Who are you ? Who are people ?

Hello


I would like to debate an old opposition : are people what they think or what they do ?

Some would say we are what we think. But how it works for mental disorders like pseudologia fantastica or dissociative identity disorder ? Without going as far as mental disorder, lot of people think there's a littler or bigger gap between what a third party thinks/feels/sees they are and what is there inner themselves.

Some would say people are what they do -- meaning your inner illusion/delusion of yourself counts less than the actions and reactions you display, mostly because the unconscious mind show more in the actions than in the inner "self" of our thoughts.

There comes the liars and misunderstandings : are people who they think or who they do ? To which extent ?


I thank by advance any amiable participation.

I think one's personality should be seen only when all aspects are taken into consideration: what this person thinks of himself, what other people think of him, what is happening in his conscious and unconscious mind, his current environment, his environment when he was raised, etc. As you have pointed, some people with disorders may think of themselves to be something totally different from what they actually are, but something similar happens to all of us. You can think you are too fat, but in people's eyes you may appear to be with just an average weight. The same thing applies to many other aspects of our lives.

In the end of the day, thoughts become reality, and if you think you are something (even though you are not), you may become what you think you are soon enough. This is why I think one's inner-self is what he truly is.

But then, any individual can surprize itself when acting/reacting on the spur of the moment -- often during stressing situation, like discovering a part of yourself your conscious thoughts were ignoring.

Environment just "help" or "permit" some expressivity. It's not as it does not count but rather there're too much particularisms to take in account (as sample one "are we or not a product from our education" and such). According to what you would answer to those interrogations, it may heavily bias your definition of the free will and thus of what/who is a given individual.

I prefer to not enter this area (about environment influences) to priviledge the individual's influence on its environment -- particularly what define who we are.

There's a lot of people relying on some exterior "flags" to advertize about their interests, hobbies, jobs, culture(s)... Some sort of rallying signs to underlign an aspect or another they wish to express. You may say it's a built image too, adressed to others.

Being more or less drawn to the physicalist, materialist, pragmatist side, I would say we are what we do and, I might be wrong, but as does Marx.

Defining a person based on his mental nature seems like a very shady path for a number of reasons. The very first, I submit, is solipsism. Not full on solipsism but a fraction of it in the sense that it values the individual mind over other factors that surround each of us, people or nature. It seems to go along the lines of «As long as I think of myself as X, I am X». I realize this is more or less the argument used by people with raging emotions of pink and happy thoughts that say everyone is beautiful and perfect just the way they are, and so on. As cheerful as that may be, I think we all know it is wrong.

The second reason I would point out, following a bit from the first, is that it boggles down to ontological aspects of self perception. Let's take James Joyce, for example, who was a writer. Was he a writer after he wrote a book or was he a writer all along? In other words, is being a writer having written a book or is being a writer some sort of mental state perceived by the self? Well, you decide although I would go with the first.

The main reason I would say we are what we do is because, like it or not, we are evolved primates who eat, sleep and breed like any other animals. We might have reasoning skills but everyone who watched a fail compilation video on YouTube knows those skills aren't all that good. Besides, since we live in societies, our actions carry more weight than our thoughts. That isn't to say our thoughts are meaningless, they are of vital importance but if, and only if, they are transposed to paper. Or sound... Or video. Or anything really.

Gonna give a short answer.
You are what you think you are, to yourself, but what defines you to others, are what you do and show.

People are neither what they think or what they do, they are the sum of neither of action or cognative function, a person is a collection of thoughts and deeds that can only be evaluated on a case by case basis.

To put it simply, both, and you have to know the person to tell.

This could take long to explain so I will only write something fair and just. Many people define themselves in different ways and perspectives, such as someone's deeds or his/her way of thinking. Others say they are what their family are, some say they are defined what their ancestors defined them to be, so many answers to such a simple question, yet countless perspectives have countless answers.

