Ifat Glassman

Or take even something like using a certain locally accepted gesture, like... tipping a hat as a way of greeting someone. Using such a gesture is still not conforming, no more than using a language is conforming. I am not conforming to the American people by speaking English... some language is necessary. So things like shaking hands are nothing more than that. By the way, thanks for the idea about making a distinction between conformity and conformism. I think I will leave the name as it is, because I was talking about the actual process of conforming as damaging, so the name is good enough to express the content.

I never used the definition you are using, I don't think it is true. In any case... If I like dressing up and I pick something conventional which I like - is that conforming? Accidentally, my appearance will match the social convention, but that is a major distinction - accidentally. Contrast that with someone who goes shopping looking for clothes that would gain him social approval - see the difference? Or how about someone who is smiling to someone else out of enjoyment vs. someone who is smiling to make others find one acceptable (even though one feels no genuine feeling that would motivate a smile) - both of them are acting in a socially acceptable manner, yet only the second one is conforming. The same thing goes for manners. The reason I am acting in a certain way which is socially acceptable (like not burping in public or other stuff of this kind which I'm sure you can think of) is not because I am undergoing a process of adjusting my behavior to what is socially acceptable, but because this is what I find the right course of action. In other words acting in a socially acceptable manner is not conformity. Adjusting one's behavior to that which is socially acceptable is. at least, "adjusting" is the best word I can think of for this process to illustrate the distinction in each of the cases above. If anyone has a better word in mind I'd be happy to hear.

I don't think it's conformity at all - this is not a process by which one adjusts oneself to what others see as acceptable, but this is one deciding to act in a way most beneficial to communication and living with others (such as not burping in public or sneezing in someone's face etc'). Conformity is referring to the intention behind an action, not to what it happens to be in addition - i.e. if something I do happens to fall within the norms of society it does not mean that the action is conforming. Edit: If one thinks "OK, I'm going to act in a certain way now so that others may like me/ approve of me" that is conformity. If one thinks: "I'm going to act in a way that promotes my enjoyment and values, and if others like me for it, all the better!" that is not conformity.

Thanks, whYNOT. I think there is still a lot to be said on this topic... I don't see this essay as all encompassing. Several things I see important to write more about: What are the guiding principles of behavior in expressing oneself? (should one shout in the streets "death to socialism" or just talk about it with friends and why? What counts as conformity and what as simply selfishly keeping one's thoughts to oneself?) Many people feel that if they don't conform they will not be able to survive in this world - is it really true? And there are more related topics.

This is not conformity, though. There is a rational reason not to disgust others around you. Other people are of great potential value - it's hard to enjoy a rational being while pooping on their dinner table. What is the rational reason to wear jeans one does not like but that other would? What is the reason for telling jokes others would like but one finds boring? None. It holds no personal satisfaction, no psychological visibility, no exchange of values - THAT is conformity. EDIT: There is definitely great value in investing in one's external appearance and great rational pleasure to be derived from being appreciated and enjoyed by others (that one appreciates). It is a false notion that caring for other people's opinion or wanting approval or admiration is the same as conformity or second-handed-ness. It is simply not true. A conformists seeks approval for the sake of running from self-doubt. A man of self-esteem seeks appreciation for the sake of enjoying his value, which he is already aware of.

