"So some people are better than others?"

In specific ways, yes.

Holistically... well thats hard to say. But what is for certain that in the majority of cases, feelings of superiority are unhelpful to development and often unwarranted.


Also, even the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa have thier faults. And as far as Momma T goes, a LOT of faults. :)

In fact, really the only superhuman I can think of is.... rlumley the ultragenius?

I think the entire superiority aspect of this thread doesn't take into account relativity, perception and context. Truly, what defines superiority?

As many have made mention, being superior in one spectrum of life (e.g. intelligence, athletic ability, strength, musical talent, etc) means nothing to those that put no value on those skills/talents/attributes. Thus superiority is relative to the observer's values.

Accomplishments are also relative and need to be taken in context. A physicist may care absolutely nothing for the deeds of the world's most renowned cardiothoracic surgeon. Neither of them is diminished by this, but which of the two is superior?

My kids believe I am the world's best dad (their perception). I challenge a single person to prove otherwise as it relates to them. I would never claim that I am superior to other dads though.

How do you actually prove one person is superior to another? What are your criteria and measurements? It seems to me that there would be infinite variables. Can one improve upon the level of superiority? If so, I need to get working on my Action Plan.

Also, I challenge TGM to hurry and develop a rating system so that I can diplome only with those within a delta of 20 of my Superiority Ranking.

Please keep in mind that this is all tongue in cheek:P

Why not try for those within six sigma of your rating? ;-)

"D. I think the fundamental difference between you and I is that you approach psychology from a mainly neurobiological standpoint, where as I approach it from a mainly cognitive standpoint. We can argue about that if you want, and I'm sure you have the science to back up your viewpoint, but I don't ultimately care. I consider having a cognitive outlook healthier because of the placebo effect. If I believe I will be successful, I will be more successful than if I think I will be a failure. And besides, the placebo effect offers scientific evidence for a cognitive outlook."

No... that's not true. I'm looking at it from very much a cognitive perspective. Cognitive neuroscience is my speciality. The idea that believing you are successful leading to real success has nothing to do with placebo. Placebo only really acts on your psychological state, and though it can to some degree affect your physical state, placebo won't cure a broken arm like it will treat depression. Similarly, a placebo idea of success implies you have not actually attained any measure of real success but are convinced by an illusion of success perpetuated by your egoism. This illusion will be a barrier to your examination of your current state and will make it more difficult for you to improve and succeed. Your last sentence doesn't really make sense... science doesn't offer any sort of prescription for how you should live your life, whether it be an egoistic illusion or in self-examination.

"Because when I tell people online what I actually think of them it has no negative consequences for me, since this is not real life..."

That's not true. For one, others are liable to tell you exactly what they think of you if you do that to them, and that may definitely have consequences. It's not just because of society that I don't say mean things to people or push people around. You're ingrained with a set of emotions that mean that what you say and what is said to you very much has consequences on your mental state. Guilt, trust, embarrassment, anger, pride, indignity, etc.

"I genuinely wish I could act like this in real life and get away with it, but society hasn't progressed to the point where I can."

It's important to realize that humans differ from rocks in that if you kick a rock, it won't do anything, but if you kick a human, they're liable to kick you back. There's often a point in a young person's life where they realize that morality is arbitrary and that they should be able to go around doing exactly what they want to do... but you have to realize that morality is not just in the interest of others, but it is selfish and designed for self preservation. The reason you don't tell your wife she looks fat in that dress is because you will suffer consequences to your marital life, and your innate sense of empathy for others will hopefully allow you to recognize that you would not enjoy it if someone insulted you. You can't be honest to everyone without expecting them to be honest to you, and trust me when I say, you can't handle the truth. There's a very good reason cognitive dissonance exists... I think Calvin and Hobbes explains it better than me: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zLu4BngHZVU/RqXLFAURgBI/AAAAAAAAAZE/nKpIkFlgUsw/s1600-h/untitled.bmp