For me personally I am a good person, good willed and helpful, yet I have desires which counters that, which is something sexual and sometimes wanna kill somebody. Yet how does that define me? Am I maybe a confused person who is going through a phase of deciding over who I wish to be, or maybe is it that I am trying to dig deep to find myself again after many years of influences that strayed me away from my true being? In my opinion one cannot truly define themselves, because there are always challenges in life that makes us change, we are constantly shifting colors, but there is also that feeling of currently feeling great in their mental and wishing to stay that way, which means they avoid any possible situation which might conflict with their being.

As we grow up we realize that we slowly come into thinking that we have the power to decide who we wish to be, some decide quickly, some take time, and some just don't know. So in reality most of the times we ask ourselves the same question for years, who are we really?

It's like picking clothes, we can decide which outfit suits our tastes. I hope I made sense.

With regards to peoples minds, we often lie and trick ourselves for a variety of reasons that can be as small as, "I don't need a break, I'd be fine for another hour or 2" to "I still want to be with ~blank~... even if I am not hap... No I want things to work, so I am happy". Some of these lies we tell ourselves consciously, some without realizing. So when our thoughts can be fake (less than genuine), how do you determine what to value of consideration? Lying is very much a coping mechanism for us to handle stress and difficulty, often inherited through our upbringing. So, when our unknown flaws are determined by interactions that were not chosen by us (example: parents and teachers), can an individual be held "personally" responsible?

With regards to actions, motivation to act can vary greatly based off mood and will towards any action. The mind plays a great role into how people conduct themselves, but glossing over this. Context also plays a greater role in any action, "how likely are you willing to jump out in-front of a car for a complete stranger, what if you had a child at home waiting for your return, what if the one in the way of the moving car is your child". Humans have different investments in any given action that are not always equal to every other persons'.

On that, looking in the other direction, in order to judge, you must compare, so who can you compare too when there is no such thing as perfection. Maybe you can seek the closes thing you find to perfection, but that falls under subjectivity. Any judgment falls under great bias, so can the perception of another be called accurate and/or fair? It is presumptuous to assume a judgement, by human (not going into machines, religion and mythologies, or animals), is without bias. So is bias acceptable in judging others?

Seeing as peoples are never static; that we are always ever changing, whatever they may have been at the time of establishing judgement, they are now a different, for better or worse, person. Every experience and every interaction changes us, for little or for greater.

There may be an answer to your question, but I wouldn't expect it to be a consistent answer, nor would I expect it to be, at any point, universal to all.

Edit: To add, for the sake of deconstruction, we can only aspire for what is within our scope of imagination. We are the product of our memory, without it, we are someone else. But very much of what occupies our memory is created by someone else. Even our own interactions with another person is 50% theirs. In this way, would it not be strange to say that we are a collection of every experience we had, worked around by our biological brains into a personality that shapes both our actions and our thoughts.

To stage the question "how do you judge a person", I propose to you, the question "what makes a person, a person"? At what point does personal accountability come in, if at all, assuming that it is this that is used in the scaling of?

Just an additional question... are lies and deception countable for actions ? It bothers me wether we should classify as an action (we are what we do) or a mind matter (we are what we think).

That aside...

An individual is not reductible at its memory. Ask pregnant women : lot of them having had more than one child can definitely feel/tell the differences of personality noticable (reactions) within their womb -- seems difficult to already relying on memory of anything in that situation though.

As for what make a person (I prefer "individual" because it can apply to more living being), it's definitely the distinction -- the recognition/existence of an ego distinguishable and able to distinguish itself from environment.

See, there's a big problem with that. It works fine and dandy with new-age happy yoga master of enlightenment stuff but it doesn't work in reality. By new-age happy yoga master of enlightenment stuff I mean something along the lines of «If I think happy thoughts, I'll be happy». By the same reasoning, if I think I'm a dragon, I'll be a dragon. Yet, people won't start seeing me as a dragon or will they?

