READ BELOW. WHAT I WRITE MAKES PERFECT
SENSE AND WHAT THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION AND DOUGLAS KENRICK PROPOSE
PERFECTLY BACKS IT UP. DO MY DIFFERENT SELVES REVEAL THEMSELVES WHEN I'M DRINKING BECAUSE
I'M AN ALCOHOLIC. NO, THEY REVEAL THEMSELVES UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.
"A MAN HAS AS MANY SOCIAL SELVES AS THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO RECOGNIZE HIM AND CARRY AN IMAGE OF HIM IN THEIR MIND." - WILLIAM JAMES
Allow ME To Share Something With You Folkz. I'm One Way Around Certain People And Another Way Around Other People And I've Been This Way For A Long Time. But Now That I No Longer Hang Around People, The People That I Once Hanged Around Can Now See The Multiple Wayz That I Am. In Other Words, My Internet Writing/Ramblings, Have Allowed ME To Share My Multiple Selves With The Multiple Circles That I've Run In All At Once. So The Athletic Circles That I've Run In And The People Who Have Considered ME An Athlete Have Now Been Able To See The Academic ME Just As The Academic Circles I've Run In Can Now See The Athletic ME And The Gang Circles Who Have Seen The Thug ME Can See The Pious ME Just Like The Asians I've Associated With Can Now See The Nigga ME (Instead Of The Asian ME) And VICE VERSA, VICE VERSA, VICE VERSA, VICE VERSA, VICE VERSA Til I'm Dead. Feel ME? No You Don't Because You Didn't Associate With Multiple Groups And Don't Have My Multiple MEs. Here's An Example, My Behavior, Language, And Style Of Speech Around My Siblings, Especially My Brothers Is Much Different Than When I'm Around Friends, Acquaintances, And Strangers. In The Former Setting I'm Submissive, Deferring To My Siblings And Somewhat Reticent, Using Proper English And Refraining From Cursing. When I'm In The Latter Setting It's Almost The Exact Opposite. I'm More Dominant, I'm More Talkative, I'm More Assertive, And I Let My TRUE Personality And Nature Show. Now, Why Is There Such Divergence Here? Why Are There These Two MEs (Actually There Are More Than Two MEs, But In This Example I'll Just Say There Are Two MEs)? because One ME (The Home ME, The Brother ME) Has Learned From Years Of Being Raised In A Dominant, Male Dominated Violent Household That Being The Subservient, Passive, Humble Little Brother Who Doesn't Show Off Is The Best Way To Survive (And Avoid The Evil Eye), While The Other ME (The Friend, Stranger ME) Has Learned To Reveal Some Of My TRUE Nature When I'm Around Certain People And During Certain Contexts Because This Is The Best Way To Attract A Mate And Reproduce. Now, As A Result Of These Conflicting MEs, People (My Siblings And Parents, For Instance) Have One Impression (Idea) Of ME, While Friends, Acquaintances, And Strangers Have Another. But, Again, Thanks To My Internet Writings/Ramblings, Both Groups Have Gotten To See Both Sides (Or At Least Some Of The Sides) Of ME (My Siblings Didn't Know I Was This Way, Like My Friends And Acquaintances Didn't Know I Was The Other Way Until I Wrote All Of This Shit On The Internet). (I'm Coming Out The Closet And Going Both Wayz! NOW, READ THE CINDERELLA ANALOGY TAKEN FROM THE NURTURE ASSUMPTION AND THEN READ ABOUT SUBSELVES, WHICH DR. DOUGLAS T. KENRICK HAS POPULARIZED.)
"I CAN LIVE YOUR LIE AND MY LIE AT THE SAME DAM TIME!" - DADDY
"I CAN LIVE YOUR LIE AND MY LIE AT THE SAME DAM TIME!" - DADDY
We put on different faces according to who we're dealing with, whether a girl, boss, cop, friend, enemy. That's normal and natural.