It's true that for the most part humans are selfish, and that is something to be recognized, and not reviled. However, the majority of non-kin human relationships are based around an explicit or implicit sense of reciprocity. Our major advantage as social animals is that we can achieve a much improved state through co-operation and trade. Just because you show consideration for others doesn't mean you are somehow less selfish or are pandering to them at the cost of your own dignity and interests... it's because to do so invites consideration from others which on the whole improves your own selfish personal situation. If it didn't, reciprocal societies would not be evolutionarily sustainable. Society will never "progress" to a point where you can do whatever you want, because no such society can exist where everyone can do whatever they want because there is an inherent conflict of interest. The same societal constraints placed upon you also safeguard you from the multitude of self interested agents around you. You would be a fool to think that your own selfish interests lie in arrogance and the alienation of those around you. You can't cultivate yourself in a vacuum.

@ Chrisp.

You had me at Calvin & Hobbes.

@ Lan: "How do you actually prove one person is superior to another? What are your criteria and measurements? It seems to me that there would be infinite variables. Can one improve upon the level of superiority? If so, I need to get working on my Action Plan."

I'd say the GDP of that person would be the best measurement of their worth. It's the level at which they are valued by society.

@ Chrisp:

"For one, others are liable to tell you exactly what they think of you if you do that to them, and that may definitely have consequences. You're ingrained with a set of emotions that mean that what you say and what is said to you very much has consequences on your mental state. Guilt, trust, embarrassment, anger, pride, indignity, etc."

How would that have consequences? Proper emotion is the logical result of a reaction to ones values. eg. I value property rights. Someone steals my bike. I get angry, because they have violated my values. Another example: I find great value in a person's philosophy and outlook towards life. I love that person. All emotions that are not rooted in logic, I consider to be invalid. If someone can logically criticize me, than that is a good thing, and it allows me to improve. If someone lets off a stream of profanity, I dismiss it and move on. It is not logical.

"It's important to realize that humans differ from rocks in that if you kick a rock, it won't do anything, but if you kick a human, they're liable to kick you back. There's often a point in a young person's life where they realize that morality is arbitrary and that they should be able to go around doing exactly what they want to do... but you have to realize that morality is not just in the interest of others, but it is selfish and designed for self preservation. The reason you don't tell your wife she looks fat in that dress is because you will suffer consequences to your marital life, and your innate sense of empathy for others will hopefully allow you to recognize that you would not enjoy it if someone insulted you. You can't be honest to everyone without expecting them to be honest to you, and trust me when I say, you can't handle the truth. There's a very good reason cognitive dissonance exists... I think Calvin and Hobbes explains it better than me:"

I agree with the first half. But I think the analogy breaks down when you go from kicking someone to insulting them. (Not that I would ever really insult someone for no reason... That's just pointless. But it isn't immoral.) Morality is based what violates the rights of another person. I have the right to not be kicked and assaulted. But if someone in my building rides the elevator from the second floor down to the first, they DON'T have the right for me to not look at them with a disgusted look on my face because they're lazy, fat, and wasting everyone else on the elevator who came from the fourteenth floor's time.

I also think that you're incredibly guilty of generalizing people - I realize that I am not at all like most people. I'm incredibly anti-social (Although I'm capable of acting social and polite when I need to) and introverted. 70% of the world is extroverted, and relies on others for their energy. I'm as far the opposite way as you can be... So when you say that I can't handle the truth, I think I probably can. I'll try to put it this way: I've never understood the difference in constructive criticism and unconstructive criticism. All criticism is constructive, provided it is done in a logical manner, from which the criticizee can learn. To sum it up: "The only people you need in your life are the ones who need you in theirs."

I'll also say, when I look around at society, I consider being anti-social the highest of compliments, because it means that I can't fit in in a society that acts that way...

Your justification there contains some wonkiness rlumley.

Firstly you say;

"I'd say the GDP of that person would be the best measurement of their worth. It's the level at which they are valued by society."

Firstly this is pretty simplistic. Hopefully you agree that value to society is not directly correlated to income. ie. Is Paris Hilton many times more important to America than Obama?
GDP helps to measure social success, but it is pretty arbitrary and covers very little of what most people view as important.

