Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

No such thing as an individual?

B

Brainaddict

slight system overdrive
I'm interested in finding some theorists or hearing some thoughts on some stuff I've been thinking about lately about whether an 'individual' is a bit of a ridiculous concept. Or perhaps, how individual an individual can be.

It's pretty obvious that humans can't really grow and form in isolation, that they learn a lot of stuff by mimicry (including many 'personality traits' and so on) and by trial and error in interaction with others - we kind of form ourselves through our interaction with other people.

It also seems to me that on an ongoing basis our 'characters' - for want of a more precise term - are quite *entangled* with the characters of the people around us. We reflect each other's behaviour and affect each other in interesting feedback loops. We act as each others anchors or reference points, each creating part of the world that those around them live in. Our environment also affects our behaviour in many ways - a complex subject in itself.

Anyway, it seems to me that it doesn't make sense then to think of a person as a bounded entity (this is where it gets difficult to talk about it without sounding like a bloody hippie, but there we go). Perhaps the most you can say is that we are nodes, providing a physical framework through which 'information' from people and the environment can flow (the first of those two is by far the more important I think because of the intensity of interaction with people compared to other environmental factors). That picture doesn't leave much room for free will, but let's not dwell on that - it's just one of many possible analogies. The point is to get away from the notion of people as 'atoms' and move towards something that reflects our utter dependence on other humans and on human contact.

So anyway, I'm sure that this isn't saying anything particularly new, but I can't think of a theorist that would cover what I'm trying to say - perhaps what I'm looking for would be more in psychology than in the political theory I'm more used to? Can anyone help?
 
I can see why you might suggest him in terms of how he saw the self being constructed, but given that he's a radical individualist it's almost the opposite of what I'm looking for.
 
Read Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart, Figments of reality (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521571553) for its description of "extelligence"...

Edited to add: and then arrange a beer - I'm very interested in this...
 
this sounds a bit like this self/no self debate and, personally, I say there isn't one, you can draw a line round different things... your body, your mind, your reputation, your feelings and emotions.. and say "that's me", but it's really just a collection of associated things. The individual, or "self" exists as a biological unit, and of course a handy abstraction.. a concept of "me", essential for day to day living (else who would they make your wage slip out to?).

Its a bit like talking about a 'community'.... you can't physically point to a thing that is 'the community', but it is clearly a useful entity to define

(imvho)
 
imvho this way of thinking is covered by a lot of developmental psychology (study of the teenage years for example: adolescence particularly, when a person is bitterly fighting for a sense of 'identity'. this invariably relates to social interaction, ones own perception of how one is perceived by others etc). not ending there of course: it will probably also come into a lot of social psychology; perceptions of the self within groups. 'in' groups and 'out' groups.
in terms of a 'theorist' there will be many. not very helpful, sorry: but it is a huge area.
 
Brainaddict said:
I'm interested in finding some theorists or hearing some thoughts on some stuff I've been thinking about lately about whether an 'individual' is a bit of a ridiculous concept. Or perhaps, how individual an individual can be.

It's pretty obvious that humans can't really grow and form in isolation, that they learn a lot of stuff by mimicry (including many 'personality traits' and so on) and by trial and error in interaction with others - we kind of form ourselves through our interaction with other people.

It also seems to me that on an ongoing basis our 'characters' - for want of a more precise term - are quite *entangled* with the characters of the people around us. We reflect each other's behaviour and affect each other in interesting feedback loops. We act as each others anchors or reference points, each creating part of the world that those around them live in. Our environment also affects our behaviour in many ways - a complex subject in itself.

Anyway, it seems to me that it doesn't make sense then to think of a person as a bounded entity (this is where it gets difficult to talk about it without sounding like a bloody hippie, but there we go). Perhaps the most you can say is that we are nodes, providing a physical framework through which 'information' from people and the environment can flow (the first of those two is by far the more important I think because of the intensity of interaction with people compared to other environmental factors). That picture doesn't leave much room for free will, but let's not dwell on that - it's just one of many possible analogies. The point is to get away from the notion of people as 'atoms' and move towards something that reflects our utter dependence on other humans and on human contact.

So anyway, I'm sure that this isn't saying anything particularly new, but I can't think of a theorist that would cover what I'm trying to say - perhaps what I'm looking for would be more in psychology than in the political theory I'm more used to? Can anyone help?
Click to expand...

