CDZ Collective identity--what's up with that?

[Agit8r]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My way of looking at it is that we have two different traits that are expressed to various degrees. The first trait is that of self awareness and the ability to think and reason. The second trait is an ingrained need for social structure, as we are social creatures by nature. The people you describe are more heavily influenced by the latter.

We no longer have tribe based upon blood ties such as in Arab culture, so make ideology the basis of our tribalism.

 

[Fishlore]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Tribal loyalty is common in all mamals and particularly strong among primates. It has high survival value and is supported by a number of hard-wired brain functions having to do with facial and other recognition modes etc. It is a fundamental human trait, one which must be addressed successfully by legal, social and religious structures. It cannot be erased, only contained and directed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

??? What is there to explain? Is it really that mystifying? Humans associate most closely with humans, even though some humans seem to connect better with cats and dogs than with other humans. Some cats "run with" with other cats, dogs with dogs (although domesticated dogs, unlike wild ones, will associate with anything that'll play with them), starlings with starlings, garter snakes huddle together in holes in the ground with other garter snakes, and so on.

If you are talking within a species, well that's a different matter. Humans are the only non-predatory creatures I know of that are finicky about others of the same species at a core level. If one is to believe the idea that humans have souls and other animals don't, it'd have to be the soul that explains the difference. If human intelligence is what one accepts as the defining distinction between humans and other animals, one would have to argue that intelligence is the reason.

I think we both can see just how ridiculous either of those propositions is, and therein lies a huge part of the problem: a great many humans espouse principles that really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Humans have a knack for hubris which allows for individuals believing whatever the heck they want to and behaving however they want to on the basis that they "think" they make some damn sense. Of course, thinking is the one thing such individuals didn't do very well in arriving at their conclusions, unless they thought enough to figure out some cockamamey justification for whatever the heck they happen to think.

So the phenomenon about which you ask is caused by one of a few things:

• Ignorance -- this is the cause when one just doesn't know enough to arrive at a valid conclusion.
• Willful ignorance -- this is the cause when one knows enough to arrive at a valid conclusion, but one refuses to apply that awareness or seek the required information.
• Stupidity/dumbness -- this is the cause when one has the data available, is familiar with it, and just can make sense of it no matter how hard they try. Few folks who haven't legitimate physiological mental deficiencies are actually stupid.

As you can see from the above, willful ignorance is the most likely cause one will encounter. Why might one be willfully ignorant? Well, avarice, pride, wrath, lust, envy and sloth/acedia, individually or in concert with one another, are the prime motivators for that.

How does one overcome those failings? Actually, it's not all that hard to do: without exception, treat others as one would have them treat oneself. When everyone does that, all will be well with the world.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

I think it's a product of modern media - the internet, instant communications, social networking etc. Before, we couldn't avoid encountering other opinions, groups, ideas. Now, if they want - everyone has their own echo-chamber - for news, views, ideas, sounding boards. If they don't want to, they never have to encounter a contradictory idea. It means some of the most absurb ideas and conspiracy theories attain seemingly widespread support.

 

[jwoodie]

The wonderful thing about being an American used to be that it was based on allegiance to a common set of ideals that transcended "tribal" loyalties. Unfortunately, we are devolving into competing special interest groups who use real or imagined grievances as an excuse for abandoning these ideals.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's like this:

Lie down with a dog infested with fleas and you'll wake up flea infested.

Prudent people associate only with people who share their values.

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

I think it's a product of modern media - the internet, instant communications, social networking etc. Before, we couldn't avoid encountering other opinions, groups, ideas. Now, if they want - everyone has their own echo-chamber - for news, views, ideas, sounding boards. If they don't want to, they never have to encounter a contradictory idea. It means some of the most absurb ideas and conspiracy theories attain seemingly widespread support.

I don't think it the product of the modern media. For that to be so, the behavior would need to have been unobservable prior to the modern media coming to be. For it to be the media throughout the ages, one would have to also infer that people are capable of acting -- in this case associating (or not) with folks who are different from themselves -- and willing to do so only absent or in the presence of media influence. I don't believe that to be the limit of human ability, will and wherewithal.

 

[Agit8r]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

??? What is there to explain? Is it really that mystifying? Humans associate most closely with humans, even though some humans seem to connect better with cats and dogs than with other humans. Some cats "run with" with other cats, dogs with dogs (although domesticated dogs, unlike wild ones, will associate with anything that'll play with them), starlings with starlings, garter snakes huddle together in holes in the ground with other garter snakes, and so on.