But regardless of that, you seem to be accepting that society defines worth.

Then you say;

"I'll also say, when I look around at society, I consider being anti-social the highest of compliments, because it means that I can't fit in in a society that acts that way..."

So do societies values matter or not?



Additionally, this is questionable logic;

"Proper emotion is the logical result of a reaction to ones values. eg. I value property rights. Someone steals my bike. I get angry, because they have violated my values. Another example: I find great value in a person's philosophy and outlook towards life. I love that person. All emotions that are not rooted in logic, I consider to be invalid."

Your values exist rlumley, there is no doubt about that, but your certainty that they are the right values isn't particularly ground in logic. What if I valued communal spirit as a principle? Lets say I was injured, and needed a ride to the hospital. If you and I live in the same community, isn't it logical for me to be upset when you stop me from borrowing your bicycle?

Unless you wish to forsake society completely, you need to be willing to compromise. UNless of course you believe yourself to be able to exist outside of society? :)

"How would that have consequences? Proper emotion is the logical result of a reaction to ones values. eg. I value property rights. Someone steals my bike. I get angry, because they have violated my values. Another example: I find great value in a person's philosophy and outlook towards life. I love that person. All emotions that are not rooted in logic, I consider to be invalid. If someone can logically criticize me, than that is a good thing, and it allows me to improve. If someone lets off a stream of profanity, I dismiss it and move on. It is not logical."

Yes, the problem is that emotional reaction doesn't care about whether or not it is logical or proper. It's a common misconception that emotions are something that you "have" and you can thus discard them if you see fit... no, emotions are something that you "are". If someone lets of a stream of profanities at you, you cannot help but feel indignant, and sometimes angry as the blood starts to boil in your head. Logically constructed criticism is equally as liable to elicit emotions. I don't think anybody exists who can take harsh honest criticism in stride by saying that it will improve them. Most people resist the criticism by forming judgments about the person criticizing them and dismissing it as a result. The ones who actually take the advice are often the ones who were most emotionally hurt by the criticism.

"I agree with the first half. But I think the analogy breaks down when you go from kicking someone to insulting them. (Not that I would ever really insult someone for no reason... That's just pointless. But it isn't immoral.) Morality is based what violates the rights of another person. I have the right to not be kicked and assaulted. But if someone in my building rides the elevator from the second floor down to the first, they DON'T have the right for me to not look at them with a disgusted look on my face because they're lazy, fat, and wasting everyone else on the elevator who came from the fourteenth floor's time."

Morality is not based on what violates the rights of another person, rights are based on a commonly accepted morality. The root for morality is your empathy for other humans. Yes, violence is much higher on the moralistic gradient than insults but that doesn't mean you should only act on moralistic musts and not on moralistic shoulds. You have the right to be a selfish dick, but you should expect the same in return, and I would argue that in the end it would be more in your selfish interests to waive your selfish dick right.

"I also think that you're incredibly guilty of generalizing people - I realize that I am not at all like most people. I'm incredibly anti-social (Although I'm capable of acting social and polite when I need to) and introverted. 70% of the world is extroverted, and relies on others for their energy. I'm as far the opposite way as you can be... So when you say that I can't handle the truth, I think I probably can. I'll try to put it this way: I've never understood the difference in constructive criticism and unconstructive criticism. All criticism is constructive, provided it is done in a logical manner, from which the criticizee can learn. To sum it up: "The only people you need in your life are the ones who need you in theirs.""

I've never understood the introvert-extrovert dichotomy... as though 70% of the population can't bear to be alone and 30% of the population can't bear others. It's clearly a gradient, and I see no sensible division to say that one side of this line is extroverted and the other is introverted. I've heard this so much but it doesn't make any scientific sense... what does it mean that extroverts rely on others for energy? I don't know anybody who can happily spend all their time with other people or alone, and I think it's clear that both are necessary.