Very much so. In fact why am I thinking this in the first place. :( Can't remember the theorist.. but there's some anthropologist who explains the way we walk/swim/lift objects etc. as down to the culture we're in.
 
that is the definiton of social psychology though: the science that studies individual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in settings where other people are present (or merely implied or imagined--which makes the definition pretty broad). notice the focus is quite different from sociology, where groups of people are studied, but closer to psychology, where individuals are studied. the focus of social psychology is the individual within the group
-----
i personally do not think the term 'individual' is redundant though as whilst the 'self' is created by experiences, emotions, feelings, perceptions of how others perceive us etc they are all 'individual' experiences, emotions, feelings and perceptions.

btw, i realise that sounds very simplistic but my brain is elsewhere today.
 
okay, I don't think I made myself very clear above, so here's an example of what I mean:

Say a friend of yours has a unique behavioural pattern. this provokes in you a unique response path. that person and only that person provokes that response in your brain - yet this response is part of your personality, perhaps part of your self-image. Then the person dies. That response path is never again sparked in your brain. So part of your personality is lost too. This is what people mean when they say that part of themself died when a friend/partner died I guess.
But now think of it in terms of information and where the information is stored. Essentially part of the information that made up your personality was stored in another person's head. So the stuff (the information) that is your *self* is not entirely contained within you - it spreads itself across the people and environment around you too.

I used the unique behaviour example because it makes things more obvious - but I do think the principle extends to the general case - i.e. non-unique behaviours. The point is that it is information stored elsewhere or coming from elsewhere that mingles with the information already in your head to create your behaviour.

That example also suggests a rather static picture, when in fact I'm thinking of information flows and how they can converge/mingle within a person - and how that information can then by modified within the person by other information and re-transmitted slightly altered (transmission is always imperfect obviously - that's a given).
 
Yes, when asked for a short definition of "extelligence" I tend to say "all the bits of what it's like to be you that don't live inside your skull".

Stewart and Cohen, being academics, focus on the bits of them that live in the library. But it's applicable to social reactions as well as intellectual knowledge.

And to technology. Not just that I no longer remember things I've filed on a server somewhere, but that the London Underground is an essential part of what it's like to be me. As is the rest of the city.
 
laptop said:
Yes, when asked for a short definition of "extelligence" I tend to say "all the bits of what it's like to be you that don't live inside your skull".

Stewart and Cohen, being academics, focus on the bits of them that live in the library. But it's applicable to social reactions as well as intellectual knowledge.

And to technology. Not just that I no longer remember things I've filed on a server somewhere, but that the London Underground is an essential part of what it's like to be me. As is the rest of the city.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip laptop - will look that up tomorrow and get back to you.
 
Brainaddict said:
okay, I don't think I made myself very clear above, so here's an example of what I mean:

Say a friend of yours has a unique behavioural pattern. this provokes in you a unique response path. that person and only that person provokes that response in your brain - yet this response is part of your personality, perhaps part of your self-image. Then the person dies. That response path is never again sparked in your brain. So part of your personality is lost too. This is what people mean when they say that part of themself died when a friend/partner died I guess.
But now think of it in terms of information and where the information is stored. Essentially part of the information that made up your personality was stored in another person's head. So the stuff (the information) that is your *self* is not entirely contained within you - it spreads itself across the people and environment around you too.

I used the unique behaviour example because it makes things more obvious - but I do think the principle extends to the general case - i.e. non-unique behaviours. The point is that it is information stored elsewhere or coming from elsewhere that mingles with the information already in your head to create your behaviour.

That example also suggests a rather static picture, when in fact I'm thinking of information flows and how they can converge/mingle within a person - and how that information can then by modified within the person by other information and re-transmitted slightly altered (transmission is always imperfect obviously - that's a given).
Click to expand...

Yeah like 'no man is an island'.. people exist in a culture.. :oops: :p :)
 
It strikes me this extelligence is not entirely dissimilar (sp?) to meme theory. Not exactly the same, but similar ideas expressed in a different way I reckon. They both talk about the transmission of culture and have an evolutionary element. Extelligence places more emphasis on the stuff outside your head, which is kind of what I'm talking about, but...

I'm going to write another post to explain myself further. Maybe tomorrow. From the number of posts on this thread so far I imagine *millions* of people are going to be on the edges of their seats.
 
Hmm, how to clarify this? Of course I don't think the idea of an individual is completely non-useful, but I kind of think that when people think of an individual they think of a closed entity that you can take a snapshot of and say 'this is the person'.

I guess what I'm trying to talk about is the way that you can't freeze a person in time and say that that is them - because part of a person is the input going into their mind. If you cut off all input to someone the 'person' becomes something else, possibly not even a person (though I wouldn't want to argue that too strongly). I also think that the majority of 'input' to a normal person (in terms of the bandwidth consumed, to use an analogy) comes from interaction with people - the information from that tends to be a lot more complex than other info. The 'output' of a person also effects the input, so we've got to take that into account as well.

