Group Identity & Social Organisms

I am a BELIEVER

I hate sugar
I hate sand
I hate illegal contraband
I hate locusts
I hate motors
I hate propaganda promoters
I hate clouds
I hate breath
I hate the slow coming of death
I hate spics
I hate whales
I hate cats that have tails
I hate emerald
I hate fags
I hate dirty porno mags
I hate clean
I hate dirt
I hate anyone wearing a shirt
I hate girls
I hate boys
I hate strange sexual toys
I hate chowder
I hate clam
I hate this one guy named sam
I hate 'n-word's
I hate butter
I hate you your dad and your mother
I hate pollution
I hate trees
I hate dogs and their fleas
I hate religion
I hate water
I hate grueling everyday slaughter
I hate punks
I hate planes
I hate cars bikes and trains
I hate psychosis
I hate shrinks
I hate coats made out of minks
I hate soap
I hate lotion
I hate all this drastic commotion
I hate time
I hate society
I hate every person that lie to me

I hate debutantes
I hate movies
I hate used second rate floozies
I hate money
I hate beggars
I hate nasty partisan smeggers
I hate wine
I hate socks
I hate doors that have locks
I hate sex
I hate war
I hate bloated bodies and gore
I hate paint
I hate snails
I hate hills fens and dales
I hate computers
I hate snow
I hate above between and below
I hate eagles
I hate peace
I hate my house and the lease
I hate murder
I hate flowers
I hate big skyscraper towers
I hate love
I hate life
I hate the blade on a knife
I am the everlasting hate circle man
I hate terror
I hate wealth
but what I hate most of all is myself

Originally posted by budski
Group interaction dynamics and the sense of feeling that you belong are an important part of some peoples lives and their social interactions both within and outside the group.
This inevitably shapes perceptions and how others are treated by the group if they are considered an outsider.

This is why I have difficulty identifying with any group strongly. I also try to avoid being defined and labelled.

Maybe the psych-experts posting in this thread can share their diagnosis on that.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It's been my observation that people also tend to choose from groups available to them in their environment and rarely something completely different. Is it due to lack of imagination or the intense need to "fit" somewhere? I'm not entirely sure of the answer but I bet it has it's origins in the pre-teen years.

Some groups we didnt choose. We were born into them.

And sometimes we choose groups which are the exact opposite of what our parents told us to choose. But even that is not entirely "free choice" but only an act of rebellion, isnt it?

Originally posted by sc2099

If I ask you to do me you'll know what I mean, right?

Uhm...

It's others' perception of that qualifier that is really the limit. For example, punk rocker and library volunteer don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Good point

The disadvantage is you start to define yourself as _________ rather than qualifying yourself as ________, which is limiting rather than enriching. If you define yourself as a punk rocker then in your own mind that's all you are and nothing more. It becomes who you are rather than what you do, which is a bad thing. People who do this tend to exclude themselves from groups outside their self imposed identity.

Yeah. Being one thing does not necessarily have to entail being against another...for example.

Religions, political parties, brand name cults (mac users and ipod listeners, I'm looking in your general direction), universities, and anything that forces a person to exclude other qualifiers from their existence. For example, you can't be a Jehovah's Witness and a Muslim. You can't be a Republican and a Communist party member. Some people think you can't be smart without a degree or you can't be qualified for a job without a certification. You can't be a true technophile unless you use linux or mac.

Good reading here. Im fascinated by social organisms that exclude others and the possibility of them being artificially engineered.

And here's a big one. You can be a citizen but not a resident of more than one place. That's a manipulation and limit if I ever saw one. And the reason to invent these labels and limits? Cash, duh. It costs money to define ones self as a trendy, progressive, smart, resident of the hippest neighborhood in town, not to mention change residences or make yourself upwardly mobile.

Insightful.

reply to post by earthchild


We share the same problem. I have a real problem with the predictability of most groups-definitions.

OK, since everyone seems to be filling in the blank:

What would happen if we quit defining ourselves as anything and just stick with "I am" or "I am me", period?

Wouldnt that mean we´d be more flexible to take on any given role according to situation?

Today I can be a business person, tommorow I can be a hippie, the day after tommorow I can be a good boy, and then a bad boy.

Would it be a bad thing if we couldnt categorize people anymore and everyday delivers something unexpected to us?

Or in other words: Wouldnt people then become un-controllable?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Exactly what I was going to put in my first post, since that's the way I am.

I don't belong to ANY social group unless you count ATS, and this place is so diverse that it doesn't really count, although I know some on here still go for the old group dynamic.

In a way it makes me a bit of a pariah, until people who like belonging to a particular group get to know me, then they realise that I just do my own thing without any regard for what people think of it.

I don't walk with the crowd, I walk on my own and am an individual


[edit on 19/8/2008 by budski]

I think the proposition of just "I am" then raises the question of "You are what?" It is human nature to be curious and ask questions.

I believe we socially group due to our demand for knowledge. We want to understand everything. In the mindset humans have things that are unknown are frightening. We do not understand each other so we label so that we have an idea of where to begin because typically person of type X will like music style Y and speak in the style of Z. This grouping gives us the false impression that we understand each and every human being. The saying "I know your type" shows this perfectly.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Wow! I saw this on the home page and saw "I am a _______" (fill in the blank) and automatically thought "Human Being" so what does that say about me???