If you are talking within a species, well that's a different matter. Humans are the only non-predatory creatures I know of that are finicky about others of the same species at a core level. If one is to believe the idea that humans have souls and other animals don't, it'd have to be the soul that explains the difference. If human intelligence is what one accepts as the defining distinction between humans and other animals, one would have to argue that intelligence is the reason.

I think we both can see just how ridiculous either of those propositions is, and therein lies a huge part of the problem: a great many humans espouse principles that really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Humans have a knack for hubris which allows for individuals believing whatever the heck they want to and behaving however they want to on the basis that they "think" they make some damn sense. Of course, thinking is the one thing such individuals didn't do very well in arriving at their conclusions, unless they thought enough to figure out some cockamamey justification for whatever the heck they happen to think.

So the phenomenon about which you ask is caused by one of a few things:

• Ignorance -- this is the cause when one just doesn't know enough to arrive at a valid conclusion.
• Willful ignorance -- this is the cause when one knows enough to arrive at a valid conclusion, but one refuses to apply that awareness or seek the required information.
• Stupidity/dumbness -- this is the cause when one has the data available, is familiar with it, and just can make sense of it no matter how hard they try. Few folks who haven't legitimate physiological mental deficiencies are actually stupid.

As you can see from the above, willful ignorance is the most likely cause one will encounter. Why might one be willfully ignorant? Well, avarice, pride, wrath, lust, envy and sloth/acedia, individually or in concert with one another, are the prime motivators for that.

How does one overcome those failings? Actually, it's not all that hard to do: without exception, treat others as one would have them treat oneself. When everyone does that, all will be well with the world.

So this pride is just animal instinct?

 

[Agit8r]

It's like this:

Lie down with a dog infested with fleas and you'll wake up flea infested.

Prudent people associate only with people who share their values.

So, they are actually proud of the values, rather than the group?

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

??? What is there to explain? Is it really that mystifying? Humans associate most closely with humans, even though some humans seem to connect better with cats and dogs than with other humans. Some cats "run with" with other cats, dogs with dogs (although domesticated dogs, unlike wild ones, will associate with anything that'll play with them), starlings with starlings, garter snakes huddle together in holes in the ground with other garter snakes, and so on.

If you are talking within a species, well that's a different matter. Humans are the only non-predatory creatures I know of that are finicky about others of the same species at a core level. If one is to believe the idea that humans have souls and other animals don't, it'd have to be the soul that explains the difference. If human intelligence is what one accepts as the defining distinction between humans and other animals, one would have to argue that intelligence is the reason.

I think we both can see just how ridiculous either of those propositions is, and therein lies a huge part of the problem: a great many humans espouse principles that really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Humans have a knack for hubris which allows for individuals believing whatever the heck they want to and behaving however they want to on the basis that they "think" they make some damn sense. Of course, thinking is the one thing such individuals didn't do very well in arriving at their conclusions, unless they thought enough to figure out some cockamamey justification for whatever the heck they happen to think.

So the phenomenon about which you ask is caused by one of a few things:

• Ignorance -- this is the cause when one just doesn't know enough to arrive at a valid conclusion.
• Willful ignorance -- this is the cause when one knows enough to arrive at a valid conclusion, but one refuses to apply that awareness or seek the required information.
• Stupidity/dumbness -- this is the cause when one has the data available, is familiar with it, and just can make sense of it no matter how hard they try. Few folks who haven't legitimate physiological mental deficiencies are actually stupid.

As you can see from the above, willful ignorance is the most likely cause one will encounter. Why might one be willfully ignorant? Well, avarice, pride, wrath, lust, envy and sloth/acedia, individually or in concert with one another, are the prime motivators for that.

How does one overcome those failings? Actually, it's not all that hard to do: without exception, treat others as one would have them treat oneself. When everyone does that, all will be well with the world.

So this pride is just animal instinct?