So a 'person' is not just what is in the body and mind at any given moment, but a product of the ongoing input/output processes. A state of mind is not just about what is innate and learned but about the dynamic interaction with the outside world at any given moment. Once you cut off that, the innate and learned stuff in the mind would not function in the same way - hence me saying you can't properly be an individual.

All of which is possibly obvious, but I find myself struggling to express exactly what I'm wanting to say - which is why I was hoping to find theorists to help me.
 
Brainaddict said:
Hmm, how to clarify this? Of course I don't think the idea of an individual is completely non-useful, but I kind of think that when people think of an individual they think of a closed entity that you can take a snapshot of and say 'this is the person'.

I guess what I'm trying to talk about is the way that you can't freeze a person in time and say that that is them - because part of a person is the input going into their mind. If you cut off all input to someone the 'person' becomes something else, possibly not even a person (though I wouldn't want to argue that too strongly). I also think that the majority of 'input' to a normal person (in terms of the bandwidth consumed, to use an analogy) comes from interaction with people - the information from that tends to be a lot more complex than other info. The 'output' of a person also effects the input, so we've got to take that into account as well.

So a 'person' is not just what is in the body and mind at any given moment, but a product of the ongoing input/output processes. A state of mind is not just about what is innate and learned but about the dynamic interaction with the outside world at any given moment. Once you cut off that, the innate and learned stuff in the mind would not function in the same way - hence me saying you can't properly be an individual.

All of which is possibly obvious, but I find myself struggling to express exactly what I'm wanting to say - which is why I was hoping to find theorists to help me.
Click to expand...


Isnt that just a rather complicated way of saying wot I was saying?
 
Hollis said:
Isnt that just a rather complicated way of saying wot I was saying?
Click to expand...
well sort of, sort of not.
I guess I'm trying to say something like that in a more *precise* way, rather than in a more complicated way.
 
If we are talking about absolute uniqueness as the criteria for individuality. Then I would say no. In those parameters there are no individuals.

We all have traits that set us apart from others. Some people may share some of those traits some of the time. But nobody shares all of them all of the time.

All this rather begs the question. What is it that makes us, us? Or Me, Me? If you prefer.

There is much about us that may be unique. And yet on some level has been taught. If someone teaches or brainwashes me into some trait. Even if that trait is adopted by me and only me. I am still not neccesarily being myself. The trait becomes incorporated into what im being. But what Im being is not neccesarily who I am.

My reasoning for this is simple. We are what we love. The mind is succeptable to myriad kinds of suggestion. Yet our truest feelings can only be nurtured. It is what springs forth from inside of ourselves that is truly unique.

The heart is always our best guide. We know deep inside on a level a million miles away from simple reasoning when we are being true to ourselves.
 
An interesting look at this question :

Marx and the Millennium: A Brief Guide to the Universe
Frank Williamson

Despite the title it is not that hard going in terms of reading.
 
Morning bump.

Someone pointed out that I haven't really asked a question on this thread - which is partly because it started off with vague thoughts and then I was trying to clarify what I actually meant so I didn't get around to asking a question.
But I guess having explained myself a bit more a good question would be: is this a reasonable way to look at people? Does it make sense and is it helpful?
 
It will depend entirely on how you look at it, and whom you are looking at.

Biologically yes we are (nearly) all individuals - unique DNA (unless you're an identical twin) sees to that. On the most basic psychological level we are - until someone comes up with proof of ESP or some other link between people's minds (e.g. some kind of meta-consciousness that links all of us on some basic, species wide level that we are unaware of). That each human has memories unique to them also points to psychological individualism - we are our memories essentially (as anyone who watches Unknown White Male will attest).

However, we subsume elements of ourselves in different ways. For example, a solider, while still a biological individual, is more likely to behave in ways similar to other soldiers around the world (basic training doesn't vary massively in professional armies), and obviously the team based nature of the army means that soldiers may have a higher degree of 'themselves' subsumed into a greater collection of human minds.

So...I reckon that humans are individuals at the most basic levels, but that all of us have that individualism subsumed into collectives either through choice, force or simply by 'osmosis' (FWOABW) - for example, going to a gig will give you individual memories, but part of that memory will be the joy that comes along with sharing the experience with lots of other humans.