"IMMA QUUUEEEN BITCH BOW DOWN...CROWN" QUEEN B
"The kid whose parents are wealthier than their neighbors may be as anxious to keep it a secret as the kid whose parents are poorer: what they hate is being different from their peers." For Instance, I've Pretended To Be Like Some Of You To Avoid Standing Out And Seeming Different And Thus Being Shunned By You. That Is, I've Downplayed And Hid Some Of My Innate And Environmental Superiority So That I Could Be Part Of The Group And Not Be Excluded By You People Who Were Less Advantaged, Both Genetically And Socioeconomically, Than ME. Now You Know (Now You Know You're Inferior To ME). For Instance, Around Filipinos I Was Filipino, Around Poor People I Was Poor, Around Urban People I Was Urban, Etc., Etc., Etc., But Thanks To The Internet You All See Who I Really Am, Which Is Not Like Most Of You (Not Filipino, Not From A Poor, Working Class Environment, Not Urban, Etc.)
"The kid whose parents are wealthier than their neighbors may be as anxious to keep it a secret as the kid whose parents are poorer: what they hate is being different from their peers." For Instance, I've Pretended To Be Like Some Of You To Avoid Standing Out And Seeming Different And Thus Being Shunned By You. That Is, I've Downplayed And Hid Some Of My Innate And Environmental Superiority So That I Could Be Part Of The Group And Not Be Excluded By You People Who Were Less Advantaged, Both Genetically And Socioeconomically, Than ME. Now You Know (Now You Know You're Inferior To ME). For Instance, Around Filipinos I Was Filipino, Around Poor People I Was Poor, Around Urban People I Was Urban, Etc., Etc., Etc., But Thanks To The Internet You All See Who I Really Am, Which Is Not Like Most Of You (Not Filipino, Not From A Poor, Working Class Environment, Not Urban, Etc.)
Unlike the mythical Eve of Three Faces, most of us do not have multiple personalities that lack access to each other’s memories. We may behave differently in different social contexts, but we carry along our memories from one context to another. Nonetheless, if we learn something in one situation we do not necessarily make use of it in another.
In fact, there is a strong tendency not to transfer the knowledge or training to new situations. According to learning theorist Douglas Detterman, there is no convincing evidence that people spontaneously transfer what they learned in one situation to a new situation, unless the new situation closely resembles the old one. Detterman pointed out that undergeneralization may be more adaptive than overgeneralization. It is safer to assume that a new situation has new rules, and that one must determine what the new rules are, than to blithely forge ahead under the assumption that the old rules are still in effect.7
At any rate, that is how babies appear to be constructed. Developmentalist Carolyn Rovee-Collier and her colleagues have done a series of experiments on the learning ability of young babies. The babies lie in a crib, looking up at a mobile hanging above them. A ribbon is tied to one of their ankles in such a way that when they kick that foot, the mobile jiggles. Six-month-old babies catch on to this very quickly: they are delighted to discover that they can control the mobile’s movements by kicking their foot. Moreover, they will still remember the trick two weeks later. But if any detail of the experimental setup is changed—if a couple of the doodads hanging from the mobile are replaced with slightly different doodads, or if the liner surrounding the crib is changed to one of a slightly different pattern, or if the crib itself is placed in a different room—the babies will gaze up at the mobile cluelessly, as though they had never seen such a thing in their lives.8 Evidently babies are equipped with a learning mechanism that comes with a warning label: what you learn in one context will not necessarily work in another.
It is true: what you learn in one context will not necessarily work in another. A child who cries at home gets—if he’s lucky—attention and sympathy. In nursery school, a child who cries too much is avoided by his peers;9 in grade school he is jeered at. A child who acts cute and babyish for her daddy evokes a different reaction from her classmates. Children who get laughs for their clever remarks at home wind up in the principal’s office if they don’t learn to hold their tongue in school. At home the squeaky wheel gets the grease; outside, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Or, as in Cinderella’s case, vice versa.
Like Cinderella, most children have at least two distinct environments: the home and the world outside the home. Each has its own rules of behavior, its own punishments and payoffs. What made Cinderella’s situation unusual was only that her two environments—and hence her two personalities—were unusually divergent. But children from ordinary middle-class American families also behave differently inside the home and outside of it. I remember when my children were in school and my husband and I used to go to Back- to-School Night to meet their teachers. Year after year we would see parents talking to their child’s teacher and coming away shaking their heads in disbelief. “Was she talking about my kid?” they would say, making it sound like a joke. But sometimes the teacher really seemed to be talking about a child who was a stranger to them. More often than not, this child was better behaved than the one they knew. “But he’s so obstinate at home!” “At home she never shuts up for a minute!”