Until about a year ago, I would have agreed with you that I could handle the truth. But I realize now that this was youthful naiveté... I can rationalize the truth, but handling is a whole other story. I can say with full confidence that if your parents were absolutely honest with you, you would be crushed by the full weight of the truth. Maybe you don't believe me now, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in time it will be all too clear.

@ Amicable Cutlery: "Firstly this is pretty simplistic. Hopefully you agree that value to society is not directly correlated to income. ie. Is Paris Hilton many times more important to America than Obama?
GDP helps to measure social success, but it is pretty arbitrary and covers very little of what most people view as important."

GDP != income. :-) GDP is the total value of everything one produces in a year. Much different than income.

"But regardless of that, you seem to be accepting that society defines worth.

Then you say;

"I'll also say, when I look around at society, I consider being anti-social the highest of compliments, because it means that I can't fit in in a society that acts that way..."

So do societies values matter or not?"

Yes, they do. I just do not put much value in what society values. You brought up Paris Hilton. Society values Paris Hilton a tremendous amount. I think she's pretty worthless myself. But the entertainment that everyone gets from watching her antics is of value to a great number of people. In that, she has worth, but I do not value her as society values her. Does that help clear it up?

"Your values exist rlumley, there is no doubt about that, but your certainty that they are the right values isn't particularly ground in logic. What if I valued communal spirit as a principle? Lets say I was injured, and needed a ride to the hospital. If you and I live in the same community, isn't it logical for me to be upset when you stop me from borrowing your bicycle?"

I wasn't arguing my values, but if you'd like to, we can. I believe I said later (or earlier) that I consider you to have a right to do anything that does not violate others rights. Now that's obviously a bit ambiguous, even treading on paradoxical, but you get the point. That was a point about emotion. Using my point about emotion to make a point about values isn't really kosher. :-)

And yes, it is logical for you to be upset. But it's not logical for you to value communal spirit. :-P

@ Chrisp:

"Yes, the problem is that emotional reaction doesn't care about whether or not it is logical or proper. It's a common misconception that emotions are something that you "have" and you can thus discard them if you see fit... no, emotions are something that you "are". If someone lets of a stream of profanities at you, you cannot help but feel indignant, and sometimes angry as the blood starts to boil in your head. Logically constructed criticism is equally as liable to elicit emotions. I don't think anybody exists who can take harsh honest criticism in stride by saying that it will improve them. Most people resist the criticism by forming judgments about the person criticizing them and dismissing it as a result. The ones who actually take the advice are often the ones who were most emotionally hurt by the criticism."

As I said, please don't generalize me... I essentially answered this point already. Most people may be unable to discard their emotions at will. I find myself to be rather capable of that. Maybe that's because I spent 10 years of my impressionable childhood idolizing Spock and Data. (Tuvok was a pretty bad character in my ever so humble opinion...)

"Morality is not based on what violates the rights of another person, rights are based on a commonly accepted morality. The root for morality is your empathy for other humans. Yes, violence is much higher on the moralistic gradient than insults but that doesn't mean you should only act on moralistic musts and not on moralistic shoulds."

I'm breaking this paragraph up. Sue me for copyright infringement. I don't understand why your basis of a commonly accpeted morality is any more valid than my basis. Both simply seem to be assertions... (And I can argue this if you really want to, but we're getting off track, so I'm trying not to...)

"You have the right to be a selfish dick, but you should expect the same in return, and I would argue that in the end it would be more in your selfish interests to waive your selfish dick right."

Indeed I do. And I agree. Which is why I'm not. But I'm saying that society shouldn't consider my acts selfish. If anything, they are altruistic, because they are attempting to change society in a way that I feel would make it better.

"I've never understood the introvert-extrovert dichotomy... as though 70% of the population can't bear to be alone and 30% of the population can't bear others. It's clearly a gradient, and I see no sensible division to say that one side of this line is extroverted and the other is introverted. I've heard this so much but it doesn't make any scientific sense... what does it mean that extroverts rely on others for energy? I don't know anybody who can happily spend all their time with other people or alone, and I think it's clear that both are necessary. "

Well, most people are in the middle, and for them both are necessary. But like I said, I'm not. I don't mind being around people for a little while, but I can't recall a single time I would describe as genuinely happy around anyone other than my family. (Every single one of us is massively introverted, by the way. With the exception of my brother, who is really weird, and annoys the rest of us with his extroversion.) I will say though, I would not be happy if I couldn't spend time with my family. Cause they're awesome. So if family counts in your definition, I guess I'm not an extrovert.