As to whether it's a reasonable way to look at people...I think it's one of the ways we all look at people everyday as part of the unconcious process of assessing how to deal with them, and that much of this process is carried out in our unconscious/sub-concious. The existence of the phrase 'They're quite an individual' indicates that some people have a mental grading process for individuality. So I'd say that yes it makes sense and, as part of the assessment process it can be helpful, provided it isn't dysfunctional, e.g. used in isolation or with excess weight attached to it at the expense of other assessment criteria.

Sorry if that's all a bit obvious, but it's first thing Friday...
 
kyser_soze said:
It will depend entirely on how you look at it, and whom you are looking at.

Biologically yes we are (nearly) all individuals - unique DNA (unless you're an identical twin) sees to that. On the most basic psychological level we are - until someone comes up with proof of ESP or some other link between people's minds (e.g. some kind of meta-consciousness that links all of us on some basic, species wide level that we are unaware of). That each human has memories unique to them also points to psychological individualism - we are our memories essentially (as anyone who watches Unknown White Male will attest).

However, we subsume elements of ourselves in different ways. For example, a solider, while still a biological individual, is more likely to behave in ways similar to other soldiers around the world (basic training doesn't vary massively in professional armies), and obviously the team based nature of the army means that soldiers may have a higher degree of 'themselves' subsumed into a greater collection of human minds.

So...I reckon that humans are individuals at the most basic levels, but that all of us have that individualism subsumed into collectives either through choice, force or simply by 'osmosis' (FWOABW) - for example, going to a gig will give you individual memories, but part of that memory will be the joy that comes along with sharing the experience with lots of other humans.

As to whether it's a reasonable way to look at people...I think it's one of the ways we all look at people everyday as part of the unconcious process of assessing how to deal with them, and that much of this process is carried out in our unconscious/sub-concious. The existence of the phrase 'They're quite an individual' indicates that some people have a mental grading process for individuality. So I'd say that yes it makes sense and, as part of the assessment process it can be helpful, provided it isn't dysfunctional, e.g. used in isolation or with excess weight attached to it at the expense of other assessment criteria.

Sorry if that's all a bit obvious, but it's first thing Friday...
Click to expand...
hmm, all interesting thoughts, but did you read my posts later in the thread? you've kind of missed what I was trying to say. I think.
 
I believe Fromm has many interesting things to say about individualism and the way in modern society many subvert their real self to blend in with the masses. This is from a website ive lost the link to but if you google a sentence it should come up.

The person who uses automaton conformity is like a social chameleon: He takes on the coloring of his surroundings. Since he looks like a million other people, he no longer feels alone. He isn't alone, perhaps, but he's not himself either. The automaton conformist experiences a split between his genuine feelings and the colors he shows the world, very much along the lines of Horney's theory.

In fact, since humanity's "true nature" is freedom, any of these escapes from freedom alienates us from ourselves. Here's what Fromm had to say:

"Man is born as a freak of nature, being within nature and yet transcending it. He has to find principles of action and decision making which replace the principles of instincts. he has to have a frame of orientation which permits him to organize a consistent picture of the world as a condition for consistent actions. He has to fight not only against the dangers of dying, starving, and being hurt, but also against another anger which is specifically human: that of becoming insane. In other words, he has to protect himself not only against the danger of losing his life but also against the danger of losing his mind."
Click to expand...
 
MarkMark said:
this sounds a bit like this self/no self debate and, personally, I say there isn't one, you can draw a line round different things... your body, your mind, your reputation, your feelings and emotions.. and say "that's me", but it's really just a collection of associated things. The individual, or "self" exists as a biological unit, and of course a handy abstraction.. a concept of "me", essential for day to day living (else who would they make your wage slip out to?).

Its a bit like talking about a 'community'.... you can't physically point to a thing that is 'the community', but it is clearly a useful entity to define

(imvho)
Click to expand...

This strikes me as true Mark. Another part of truth has been revealed. :cool:

P.S. My Mum always says that before enlightenment chop wood carry water thging when she thinks Im getting too carried away with spiritual stuff. :D
 
I dunno. I feel that my individuality is insured by the unity of my conscious experiences, and the unity of your's, but the disunity of ours. Can't really argue with these things. Or can you (raises eyebrows)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cloo
Why are more young men than older seeing feminism as a bad thing?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
287
Views
15K
mango5
mango5
Yugoslav
CIA and the Non-communist Left (NCL)
2 3 4
Replies
108
Views
2K
Yugoslav
Yugoslav
brixtonscot
Sexual Liberation and/or Capitalist Assimilation ?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
yield
Y
hitmouse
Condemning/not condemning
Replies
20
Views
1K
Boris Sprinkler
Boris Sprinkler
Cloo
What do/should the World Wars mean to us now & in the future?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
AnnO'Neemus
A
Back
Top Bottom