[Read the essay on my blog] Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem Conformity is the process by which one adjusts one's behavior, values and beliefs to those which one holds as acceptable by other people. If one observes a child or an adult trying to conform, one can see that the underlying emotion in their behavior is fear and a sense of loss of control. They are driven by fear to say certain "acceptable" things that will make them feel that they belong. They are always in a pursuit of pleasing some external authority and never find the serenity of self-approval and self-appreciation. Conformity is not just a harmless habit, which comes down to nothing more than making sure to wear the right brand of jeans and to exhibit the right kind of opinions and interests - these are merely the symptoms, the external manifestations, of a deep spiritual, psychological problem. Conformity is a damaging idea that targets nothing short of an individual's entire spiritual life: One's self-esteem, sense of personal identity, enjoyment of values and the possibility of any fulfilling relationship. Most parents not realizing this, encourage their children to conform, thinking that "a child needs to have friends", "a child needs to learn to be socially acceptable to succeed in this world". Little do they know that they ensure that if the child has any friends by this method, there is nothing left but an empty puppet to enjoy them. If an individual cannot enjoy friends, what's the point of having them? But the damage goes much deeper and eliminates not just one's ability to enjoy friends, but one's ability to enjoy - anything. Teaching a child that conformity is good does not take a full blown indoctrination - it can be done by hints. For example, if a child expresses concern that he is "not like the other kids" in some regard, the parent can either ensure him that being himself is the good, or the parent can help the child be like the others, in which case, the parent would be implicitly teaching the child that this is the right course of action. Parents can teach a kid "not to make a fas" about his or her personal emotions in order to maintain a socially acceptable image, or they can teach them that the child's inner life matters more than social appearance by showing such preference themselves. Then, parents also teach their kids how to judge themselves by showing what they themselves appreciate about what the child does. If parents show no appreciation for a child's independent thinking and creativity, but show great pleasure when he brings 5 friends home - what kind of lesson are they teaching their kid? When one accepts conformity, one accepts a standard by which to judge oneself - one attempts to switch the role of the judge to other people. However, by the nature of SELF-esteem, that is not possible. One's subconscious then attempts to evaluate one's worth by how well one considers oneself socially acceptable, how much and how many people like him or her, how comfortable people feel around him, how much they would appreciate his jokes, how well he falls under what people consider "the norm". One turns oneself into an empty vessel whose worth is measured by how well one can read the social circumstances and adjust to be liked and to fit the social standards. Being an "outsider", different, someone who is not socially accepted by others creates, under this standard, a feeling of inadequacy, guilt and self-doubt. One thinks "if others don't like me, something must be wrong with me". Externally, one picks one's clothes by the impression they make on others, not by one's own preference (which is never allowed to develop). One attempts to get friends that are "cool" - not ones that one has personal interest in (personal interests are eliminated over time in favor of the "acceptable" ones). If other people in one's environment have a girlfriend or a boyfriend one feels compelled to get one too, otherwise one feels inadequate - lacking worth. If other people have a certain amount of income or lifestyle, one tries to "live up" to it. Internally, one gradually loses sense of personal identity and loses touch with one's values (depending to what extent one accept conformity as valid). It is not possible, under the emotional pressure of trying to pretend to be someone one's not, to continue to feel affection for one's values. One's values become worthless if they are outside social acceptances. For example, if one has a socially unacceptable hobby (say, a guy that loves the ballet), one feels that to be any good, one must denounce it to fit into what is socially acceptable. If one finds certain things funny, but others do not - one attempts to change one's sense of humor. It is not merely approval in the eyes of others a conformist seeks - but approval in one's own eyes by changing who one is. It is in one's own mind that one feels inadequate if one fails to be "like the other kids". Approval from others becomes not a nice emotional bonus, but a pathological need. However, achieving approval does not solve the chronic self-doubt. Even the most popular kid in the class is still driven by chronic fear, even more than others who are less popular. Why is that so? The reason is that conformity