No, which is why i wrote that. You might envision yourself one way, but it won't change other people's viewpoint. Is there something you meant to ask me with that quote or debate against my post, as i feel like i missed something here?

I really wouldn't take that quote to mean that. I think it more or less something that dives in personality than physical perspective. You can think you are a dragon and even act like a dragon, but odds are others will just see you as a crazy man. So I take the statement as your characteristics define you as a yourself, while your actions define how others see you.

At least that is how I would take it and if I am wrong then I am going to start thinking I am a dragon and hope for the best.

Neither will it change anything else.

I did ramble a bit there but that's basically it: altering the perception we have of ourselves doesn't alter what we are. So, saying that, to ourselves, we are what we think we are leads to false statements. I could for whatever mental disorder start thinking I'm a dragon yet it wouldn't make me so not only to others but to myself too.

If I may try a simpler example, let's try bravery. You said «You are what you think you are». So, following that, will I be brave if I think of myself as brave? I think not for the same reason as with the dragon example. I may be fully convinced of my bravery but if a fight or flight moment should arise and I discover I'm *not* brave, then I'll find out I've been living under a delusion.



I don't take it to mean that either. The dragon example just illustrates that, following that logic, that's were it can lead. I also don't think it has to do with personality since the question is broader than that.

Im "that dude". The dude that comes to a party, drinks all the booze/smokes all the weed while no one is looking, throws up on the roof and then disappears without leaving his cell #

If we were to debate the theory of forms, more specifically perfect form, it is entirely possible to classify oneself as a "dragon" and be right in that assertion.

To deconstruct a simpler "form", take a chair, how do you define a chair? What makes a chair a "chair"?



Bravery can't be limited to an "on/off", different task requires different amounts of confidence. Confidence is more of a varying number based on the person, than based on tasked applied too, aided by necessity/motivation and responsibility, against fear and difficulty. (Most likely missing other parts of the equation.)

Personal example, walking down a quite, dark, empty street is easier than holding a spider for me, walking down the same street infested with jumping and hanging spiders is even harder than the previous two... And to add inconsistency, there are times in which I can and can't do these things, without consistency. Sometimes my fear outweighs my bravery and vise verse.



Interesting question, makes me wonder. If so, what says any form of thought can not be classified as an action, as well?



As a child in the womb, exhibiting some form of personality, hasn't the brain of the child developed to a point of memory and limited comprehension by that point? And isn't it possible the mothers could be confusing muscle spasms and the brain reacting to it's body's interaction with it's environment as personality?

I wasn't classifying our entirety to our memories, but that our scope (and a significant amount of our individual values) of perception, that we can chase after, is shaped by our memories. And that our personality is shaped by our memories combined with the biology of our brain.

Science have proven time and time again the coalitions between chemicals in the body and mood, among other things. Even depression can be classified as a chemical imbalance. External substances can also effect our personality, drugs, hallucinogens, and/or alcohol through alteration of our mental state, enhancing or even removing certain thought patterns.



So what makes a person are the parts that can distinguish itself as separate from it's environments? To affirm I am understanding this correctly.

What would that make a distinction between choices done for personal sake and choices done for the collective good? Example, where would "following a bandwagon" fall under, as it's a choice shaped by the views experienced, much like "peer pressure". Not so much a distinction between self and environment but in the other direction of attempting to and/or being part of that environment. Is the pursuit of assimilation and belonging separate from the your definition of individual?

Though You did say you wanted to avoid environment, so I'll drop this.

I am going to cite the Two-Factor Theory of emotion here. According to the Two-Factor theory, we experience a stimulus, and the body is aroused

and the brain tries to find a reason for the arousal. For example, an individual on a plane may link the regular sweating and heart rate increase on a plane from cabin conditions on the plane to fear instead, and therefore increase their fear of flying. When they have it explained to them that it is just the body's natural reaction, they become less fearful.