Neither.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

Comfort zone. No one wants to hang out with people they dont like or are uncomfortable around. For example. If I liked hanging out with the local drug dealer how eager would most people be to spend time around me? Once you ID the difference that sets you apart from that person you begin to rationalize why your way of thinking (your comfort zone) is better. Some people are able to expand their comfort zone a bit but they never really get over their initial limitations. Push comes to shove and you stick with whats familiar and right to you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Comfort zone. No one wants to hang out with people they dont like or are uncomfortable around. For example. If I liked hanging out with the local drug dealer how eager would most people be to spend time around me? Once you ID the difference that sets you apart from that person you begin to rationalize why your way of thinking (your comfort zone) is better. Some people are able to expand their comfort zone a bit but they never really get over their initial limitations. Push comes to shove and you stick with whats familiar and right to you.

All the more reason and import to one's recognizing one's shortcoming and deliberately raising one's kids so they don't develop the same ones to the extent that any of them are irrational.

 

[Agit8r]

Comfort zone. No one wants to hang out with people they dont like or are uncomfortable around. For example. If I liked hanging out with the local drug dealer how eager would most people be to spend time around me? Once you ID the difference that sets you apart from that person you begin to rationalize why your way of thinking (your comfort zone) is better. Some people are able to expand their comfort zone a bit but they never really get over their initial limitations. Push comes to shove and you stick with whats familiar and right to you.

All the more reason and import to one's recognizing one's shortcoming and deliberately raising one's kids so they don't develop the same ones to the extent that any of them are irrational.

I've often observed that culture is largely perpetuated error.

 

[Asclepias]

Comfort zone. No one wants to hang out with people they dont like or are uncomfortable around. For example. If I liked hanging out with the local drug dealer how eager would most people be to spend time around me? Once you ID the difference that sets you apart from that person you begin to rationalize why your way of thinking (your comfort zone) is better. Some people are able to expand their comfort zone a bit but they never really get over their initial limitations. Push comes to shove and you stick with whats familiar and right to you.

All the more reason and import to one's recognizing one's shortcoming and deliberately raising one's kids so they don't develop the same ones to the extent that any of them are irrational.

Thats true. I came up in a majority ghetto environment. My wife was raised in a wealthy white suburb. My children are comfortable in both environments. They wont have the setbacks I had coming up and they will appreciate the struggle of others trying to succeed against major odds while remaining grounded.

 

[Holos]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

How about we go with Freud on this one (but we don't dye like he does; that is, we take what he left and make it better)?

Id, ego, superego.

Again, I am more of a reformist Freudian analyst than an orthodox Freudian analyst, so be attentive in kind.

Id is the immediacy of expression. I feel a welling inside of me and I burp. My mouth salivates with the anticipation of food and its given appreciation and I drool. I am hurt and procure defense in a variety of ways depending on the kind of act which threatens me. All this kind of behavior is congregated in the Id, which does not answer your question.

Ego is a facet to assist with the Id. We eventually come to want or require a specific kind of food that will efficiently please us, defend ourselves before we are attacked and hurt ans so on. The ego is what permits our selves parting from the Id to gain individual control. Once more we still do not have your question answered, but we are approaching the solution to your confusion coming from these necessary understandings of gradual development.

Finally, the superego. When the ego is so good at its job of providing for the self it gives way to collateral cooperative provision. That is, if the ego is so accomplished as not to intervene or interfere in other selves that are also developing then the superego appears in the process to do what single egos could not achieve by their own. This even includes simple sensations that appeal to the Id such as pride. The superego is not really a final achievement, however, and also has its respective and according series of failures and improvements that could eventually lead to further developments or altogether dissolve in the likeness of the possibilities in any stage of the described development.

I think this crudely explains the situation of people with similar or equal traits associating to one another which you have mentioned. Do you think I have provided you with a fair, clear and functioning explanation?

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

How about we go with Freud on this one (but we don't dye like he does; that is, we take what he left and make it better)?

Id, ego, superego.

Again, I am more of a reformist Freudian analyst than an orthodox Freudian analyst, so be attentive in kind.

Id is the immediacy of expression. I feel a welling inside of me and I burp. My mouth salivates with the anticipation of food and its given appreciation and I drool. I am hurt and procure defense in a variety of ways depending on the kind of act which threatens me. All this kind of behavior is congregated in the Id, which does not answer your question.

Ego is a facet to assist with the Id. We eventually come to want or require a specific kind of food that will efficiently please us, defend ourselves before we are attacked and hurt ans so on. The ego is what permits our selves parting from the Id to gain individual control. Once more we still do not have your question answered, but we are approaching the solution to your confusion coming from these necessary understandings of gradual development.

