Skip to main content

Psych Discussions

I have been thinking again of two different topics and this post is a sort of a report on my thoughts of these two topics. I would love to hear your thoughts, either pro or con about the concerned topic.


Discussion 1

The Harnessing of intrapersonal conflict to build a better understanding of the self (in terms of self esteem and confidence, etc)


After some research on the topic of intrapersonal conflict, I have noticed that there are some cases where the inner monologue or "voice in your head" are in multiples. So someone may not have just one voice that they think in, but multiple voices that could have a conversation among themselves and result in the ultimate decision that person may choose. I believe that they call this polyphonic internal narration. These are not rare cases of people but they are not common cases either. I would say "uncommon" is a better suiting word. Regardless, the existence of such a case got me thinking. The most simplified basic way this could work is let's say, a situation in the mind of a person where two voices are present instead of the one inner monologue. Now let's talk about conflict. 


The conflict raging between these two voices (intrapersonally) in the mind of a person who views this whole conflict as a third person or audience, and this third person or mind, is the one who takes the final decision after having listened to the two voices. This setup, if it could be controlled well and made into a learn-able skill, I believe that it would be highly valued. Especially in a scene which is prone to debates. Taking for instance, a scene of an organized debate, this setup, could raise awareness of both sides of arguments (pro and con, typically either positive or negative) and lead to better management and/or improved working of said organized debate. Applying this to a real life situation, I can think of military situations, where strategizing is key. A setup like this could greatly enhance strategy-making. Not only will individuals be forced to open their minds to find counterattack pathways, imagine if these same individuals collaborated? They are already enhanced (in sense of thought) intrapersonally, surely after talking inter-personally among other similar like minded people, surely there would be quite creative and better solutions than if they didn't do this. 


A not totally irrelevant point (that I am not very sure about): Would you say introverts would be more likely or better equipped to induce this setup in their minds at will? They probably already spend a lot of time in the intrapersonal realm of thoughts, and could be more skilled at navigating this than extroverts. 


This next discussion is more of a thought provoking activity than a discussion but here goes:

Discussion 2

Human Selfishness vs Altruism


Remember when I proposed that humans do everything as long as it has at least a drop of personal gain? So upon further research into this topic, I learnt that there exists a concept already called psychological egoism in the study of modern psychology. This is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even if there are acts performed that seem to be altruistic in nature. There is a more specified form of this view called psychological hedonism, which basically states that the ultimate motive for all voluntary human action is the desire to experience pleasure or to avoid pain (Experiencing pleasure, I would say would make the psychological egoism argument for "giving away to charity" and other altruistic acts valid). 


Personally, one of the ways I study is that if there is a law or rule (and science has a lot of those), I would try to disprove it. It makes me think about it and in doing so, I understand the law better. The thing with laws is if even one case can be established that disproves the law, the law cannot be said to be a law. The thought provoking activity part of Discussion 2 is basically me asking you to construct an analogy or situation which disproves the Psychological Hedonism view. (Either disproves or goes against, that is more of a semantic issue...)


One of my thoughts to disprove psychological hedonism would be that there do exist cases where humans may endure pain to achieve greatest net pleasure (example: Bodybuilders). Here, humans aren't strictly obeying the "avoid pain or gain pleasure" rule. I would argue that human behavior is not so binary in this situation. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Learn something new everyday #1

Today I learned about Wolfgang Engels. He is  a former East German soldier. In late April 1963, the man stole a military tank from his base while the crew was at lunch and drove it right through the Berlin wall to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin. The East Berlin populace was so used to seeing tanks out on the streets that they actually stopped traffic to let the guy pass. The tank got stuck halfway through the wall and he got out, under heavy fire and successfully made the escape. He got his freedom, but his mother (a devout communist) disowned him. He became a biology teacher, retired and now works as a Docent at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The badassery of it. The sheer idea that "Tank. Wall. Let's do it" and then actually doing it. Damn. There were other folks who beat the Berlin wall as well.  In May 1963, Austrian Heinz Meixner drove a convertible right under the checkpoint gate. He realized the car is just short enough to make it, so he removed th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Philosophizing The Big Question

Life. What is it? That is a philosophical question. It’s probably the oldest question in history. But does it have an answer? Of course it does. It’s been, what, a thousand years of humankind? Of course someone would’ve answered it by now. And people have, they’ve answered and created careers out of it. Entire lives based on that question. There was Diogenes, a beggar kind of guy who eventually became one of the founding members of a branch in Greek philosophy. This dude existed around the time of Alexander the Great and Plato and Socrates. There’s a story about him; One day Diogenes is out in the beach just chilling when Alexander the Great approaches him and asks “I have a huge empire, it is the greatest, tell me what you want and I will bring it to you!” Diogenes replies with annoyance on his face “Get out of my sunlight.” Alexander, being a proud dude, says “if I wasn’t Alexander, I’d be Diogenes.” To this, Diogenes replies “if I wasn’t Diogenes, I’d be Diogenes”. Diog...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Great Americuh Reopens

According to our beloved leader of the free world, "America wants to be open, and Americans want to be open”. As of writing this post, The United States of America is now in Phase 1 of reopening from the quarantine lock down. The U.S. does not have enough equipment, funding or the required people to conduct mass testing yet the populace has found itself starting to reopen. As the White House website www.whitehouse.gov says, they came upon the three-phased approach after listening to public health experts. Even though the guidelines make sense if one thinks about it, let's talk about what is happening and what should be happening. The guidelines proposed by the Trump Administration say for an individual: - When in public, social distancing should be a thing at its maximum. Settings where there's more than 10 folks and precautionary measures are not in place, avoid them. - Don't travel anywhere unless you absolutely need to. - Whenever possible, keep working f...
Post a Comment
Read more