This relates to the topic, because as a person's outlook changes, so too do their actual emotions. As for the the perspective on personality itself, I do not agree with the Freudian perspective of the ego, superego, and id. While they may seem logical, I believe that some parts of the human critter defy logical explanation. The perspective of a psychoanalyst is too... dehumanizing. (A cigar is just a cigar, folks)
Humanistic psychology, on the other hand, actually takes into account human social relationships, as well as the fact that we think, and possess, at least in part, self determination. Most evidence falls in favor of the humanistic view that unconditional positive regard helps us grow as a person.

Personality traits have proven to be consistent, but environment changes our behavior in different situations.

Now, I am, as a person, a person who tries to make myself think before I speak, and someone who loves to read, play video games, sometimes debate, and talk to other intelligent people. That is who I am. People, in general, are who they are. We can't do anything to change them. Sorry for the wall of text and psychology speak.

Maybe I'm missing something but I think that point can be answered with a laconic «if».



I could try to answer that but I'm not sure it follows since we are talking about people. The analogy could stand but I don't think it does since people have the very specific element of the mental nature which chairs, from what we can tell, don't. You could argue against that, sure, some people do, but it's not really a proposition to take seriously. Here, it is about the ideas we have of ourselves making up who we really are. Again, maybe I'm missing something but I don't think it follows unless chairs can think of themselves as anything.



I think the example still stands, you just added some padding to it. The point is whether our notions of ourselves make up who we are to ourselves. So, if you think of yourself as brave with regards to insects (are spiders insects?...) you will be brave, according to that logic. But will you really when you find yourself facing a big tarantula?

I can sample :

• Making thoughts in your head is not an action -- at least some act on the environment.

• Speaking aloud is an action.

On this basis, how to classify lying ? :-/




Then our view seem to meet in some points :

• Of course environment impact our thoughts through multiple pathways.

• In the same time this is not a matter of simplistic "ON/OFF" mechanism. It is reeeaaally complex, making room for emergence -- sometime in a "drastic" way as idiosyncrasy or even disorders.

But since there's room for emergence, we're not some consequence from our memories. It have some influence but we have also room to act without those memories -- then open the capability to learn or imagine...




Correct.




It is raaather different than some "choices done for personal sake and choices done for the collective good". No need to hardly think about relationship within a group or even some mysthical misery about relation to environment.

To put it simple, the basis of ego is the proprioception. It's the way you feel yourself within environment. Hard to make it more clear/evident :-/

Can you elaborate on this a bit more, I am too unfamiliar with the term to understand what you mean.



The "chair" is how I was introduced to the concept of "form", that there is no way to define a "chair" that doesn't correlate with other objects that are classified as "not chairs". I was saying that humans and chairs were the same, though I believe you can argue for this, I was using chair as a simpler example.

If you want to use the dragon example, what characteristics define dragons? Scales and fire breath? Not all dragons have these. Wings and giant bodies? Again, not always the case. That their physical form is different from humans? Often times in anime and JRPG's, Seikoku no Dragonar for example, they hold a human form and can speak our language, but are still classified as "dragons".

Using the anime mentioned, what about that character classifies her, in her physical form, as a dragon? And is it shared with the dragon girl from Dragon Crisis, Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stone's dragon girl, or the female lead from Dragonaut. And them being female is similar with a little more than half the humans on this planet. Them having "powers" is similar to many stories of "humans" with "powers".

I'm not saying their the same, but that there is nothing that strictly adheres to the concept of a dragon, that is not interchangeable with other forms.



I didn't see it that way, I read "....will I be brave if I think of myself as brave?" as a generalization of all circumstances and situations, that bravery is always the same equation of having and not having.



Rather it's the conscious or unconscious mind, thoughts take some form of activity from the brain. If you take both away, you are void of thought.

If I put it a different way, if your told, say by a teacher, to think over the answer and answer the question, is thinking, in this context, not an action?