To quote Wikipedia (To answer your question):

"According to Carl Jung, introversion and extroversion refer to the direction of psychic energy. If a person’s psychic energy usually flows outwards then he or she is an extrovert, while if the energy usually flows inwards, the person is an introvert.[13] Extroverts feel an increase of perceived energy when interacting with a large group of people, but a decrease of energy when left alone. Conversely, introverts feel an increase of energy when alone, but a decrease of energy when surrounded by a large group of people.

Most modern psychologists consider theories of psychic energy to be obsolete. First, it is difficult to operationalize mental "energy" in ways that can be scientifically measured and tested. Second, more detailed explanations of extroversion and the brain have replaced Jung's rather speculative theories.[14] Nevertheless, the concept is still in popular usage in the general sense of "feeling energized" in particular situations. Jung’s primary legacy in this area may be the popularizing of the terms introvert and extrovert to refer to a particular dimension of personality."

Despite that second paragraph, I'll contradict it. I know exactly what Jung meant. I get energy from being alone - if I can't be alone for a little bit each day, I don't have the energy necessary to interact people. As I was going to say earlier and then reworded it, I find being around others incredibly draining. I hate parties and gatherings and meetings. It's incredibly draining for me. I have to constantly think of what is socially appropriate and how I'm supposed to act to pretend to be interested in these people's lives... On the flip side though, I am very comfortable around those that know me very well (Which are one or two very good friends and my family) and don't find being around them draining at all.

"Until about a year ago, I would have agreed with you that I could handle the truth. But I realize now that this was youthful naiveté... I can rationalize the truth, but handling is a whole other story. I can say with full confidence that if your parents were absolutely honest with you, you would be crushed by the full weight of the truth. Maybe you don't believe me now, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that in time it will be all too clear."

What do you mean? My parents are quite honest with me, and treat me like an adult. They tell me exactly what they think of me...

Jesus H. Christ that was a long post.

Also: I love reading about Introversion and Extroversion. The more I read, the more it becomes evident to me that we're better. ;-)

"As I said, please don't generalize me... I essentially answered this point already. Most people may be unable to discard their emotions at will. I find myself to be rather capable of that. Maybe that's because I spent 10 years of my impressionable childhood idolizing Spock and Data. (Tuvok was a pretty bad character in my ever so humble opinion...)"

I don't believe you for a second. I think we're similar in that I consider myself to be more introverted and I look like an emotional robot compared to the vast majority of people. However, I still view it as a romantic notion that many people share that they are emotionally stoic. Especially when I was younger, I had this idea in my head that everyone around me was ruled by their emotions while I listened only to logic and that I was above them because of this. If you think you can discard your emotions at will, then you haven't been emotionally tested yet, which is understandable, because I don't really think I have either. It's a luxury of the modern Western world. Compared to my displays of emotion, most people seem an exaggerative parody because I tend to keep my emotions to myself. At least that's what I thought. In reality, my face and stance quite easily betrayed my internal emotions, though not quite as dramatically as I see in people around me.

As to morality, we can argue this if you want. I was just saying that you had it backwards. Rights aren't some primary thing that is handed down to us on high and morality is based around them. It's the reverse; rights are based around a commonly accepted morality. There wasn't a primeval right to property, it arises as people value their property enough to accept that they cannot take the property of others and they will aid in punishing those who do. In more nomadic societies, property is much less important.

I'm not saying that you aren't an introvert. I absolutely believe you when you say that you are. What I don't believe is that you are an emotional robot who doesn't care for the company of others. It takes an extremely rare brain, almost pathologically so, to be a complete hermit. It is a part of human nature to enjoy and profit from the company of others. Socializing is a large part of why we have such large brains in the first place. It takes an impressive amount of brain power to maintain large social networks and its no coincidence that brain size in primates can be related very reliably to size of troupe.

