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