undercuts self-esteem, regardless of how well one becomes socially accepted by others. Imagine you were asked to walk on an invisible bridge above an abyss - would you feel any better if 100 people told you the bridge is there once you make the first step? You reach down and feel nothing, you try to knock on it but nothing shows any resistance nor makes a sound. The same thing works in regard to self-esteem. When using conformity as a standard one can only rely on others to know that one is worth something. One has no personal evidence of it - no achievement (they are all discarded in favor of social acceptance), no spiritual traits one considers admirable (they are all discarded), and one learns that one cannot rely on oneself to protect one's values on the fly. A kid that accepts conformity may discover one day, to his or her amazement, that they threw away a favorite toy in the blink of an eye to prove to someone that they are "cool". One learns that one is not trustworthy to maintain one's life, to achieve things or to protect what matters to one. Even the most popular kid in class (or in adult life) experiences this - and the more popular they are the more detached from personal values they become. The feeling of having one's personal identity disappear in the presence of others creates a chronic dread from the company of people, especially public speaking and makes one very hostile to independent people. It also prevents one from developing intimate relationships because one always sees others as something to "please", not as a real person. Healthy relationships are built on mutual appreciation. One cannot enjoy appreciation nor give it if one gives up personal identity and a standard of values. Since conformity is subconscious and automated, one may not even realize why one is experiencing such emotions, but only that, one feels tremendous pressure to act in a way others would approve of. It could be limited to a feeling of pressure to smile to others and act pleasant and "normal", it could go deeper into a need to make one's jokes fit that which is "conventional" or in severe cases, an individual loses all personal identity and becomes a bitter clone of "the perfect social man" (in which case, not accidentally, they are preoccupied preaching acceptance of others, altruism and compassion and take every opportunity to crusade and blame anyone who is not "social" as a way to rationalize their emotional situation). To concretize better how conformity is a psychological problem, let's contrast it to healthy self-esteem. How can one maintain stable self-esteem? Self esteem comes from staying loyal to one's standard of judging people and of having one's standard grounded in reality. For example, if one notices while growing up that lies and dishonesty are disastrous to human beings and one concludes that honesty is a virtue - then one clings to it no matter what. Suppose some person comes along and says "telling the truth is for suckers. The cool ones are those who can deceive others and get what they want from them" - then one does not surrender one's value of honesty in favor of living up to the other person's standard. If one does this consistently, one maintains healthy SELF ESTEEM - in the full sense of the words, and this feeling of serenity and confidence is always present in one's mind regardless of the circumstances or what other people think of one. One gains self esteem from living up to one's ethical values and placing nothing above one's own judgement of what those values should be, based on one's experiences and knowledge. The hallmark of self esteem is selfishness - by which I don't mean the conventional term for "selfishness" as exploitation, but someone who always acts for his or her own benefit - in every second of the day one places nothing above one's own enjoyment (long and short term). The trouble with conformity is that it becomes, after childhood, a subconscious, automatic way of thinking and feeling. One may act in ways that do not seem to be in pursuit of one's happiness, but to satisfy some other subconscious need. If one accepts the idea of conformity even for a limited time in childhood, then if left unchecked one is likely to suffer some automatic reactions relating to conformity as an adult. The way to solve it, as with anything else, is to develop self awareness. To become aware of one's feelings and subconscious thoughts and then to correct them time and time again (if they are in need of correction). It is also important to go back to childhood memories and remember cases in which conformity was an issue. Thinking back to such cases and realizing what would have been the right course of action and the right response is another step in reprogramming your subconscious with the right values and standard. Self-esteem is not automatic. It requires effort, judgement, refusal to compromise on one's values - but the result is a sense of serenity which is at the base of happiness and enjoyment of life. ___________________________________ If you like this essay, you can follow the blog on Facebook or Google (homepage or reader) by following the link on the sidebar on my blog. Please also consider donating if you would like to encourage more content from my blog.