I'm not generalizing you in the sense that I don't believe you when you say you are not like other humans. I'm generalizing you in the sense that I am quite sure that you are a Homo sapien, and just like you have opposable thumbs, binocular vision, and a relatively large prefrontal cortex, there are a large host of behavioural traits that are ingrained in all humans save perhaps a pathological exception. I believe you when you say you are introverted, that you have a higher than average intelligence, etc. But I don't believe you when you claim to lack traits that are universal in humans. The difference in intelligence between Einstein and the average human is nothing compared to the difference in intelligence between the average human and the smartest chimpanzee. The difference is sociability between the average human and you is small peas compared to the difference in sociability between you and the most sociable eagle. I hope you come to accept your humanity, and that your talents, flaws, and differences pale in comparison to your overall commonality.

Meh. We're pretty much just saying the same things at this point. And I have a biology lab...

Internet forums are funny places. rlumley you seem to me to be very extroverted on this forum, far more so than I. Yet in real life I would say that most people would perceive me as extroverted (although I know within myself that I have an introverted side too).
I have heard it said that introversion can be a kind of snobbery. That is some people don't to share themselves with others because others are not "worthy". Given your comments, rlumley, about your own self-confessed arrogance - is this true in your case?

Actually you have probably answered that question somewhere above in one of those very long posts. I'll do some reading and catch up with where the thread is at.

I wouldn't agree with that spyman. It's not snobbery, it's complete indifference. And I'm extroverted on the forums. I enjoy expressing my opinion, but it's generally not socially acceptable. And I don't have to worry about offending anyone here, because you have even less of an impact on my life than people in real life. :-P

We're saying the same things? I almost word for word repeated a sentence from my first post in the thread. I've been saying the same thing as before. What does that say? =P

No, we're just arguing in circles is what I'm saying. You're saying what you've said before, and I'm saying what I've said before...

I agree with Chrisp when he says there needs to be a balance between intro and extroversion. There has to be an x percent of extroversion and a y amount of introversion. You can't be 100% introverted. It's against the human means of socializing.

Can I just say its a common fallacy that income (GDP) equals worth of job. Its actually just an expression of supply and demand. So you can be a wonderful doctor, but your wage is probably dependent on how many other doctors there are, so it doesn't have much to do with your actual ability.

GDP = worth... salary = supply and demand........

In economics, production and income are the same thing.

No they're not? Is it possible to produce something and not get paid for it?

Centurian is correct. It has to do with the definition of the GDP which is also called the GDI, swapping product with income. In economics GDP can be calculated from both the expenditures and income side, and they are theoretically expected to add up to the same, though measurement errors creep in.

Basically,

From the expenditure side GDP = Private consumption + Investment + Government expenditure + Exports - Imports

From the income side GDI = Wages + Profits + Interest

One of the first things you learn in an introductory microeconomics course. =)

Your concern that it is possible to produce something and not get paid for it is valid, and is one of the many reasons that GDP is only an approximate measure.

rlumley I am curious though. You can be extraverted on the forums, so what's the difference with face to face? Why is face to face different? Also I wouldn't say you need to worry about causing offense. In my experience people actually quite like controversial opinions (so long as you're not a dick about it of course). Is that it though, face to face you think you will offend people or that they won't accept you?
You don't have to answer my questions by the way if its too personal, but I am curious in a general sense about this introverted in real-life but extraverted in the virtual world phenomenon.

*Extroverted (not extraverted) ... please disregard my appalling spelling.

"Theoretically"

:-P

Exactly what you said, it's only an approximate measure.

@ Spyman:
Because on the internet I'm writing for myself. It helps to put thoughts into words and communicate my opinion. And because I love arguing (Even in real life). But if you all started a thread about how glad you are that two people are back together on Desperate Housewives, I would most definitely not participate.

And I don't participate in the vast majority of threads on the forum. I read a few and respond throughly in those.