In context of google search definition for "Action": "the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim." This, to me, seems to make the thought an "action".



I don't mean to say that we are a direct result of solely our memories, but that our memories, are the biggest influence that shapes "who we are" if we are defined by our actions. I do find the complicated workings of the mind to be a significant influence on our thoughts, but people can not compose thought of existing possibilities, without an understanding or awareness of its existence.

Too simplify, I can not know, and from knowing act on, secret illegal dealings in, for this example, somewhere in Africa. I have to have learned of it, and after the process of observation, the information becomes a memory. Knowledge of what illegal "means" is a memory in itself.

In another manner, I can not form the though that "I need to protect others" if I have lived alone my entire life (ignoring how complicated and amazing such a thing would be). It would be through interactions with, deriving value for, and reflecting on that value towards those in our memories, that we can form the idea (on our own) that "we should help that person in danger", which would result in action.




It's been awhile, and I forgot my train of thought with that comment, sorry for replying so late, to both you and nateriver10.

(Merriam-Webster was a lot easier to understand, the wiki is a bit confusing.) That "external stimulus produces ego" is how I read the final paragraph. In which, I would define the basis of ego a combination of extrospection and memory, and that proprioception would the process before and between "observation" and "reflection of thought from memory". From memory, value is derived, based off memories of observed value derived from self and observed in others.

I think, the example of, the process of people who loose there memory trying to adopt the perception others illustrate of their former self, fits in this somewhere. Head is kinda going dull...

Why not, but if/when we're talking about how a third party would see you, your inner thoughts (non expressed or whatever), do they really matter as "actions" ? As long as they remain thoughts and not "physical" action ?




Wrong. We can, as long as we develop/master enough imagination. We can create within/by mind concepts and dreams that can't become reality. And further more, scientist do use a lot of imagination to explore the possible ways to explain reality, as well as artists use a lot of imagination too.

I've written few little stories and drawn some scratches. Would you believe sometime your creation really come to life / is "borning" under your own very eyes and fingers ?

Imagination is really, really something amazing when well mastered and enough developed.




Then what about acting on the spur of the moment ?

Like guessing things on the spur of the moment ? You don't need absolutely some memory, but you feel a lot of informations and attempt to catch up, to guess what it is all about. [size=10]This is not remembering, this is "learning". In some way.[/h] Then, you don't already have confirmation if you are guessing right or wrong, but you may act according to this guess/bet.

You may also just react without thinking -- when surprised, when falling into a stressing unknown context/situation, sometime even dangerous. You may even have some fit of temper/heart and only realize your act backward.




No need of memories once more.

Why ? Because within our Homo sapiens's brain exist mirror neurons. No need to value a particular individual by linving with it or having interactions, should you have been alone "from your birth" or something like that.

You can even seek for a fellow by instinct, just because of those mirror neurons, then form the tought "I need to protect others" as a concept awaiting to be put/use in real life (imagination again...).




Sorry. In the french Wikipédia, it was rather clear I think. As for the english Wikipedia, it is hard to judge whether or not it would be understandable since less "english" spokers really use "long" words.




Meh... It is not "external" to begin with. And if you're talking about my paragraph, NO : it means you are aware yourself + the environment. You sense/do a distinction between your being and the environment. No more, no less.

The ego comes upon/after that distinction.




No. Again, this is immediate sensing/perception. No memory, you feel only. Not only a matter of real time information treatment within the brain. Memories are more alike some meta-data, while proprioception is only data.



Gné ? Are you speaking about that conceptual amnesia in some fictions like XIII ??? It is not possible : when you lose one of "personnal" memories, you also lose any knowledge/experience related to it.

True amnesias can rather drive a patient to (for example) lose the walk, the talk, the read... or just a period of time.

Losing any memory would mean your behavior to be the same as a new born baby, or even worst.

Check about Alzheimer syndrom, it involves/provokes a lot of amnesia -- the real one, not some phantasm.