Finally, the superego. When the ego is so good at its job of providing for the self it gives way to collateral cooperative provision. That is, if the ego is so accomplished as not to intervene or interfere in other selves that are also developing then the superego appears in the process to do what single egos could not achieve by their own. This even includes simple sensations that appeal to the Id such as pride. The superego is not really a final achievement, however, and also has its respective and according series of failures and improvements that could eventually lead to further developments or altogether dissolve in the likeness of the possibilities in any stage of the described development.

I think this crudely explains the situation of people with similar or equal traits associating to one another which you have mentioned. Do you think I have provided you with a fair, clear and functioning explanation?

Red:
I sure hope Agit8r thinks so because I don't. I agree that id and ego didn't explain it. I thought your discussion of superego was headed there, but I felt the explanation yet incomplete. Am I dissatisfied with the explanation because it's, as you write, crude, because I don't understand Freud well enough, or because it just doesn't answer the question? I'm not sure, to be honest.

 

[jwoodie]

In layman's terms, group association is a survival instinct. As one progresses intellectually, commonality of experiences and beliefs supplant this instinct. Ultimately, some may graduate to an independent valuation of ideas, for which external support mechanisms are unnecessary.

 

[Holos]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

How about we go with Freud on this one (but we don't dye like he does; that is, we take what he left and make it better)?

Id, ego, superego.

Again, I am more of a reformist Freudian analyst than an orthodox Freudian analyst, so be attentive in kind.

Id is the immediacy of expression. I feel a welling inside of me and I burp. My mouth salivates with the anticipation of food and its given appreciation and I drool. I am hurt and procure defense in a variety of ways depending on the kind of act which threatens me. All this kind of behavior is congregated in the Id, which does not answer your question.

Ego is a facet to assist with the Id. We eventually come to want or require a specific kind of food that will efficiently please us, defend ourselves before we are attacked and hurt ans so on. The ego is what permits our selves parting from the Id to gain individual control. Once more we still do not have your question answered, but we are approaching the solution to your confusion coming from these necessary understandings of gradual development.

Finally, the superego. When the ego is so good at its job of providing for the self it gives way to collateral cooperative provision. That is, if the ego is so accomplished as not to intervene or interfere in other selves that are also developing then the superego appears in the process to do what single egos could not achieve by their own. This even includes simple sensations that appeal to the Id such as pride. The superego is not really a final achievement, however, and also has its respective and according series of failures and improvements that could eventually lead to further developments or altogether dissolve in the likeness of the possibilities in any stage of the described development.

I think this crudely explains the situation of people with similar or equal traits associating to one another which you have mentioned. Do you think I have provided you with a fair, clear and functioning explanation?

Red:
I sure hope Agit8r thinks so because I don't. I agree that id and ego didn't explain it. I thought your discussion of superego was headed there, but I felt the explanation yet incomplete. Am I dissatisfied with the explanation because it's, as you write, crude, because I don't understand Freud well enough, or because it just doesn't answer the question? I'm not sure, to be honest.

It is in fact as you say. Crude and dissatisfying because I was not sure anyone would pay attention to it, so I only exerted the minimum of my thinking and logical efforts in the quoted post in the hope someone would engage in the unveiling of the question. (I think it is boring to do all of it by myself, besides the fact that another person can always contribute and make it even better)

I do believe you understand Freud and I do believe my previous post has also answered the question. However, I acknowledge the answer requires further explanation and that both our understandings can also be futhered by cooperating in the dialogue.

Tell me then, what made you think we were heading to a completion when you arrived at the superego? Likewise, what have made you perceive the description given as being incomplete? Two different questions that may conduce to a greater understanding. I believe I know how to make the answer better, but since the request is coming from you and I am not sure where exactly you stand with my perspective already presented, I would like to know more from you before clarifying my thoughts and logic.

Would you be so kind as to continue with the conversation taking into consideration what has already been proceeded?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Maybe it just the way I was raised, but I've never understood the need of many people to associate only with people who are like themselves in some way. And further still, to take pride in this collective identity. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

sorry, but I never fit in anywhere, didn't like running with the pack, hang with the in crowd or wear the cool thing.

I laugh at people who say they don't conform to society but conform to a smaller group, like goths or some metal heads, bikers, etc...