psyche and shadow and Freud's writings about a death instinct, its important that people dont harden their hearts. There's a passage in the bible about that, encouraging people not to become hard hearted and I think its valid, no one becomes wicked or saintly over night or is born that way.