Roger.

Lol. you almost made me spit my orange juice. You are taking responsibility for something you are not responsible for. All you should do is tell whoever is in charge that people are not washing their hands. Beyond that there is nothing you can do and it is not your job - you are not paid to make sure people wash their hands. Costumers ordering the pizza have no idea if their pizzas have been touched by unwashed hands - they order it anyway based on past experience (obviously, good). The product is still good and relatively safe - you are not helping to harm anyone. The story would be different if you saw employees secretly pee on orders (lol), or if you were the boss responsible for the quality of products.

From my blog Psychoolgy of selfishness. [Read post on the blog] Reason and Motive - what's the difference? Reason and motive are often used interchangeably, but they are two distinct things. A murderer driven by jealousy and rage has a motive: To cause harm to what he conceives as the source of his pain: his cheating wife. He is driven by his emotions to take an irrational action which he does not validate with logic (though he could exercise self-control and do that). His motive is jealousy, his reason? none. If I take an umbrella on a sunny day my reason may be that the weather forecast said it would rain later in the day. In this case my decision is conscious and based on facts I have considered. My motive? the automatic distant emotion arising from the thought of being wet and having to run around if I get stuck in the rain without an umbrella. Both the reason and the motive are: not to get wet, but the reason is the conscious thought and the motive is the accompanying emotion. If I rob a bank and force everyone to stay on the floor my reason is that if they are not on the floor they would be in a better position to resists me or to activate the alarm. The action of robbing a bank may be irrational, but the immediate decision to force people to stay on the floor is grounded in a conscious decision guided by facts. The reason to force people to stay on the floor, therefore, is to prevent resistance. If I heard a speech I like a lot and feel an urge to stand up and applaud - I have a motive: A desire to express appreciation of something and to repay the wonderful individual who gave the speech. I may not be aware of why I feel an urge to stand up and applaud - but doing so has a motive. If, additionally, I am aware of why I want to applaud and the benefit it may bring me - then I stand up and act on it - it also becomes my reason for the action. In other words: motive is referring to the emotional propelling force for an action while reason is referring to the conscious thinking process and conscious goal behind an action. Every action has a motive, even if one is not aware of that motive; we cannot act without an emotion motivating an action; but not all actions have a reason. When someone is taking an action based on conscious thinking, the reason and the motive for it become two sides of the same coin (which is incidentally why "reason" and "motive" are often used interchangeably). The question: "why did you do it?" is one, but its answer can be one of three: A reason (with a motive), a motive without a reason, or something which is entirely beyond a man's control (like an act of sheer insanity, or involuntary physical movement; neither of which have a reason nor a motive). Let me break it down a bit more to make it clear: A reason necessarily comes with a motive and they are two sides of the same coin. How so? a conscious value judgement (deciding something is good for me or bad for me) is always coupled with an emotion. The emotion then serves as a motivation. For example: Why do I pursue a productive activity such as writing? The reason is a conscious decision to make money while satisfying a psychological need of self-esteem. I know that doing a productive activity is good for my life and I consciously decide to do it for this reason. The motivation is the emotion resulting from the subconscious recognition that productive activity has a positive effect on my life. If my subconscious judgment, however, is not in line with my conscious thoughts then I would not be motivated to take the action. It is only to the extent that the subconscious is "persuaded" of the validity of the conscious value judgement that one can be motivated to take the action, and then the reason and the motive become one (or rather, two sides of the same thing). Some may rationalize an action to try to provide a false reason for an action which actually had a different motive, in which case, the reason is false and the motive is real. For example: Say a guy is too shy to make a pass at a girl he likes. One day he decides to go to her house to talk. He tells the girl, and tries to convince himself that he went there to tell her that some class has been canceled, to save her time, but in fact that was not the reason he went there at all: He goes there to try to establish a relationship. In this case the so called "reason" is a rationalization. The motive is the real one and the action, in fact, has no reason, since the guy never made a conscious decision to make a pass at the girl. If he did, in fact, tell himself in the privacy of his own mind that he is going there to try to start a relationship then it becomes his reason for going there, even if he hides it from others. The reason for an action is not something that is always kept conscious. As I am writing this post, for example, I do not consciously think, at every moment, of the goal of writing it. The recognition of the goal stays in the background, as a thought and emotion. This does not mean that the action only has a motive but not a reason, just as one can know that 2+2=4 ALL the time, even though one rarely thinks about it. Knowing something consciously does not mean one constantly has to think about it. But for an action to have a reason the goal must be identified prior to the action. In many cases the reason is so well automatized one rarely stops to think about it. Why do you take your wallet when you go out? The reason is clear: to be able to buy whatever is necessary to function and enjoy the day (like a bus ticket, food coffee etc'). The reason is so clear one rarely stops to think of this consciously. Instead one just makes sure to take one's wallet before going out. This action does have a reason (and not just a motive) even though one does not stop to conscious reconsider the goal every single time. It is enough that one is aware of the goal (of the value judgement) to make it a reason. A motive can be good or bad, based on right ideas or wrong ideas. One can be motivated by an unrecognized desire for justice or by a desire to destroy out of envy. In either case, it is always better for one to be aware of the motive for an action and make a conscious decision about it, to the best of one's ability. ______________________________ If you like this post, please consider following my blog on Facebook or Google reader/homepage by visiting my blog ("follow blog" links are located on the sidebar). Donations are also welcome.

