A question on psychology/philosophy

[Antonio the Sixth]

The self is social.

^^^

There is no such thing as "a person's true nature". We are the product of our conditions and interactions and as such, the ways we act with or without power are equally "true" to who we are in that particular moment. Existence precedes essence, etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, great, the muh genetics argument. Because this sort of discourse is making a comeback in the 21st century for some reason.

Fine, there's probably a small share of human behavior that can be explained by genetic factors, but so what? Are you going to argue that the "true self" is whatever's encoded in our genes and all the social influences are just a facade on top of it? Seriously?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

The thing is that the line between "consciously altering your behavior" and "becoming a different person who acts and thinks differently" is a lot thinner than we think. Gaining power (or losing power, for that matter) doesn't just change the material incentives for translating preferences into actions, it tends to shape preferences themselves. It's been obvious for a long time that someone habituated to wielding power will begin to think and feel differently - it's the idea behinds the "power corrupts" platitude. And similarly people who are used to NOT having power will often develop new ways of thinking that fits their situation. In both cases, they aren't just acting differently, they become different people. And I don't think the people they become can be more or less "true". They're both equally true to who that person is in that moment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure how this even got to a muh genetics argument. Even if some behaviors are genetically determined (whether that's a lot or a little is in the eye of the beholder, but I maintain that most of the really crucial things that make us who we are are social in nature) that doesn't in any way imply the existence of a "true self" somehow hidden beneath the layers of socialization. If you really want to remove all socialization and see what a human being looks like, well, there are some, er, interesting examples to look at.

This got to genetics because you made the (in my opinion, wrong) argument that personality and self are wholly molded by environment. I suppose that from your point of view, my OP is redundant because you're seeing a person for who they "really" are all the time in every situation they're in. I don't agree with this; I think it's pretty clear that people consciously alter their behavior in order to fit in to different social settings. Putting them in a position of unlimited power would strip away their need to do this, thus revealing how they would choose to conduct themselves with zero constraints on their behavior.

The thing is that the line between "consciously altering your behavior" and "becoming a different person who acts and thinks differently" is a lot thinner than we think. Gaining power (or losing power, for that matter) doesn't just change the material incentives for translating preferences into actions, it tends to shape preferences themselves. It's been obvious for a long time that someone habituated to wielding power will begin to think and feel differently - it's the idea behinds the "power corrupts" platitude. And similarly people who are used to NOT having power will often develop new ways of thinking that fits their situation. In both cases, they aren't just acting differently, they become different people. And I don't think the people they become can be more or less "true". They're both equally true to who that person is in that moment.

I think you're severely underestimating how factors aside from environment affect a person's behavior. People process stimulus in a multitude of different ways, which has (in part) a good amount to do with their genes. There are genetic theories for almost every personality disorder, including disorders like sociopathy and psychopathy, both of which affect what you might call a person's "moral behavior." This is wholly relevant to how people behave in different settings. Now, a sociopath and a normal person might share some goals, but the sociopath does not possess the goal of not harming others-- one that most empathetic humans have (as a default, at least, until other factors are considered). This is how we differentiate the sociopath's behavior from that of other members of society, and it's why his behavior will be different than that of a neurotypical person, even when they are placed in the same situation. I really do not understand your insistence on some sort of tabula rasa philosophy when there is ample evidence against it. No one denies that environment can affect your physical or mental attributes, and no one denies that genetics can affect your physical attributes either. But as soon as someone suggests that genetics can affect mental attributes... people lose their minds. It is a self-evident truth and is supported by the entire field of psychology.

Once again you are bringing genetics out of nowhere. I've already explained why it's not relevant with my argument (unless, again, you want to make the argument that there's some "true self" that's purely genetic and all the social conditions are window-dressing for that - but that's an argument you just recently backed down from, so I'm confused). The fact that there are non-environmental factors that affect human behavior does not prove the existence of a "true self" unless you can also argue that there exists a potential condition for a human psyche that is not affected by environmental factors at all. Which is such an obvious losing proposition that I don't understand how you can hope to keep this up.