Children—even preschoolers—are remarkably good at switching from one personality to another. Perhaps they can do this more easily than older people. Have you ever listened to a couple of four-year-olds playing House?
Stephie (in her normal voice, to Caitlin): I’ll be the mommy.
Stephie (in her unctuous mommy voice): All right, Baby, drink your bottle and be a good little baby.
Stephie (whispering): Pretend you don’t like it.
Caitlin (in her baby voice): Don’t want botta!
Stephie (in her unctuous mommy voice): Drink it, sweetheart. It’s good for you!
Stephie plays three parts here: author/producer, stage director, and the starring role of Mommy. As she switches back and forth between them, she gives each one a different voice.'0
Sisters and Brothers
Granted that what children learn from interacting with their mothers might not help them get along with their peers in nursery school, but surely what they learn from interacting with their siblings should be transferable? You would think so—I would have thought so, too. But on second thought, children are probably better off starting from scratch with their peers. The child who dominates her younger brother at home may be the smallest one in her nursery school class; the dominated younger brother may turn out to be the largest and strongest in his. Here is what one team of researchers has to say on this topic:
There was no evidence of individual differences in sibling interactions carrying over into peer interactions. . . . Even the second-born child, who has experienced years in a subordinate role with an older sibling, can step into a dominant role [with a peer].16
And this from another:
Few significant associations were found between measures of children’s sibling relationships and characteristics of their peer relationships. . . . Children who were observed to be competitive and controlling to their siblings were reported by their mothers to have positive friendships. Children whose mothers reported that they had hostile sibling relationships received higher scores on friendship closeness___Indeed, we should not expect competitive and controlling behaviour toward a younger sibling to be necessarily associated with negative and problematic behaviour with friends.17
Unless they happen to have a twin, children’s relationships with their siblings are unequal. In most cases the elder is the leader, the younger is the follower. The elder attempts to dominate, the younger to avoid domination. Peer relationships are different. Peers are more equal, and often more compatible, than siblings. Among American children, conflict and hostility erupt far more frequently among siblings than among peers.18
Conflict between siblings is the theme of Frank Sulloway’s book Born to Rebel, which I mentioned in the previous chapter. In Sulloway’s view, siblings are born to be rivals, fighting to get their fair share—or, in the case of first-
boms, more than their fair share—of family resources and parental love. Children do this, he said, by specializing in different things: if one niche in the family is filled, the next child must find some other way of winning parental attention and approval.19
I do not disagree with that. Nor do I doubt that people often drag their sibling rivalries along with them to adulthood and sometimes to the grave. My Aunt Gladys and my Uncle Ben hated each other all their lives. What I doubt is that people drag the emotions and behaviors they acquire in their sibling relationships to their other relationships. With anyone other than her brother Ben, my Aunt Gladys was as sweet and kind as the Cinderella in my childhood storybook.
The patterns of behavior that are acquired in sibling relationships neither help us nor hinder us in our dealings with other people. They leave no permanent marks on our character. If they did, researchers would be able to see their effects on personality tests given to adults: firstborns and laterborns would have somewhat different personalities in adulthood. As I reported in the previous chapter (also see Appendix 1), birth order effects do not turn up in the majority of studies of adult personality. They do, however, turn up in the majority of studies of one particular kind: the kind in which subjects’ personalities are judged by their parents or siblings. When parents are asked to describe their children, they are likely to say that their firstborn is more serious, methodical, responsible, and anxious than their laterborns. When a younger brother or sister is asked to describe the firstborn, a word that often turns up is “bossy.”20 What we’re getting is a picture of the way the subject behaves at home.
At home there are birth order effects, no question about it, and I believe that is why it’s so hard to shake people’s faith in them. If you see people with their parents or their siblings, you do see the differences you expect to see. The oldest does seem more serious, responsible, and bossy. The youngest does behave in a more carefree fashion. But that’s how they act when they’re together. These patterns of behavior are not like albatrosses that we have to drag along with us wherever we go, all through our lives. We don’t even drag them to nursery school.21
...