Link here Post below. ____________________________ What is luck? Is it a valid concept? Luck is the relation between random occurrences and one's values. Random occurrences in favor of one's values are "good luck" and random occurrences against one's values are "bad luck". The less probable the event the higher the "luck" is. When the event is fully predictable in under one's control the term "luck" no longer applies to the situation. For example: If you walk in the street and an envelope full of money lands on your head - that is good luck. It is a random occurrence that you happened to be at that place at that specific time and the relation to your values is positive since money is a value. If you win every single game you play in a gambling place that is an extremely good luck - but again, it is all random (putting aside whatever brain was required to win the games). What makes it "extremely good luck" is the relative rarity of the events (the length of the winning streak). I think that people see "luck" as an actual spiritual entity, as some form of liquid running in one man's body at some time. Evaluations like "This man is lucky" tend to mean that the man himself actually has some quality about him that affects events around him. In fact, no man can be lucky in that sense. Such a concept is mystical. The reality is that some people have more random occurrences in their favor than their disfavor and this changes nothing of the fact that random occurrences are random occurrences. Wishing someone "good luck" is no more than letting them know that you wish them success, that you wish the conditions they would encounter outside their control would be in their favor. So if you are feeling lucky, punk, better check your premises. A feeling of "luck" is not reality based, one cannot "feel" future occurrences outside one's control.

But all this is completely minor. It all started when mrocktor said that in discussing individual rights he prefers the term "rational being" putting the emphasis on rational rather than animal. From that followed about 3 pages of discussion. Your comment adding to it. I think this point is very minor, since he wasn't even talking about what is a human being nor about the definition but just about what is better to use in discussing individual rights. Unless I am missing something, you guys are talking about something completely beside the topic.

I can't believe you guys are still discussing that small issue raised by mrocktor. It is unessential.

[From my blog Psychology of selfishness] Modesty, honesty and friends To be yourself or not to be yourself? To hide your greatness, you achievements, or to share them with others? Some, perhaps many, respond with jealousy and resentment to achievements that surpass their own. This poses a potential down side to being good, and to being open about it. Will others not like me as much? Maybe it will be some of my closest friends? I believe we all encounter this question at some point of our lives, maybe on the first time of getting a better grade in a test than someone else or achieving a great figure. It is not a good idea to hide one's greatness. It is not a good idea to fake modesty. Others may not like who you are, others may not like that you are better than them at something. Those others are not worth keeping around as friends. A friend is someone who helps you flourish, someone who encourages you to become the best that you can be and is there to celebrate it with you when you achieve it (and vice versa). A friend is someone who loves you for who you are: YOUR sense of humor, YOUR way of thinking, YOUR taste in music, people, activities and the things you are good at. Being open and proud of your achievements in communication with others achieves a double purpose: First, it encourages others to achieve the best that they can achieve and creates an environment where success is greeted with benevolence. Second, it allows others to know you and you to know others and tell apart the people who enjoy the sight of an achievement from those who look down at it. Being honest requires courage, because so many things in our lives depend on how others feel about us and our actions, and yet honesty is the best way to get real friends who will love you for who you are and help you grow. Give up being yourself, and you give up everything. Opinions welcome.

Basically, think to yourself: Suppose you have the equation X^2= -1. What does this equation mean? Where did it come from? What is it's source in reality. It has to have one, otherwise I can write 0=1 and say "ok guys, let's discuss this, it's a serious problem that needs solution" - obviously one can't just write whatever one wants - the problem has to come from reality. OK then, so what about the equation above? The equation only makes sense if you have a vector that can be represented as an arrow on a circle. What kind of entity would require such representation? A voltage that is changing over time, for example. At a given moment in time, in a specific location in a circuit, the voltage has a certain "phase" - a certain shift in time compared to the starting point of measurement. It's important to keep track of that shift, as well as the amplitude. So one can keep track of the phase by keeping track of where on the circle the "dial" of the voltage is (12 O'clock, 6 O'clock etc'). The way to do it is by using a real axis and an imaginary one; then the voltage can be described by two components: cos (angle) +/- i sin(angle) (multiplied by the amplitude). Then, when you use this form of representation in the equation, you get the result of i or -i which means that the "dial" is on 12 O'clock or 6 O'clock in your circle.

At least from what I know, they are used to represent a 2 dimensional vector in physics containing information about both the phase and the amplitude of something (like current or voltage). In some equations using square root of -1 as a "number" helps get solutions to the equations, but only if one knows how to translate the result to the real physical world. Let's see if I can remember... Every imaginary number can be translated into a vector (in 2D). Ordinary numbers, without the complex part, are actually a complex number with the imaginary part being zero.

Imaginary numbers are a mathematical tool, like a vector or a matrix. A matrix is not something that you measure either - it's a way of presentation.

Oh, that's the problem that you see. That's a good one. But the source of one's thoughts, emotions etc' is the external world (combined with the nature of human cognition). Granted, identifying an emotion is identifying something which did not come (at the moment of occurring) from the senses. It might be a reaction to a memory or some abstract thought. Still, big deal - this is why you are "not an Objectivist"? What is an Objectivist, in your eyes? I heard Peikoff giving a great description, which is: agreeing with the fundamentals of her philosophy and living by them. (Just a side topic)

There is no such thing as "sense-based identification". The most the senses take you is to perceive things as entities, but not what entity something is - that requires concepts. By "the material provided by man's senses" she means the percepts. You seem to be taking that step outside "sense perception" and creating yourself a problem. I think her definition is perfect. What is the problem that you see with it, other than this thing about send-perception?

I think he gets that (at least he is not claiming otherwise from what I've seen). But you guys are getting off topic with this. Discussing best terms to use in discussion is not really the topic here.

Another problem I have with the above list is that a newborn is not rational. They only have a developing rational faculty at its very beginning. So I'm not sure how to apply "rational animal" to a newborn. Maybe "rational animal, or an animal which is the potential to develop into a rational being yes has independent physical existence"?

In any case, this is a great question. Fundamental, these are the best. In forming the definition AR looks at various animals (living creatures that act purposefully, process information) and distinguishes man from them. The distinguishing factor is indeed our unique mental capacity - to reason (including the use of volition). But then there is also the need to look at various humans and omit measurements such as gender, age, level of intelligence, specific character traits, physical appearance, etc' etc'. So one needs to observe this list: A baby learning to speak, a newborn baby having nothing but instincts and a developing brain, some old folks, mid-life folks, kids and see what they all have in common. The trick is to only look at the special "freak" cases afterwards, since they are not the norm, but an exception, such as retarded individuals, Siamese twins, insane people. What I find confusing is that even if a human being is not capable of rational thought (like say, one of those rare cases of kids growing in isolation or in the wild) - they are still human, IMO, only abnormal humans. But saying thins means that I take the genetics and physical appearance to be the main this that makes something a "man". Anyone have an idea how to solve it?

I think you are talking past each other. Mrocktor wasn't trying to make the point that rational plants or devices (Meh@#?)are also "man". Rather all he said was that to focus the attention on the relevant part, the essential, in discussions of ethics and politics, it is the RATIONAL that needs to be emphasized and not the ANIMAL. So he suggests using the term "rational being" instead of "rational animal", but he doesn't mean that any rational being is human.

You don't know though what he wrote her. It might have been something that earned her respect for him sufficiently to want to address him in a way that shows acceptance. It does not say anything yet about how she would normally call priests. In any case, what Ayn Rand did is a nice addition to consider, but not an argument by itself.

Thanks. Thales: I used a picture of Angelina Jolie as reference. I wasn't going for a portrait though (wasn't aiming at resemblance of facial features). Resemblance still evident though. Personally I can't see it very well. If it was somebody else's work I'd probably be able to see better.

I don't think it is empty. It shows acceptance of the role a priest is suppose to play in the life of a religious man. Also, I don't think "dad" is an empty word either. Especially not for those who have good dads - the word has a certain meaning and "prestige" to it, if you will. Words carry with them a certain emotional conotation, and it is a bad habbit to make oneself disregard that meaning by repeatedly using an emotional word in non-emotional situations.