Cinderella’s alternate personas are an example of another kind of codeswitching. Step out of the cottage—look pretty, act charming. Go back in— look homely, act humble. If she had also spoken one language in her home...At home Cinderella thought of herself as worthless, outside her home she found that she could win friends and influence people. A bilingual Cinderella might still be scrubbing floors if the prince had addressed her in the language used in her cottage.
...
William James said that a person “shows a different side of himself’ in different social contexts and gave as his first example the youth who swears like a pirate when he’s with his friends but is “demure enough before his parents and teachers.” A high school student told this anecdote about one of his classmates:
A girl at my school was walking down the hall and remembered she forgot something.
“Oh shoot!” she exclaimed.
As she looked around and saw her friends she said, “I mean oh shit.”32
The girl’s parents and teachers make similar adjustments in their verbal behavior. They do not use the same vocabulary or sentence structure when they’re talking to a teenager as when they’re talking to a two-year-old. They do not use the same vocabulary or sentence structure when they’re talking to their automobile mechanic as when they’re talking to their doctor.33
...
It isn’t until adolescence or adulthood that people occasionally become aware of the way their behavior changes in various social contexts. Perhaps there are people you don’t like to be with because you don’t like the way you act when you’re with them.
The youth described by William James was “demure enough before his parents and teachers” but behaved differently when he was with his friends. He acted the way his parents and teachers had taught him to act, but only in social contexts that included his parents or teachers...
...
After Cinderella married the prince she never returned to her stepmother’s cottage. Her self-effacing cottage persona was left behind forever, along with her broom and her raggedy clothes.
Most people do go home again. And the moment they walk in the door and hear their mother’s voice from the kitchen—“Is that you, dear?”—the old personality they thought they had outgrown comes back to haunt them. In the world outside they are dignified, successful women and men, but put them back at the family dinner table and pretty soon they are bickering and whining again, just like they did in the good old days. No wonder so many people hate going home for holidays.
WILL THE REAL SLIM SHADY PLEASE STAND UP?
You Behave Differently And Make Different Decisions Based On Who You're Dealing With And What The Social Circumstances Are When You're Dealing With These People Because You Have Different Selves Competing With One Another To Accomplish Different Evolutionary Goals. This Is Why We Humans Are Innately Hypocritical, Contradictory, And At Odds With Ourselves.
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=7150&cn=0
How
does this decision-making process work in humans, exactly? How
different are we from other species? We all acknowledge that animals
use their innate adaptive capacities reasonably (though the term rational obviously wouldn't apply). To this question the authors claim that nature has given humans not just one mind, but a handy toolkit
of mental modules, each meant for its own special application – mating,
gaining and maintaining group status and so on. That is, although in
our own experience each of us has a coherent identity of a single self, Kenrick and Griskevicius assert that this self is actually an evolved set
of social-behavioral, emotional, cognitive and behavioral tendencies,
and that our behaviors are actually orchestrated by seven distinct subselves. "Instead of having just one self, we are really a collection of selves - - a group of subselves. Like different personalities, each of your subselves has peculiar quirks and preferences."
Further,
"Different subselves are activated in different social situations."
Each subself has its own principle domain, and when it is called on by
the group (of subselves) to handle a particular situation, the
collective-self defers, more or less automatically, to the expert subself to lead the way.
The
seven subself domains of expertise are (1) Self-protection, (2)
Disease-avoidance, (3) Affiliation, (4) Status, (5) Mate-acquisition,
(6) Mate retention, and (7) Kincare. The labels given to these
subselves are descriptive of their roles and areas of expertise, and the
authors provide lots of entertaining illustrations, both of how these
can work independently as well as how behaviors produced by one subself
can appear wholly contradictory to those of other subselves. For
example, someone known for high ideals and strong ethics may nonetheless
be caught having an extramarital affair: here is incongruence resulting
from the presumably-rational motivations of different subselves. Teens
take great physical risks in the attempts to attract potential mates.
Some well-known Hollywood personalities live luxurious lifestyles while
driving environmentally-friendly cars. A rap singer raised in
semi-poverty becomes wealthy but quickly squanders it all. Are all
these "decisions" irrational? Only if one insists on a unified-self
perspective, in which a conscious "me" makes all the decisions.
START READING ON PAGE 48 (WHO WAS THE REAL MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.?)