Maybe the psych-experts posting in this thread can share their diagnosis on that.

Are you asking someone to do you?
(I heart sc2099's ability to overcome fear of flirtation)

Not wanting to be labeled gives you freedom. Sky you are a freedom lover. You can say I am a freedom lover, and it defines you as not liking to be restricted from choice in this life. I don't think it is artificial. It is a PATH of choice. We don't necessarily REBEL, we choose to be something else. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you tell someone you ARE something, they may understand your behaviour better. It breeds understanding as well as difference and diversity.

There isn't just I am.
There is I was
and I will be.
I am not
I wasn't and I never will be.

Our limits are because of our choices.
I can never NOT be a mom.
I made a choice.
Then you have to ask yourself, did I make the right choice? Only in that way are we unlimited.

I forgot loneliness and boredom on my list.
People need people, so we make lots of reasons to be together and enjoy each other.
People need space and to not be involved in certain things of our choosing.
People need alone time.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"I am a ________ " (fill in the blank).

I am me, and that's about it. I wear many hats though.

Questions for Research:

1. What are the benefits of belonging to a social organism? Why do we strive to be part of something and impose artificial definitions on our otherwise unlimited being?

We evolved as troop animals, we've needed each other in the past and so our behaviour now dictates that we need each other.

2. What are the disadvantages of taking in a fixed identity too strongly? (Apart from the predictability I pointed out)?

We all grow and change, we need space, not a tight cage.

3. Who are we beyond the artificial labels and stereotypes?

Our spiritual selves, our minds, our bodies. We conform to stereotypes but also break them, same often with labels though they we may hold like a cage.

4. In which way could it be fun to change ones group-identification once in awhile?

By taking the opposite side to your character, generally a good laugh.

And most importantly:

5. Which subcultures, social organisms, groups, cults seem to be artificially engineered for the purpose of controlling humans?

Most. In a country we need one line of power overall, or two groups of people will go to war. It's a necessary evil, but politicians revel in it and their 'authority.'

I am an alcoholic.

In the wise words of Descartes, "I drink, therefore I am."

Originally posted by Skyfloating
OK, since everyone seems to be filling in the blank:

What would happen if we quit defining ourselves as anything and just stick with "I am" or "I am me", period?

But what are you. We would all just be a collection of 'me's'. Much of how we self-categorise will involve much of the self-evident and also what we find important - the hobbies, roles, beliefs, and features we value. What makes us an individual.

Wouldnt that mean we´d be more flexible to take on any given role according to situation?

Today I can be a business person, tommorow I can be a hippie, the day after tommorow I can be a good boy, and then a bad boy.

We would do so anyway. I could list many more 'I am's', but I just used the most important to me. Sometimes I'm more student than teacher, sometimes I'm more parent than lover etc etc. Sometimes I'm a good teacher, othertimes a bad one.

Would it be a bad thing if we couldnt categorize people anymore and everyday delivers something unexpected to us?

Too much for a brain to handle - to try to hold individual foibles for every single person you ever meet? Or to not associate this sort of information - would be like social amnesia. You can try to fight the unconscious mechanisms, but as soon as we meet a new person we are attempting to categorise and simplify, or understand the complexities. Just the way the brain works - we are consistently running our social inference systems (also applies in general - e.g., categorising nature, tools etc).

It also wouldn't change the reality. Why would someone define as 'liberal' or 'conservative'? Why define as 'theist' or 'atheist'?

I think they signal something about ourselves, about our values. I don't take the label 'liberal' first and then conform to it, it is a descriptor of my values. Only a general one, but it would give you a rough idea of where I come from without me having to write a two page screed about my socio-political orientation. Thus, I'd label liberal, and then perhaps outline the more idiosyncratic complexity.

It also helps signal what behaviours are relevant. Thus, we would probably behave differently to a doctor than a lover, than to a thief and a son/daughter.

Or in other words: Wouldnt people then become un-controllable?

It would just make social cognition very wieldy. The labels we give ourselves and others are either descriptions of roles or behaviours etc. They tend to come first, labels follow.

Other times the labels help outline our expectations. Thus, when you go to school and see a new teacher, you wouldn't expect this individual to make you spend the lesson putting stamps on envelopes, or dress as Hitler and start giving you fascist indoctrination. Similarly, when I go into a class, I play the role of teacher, I won't spend this time talking about the magnificence of Nando Torres - well maybe for a bit, heh. The category label is informative.

The skill is being able to be flexible in how we use social information. Thus, such categorisation can readily lead to stereotyping - often such stereotypes contain a kernal of truth, many other times they don't. Using the labels without further thought would be a problem. For example, we might expect a science teacher to be a stuffy male boffin, but be faced with a buxom lass.

I see where you are coming from, I just don't see it as generally plausible. I think as long as we remember that under whatever simplistic category a complex human resides (i.e. a teacher is more than a teacher, a black person might be a crap dancer), not so bad.

However, we will try to understand more about the things that are most salient. They used to say humans are 'cognitive misers', but it is more a case of 'motivated tacticians' - we apply our brain glucose selectively.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by melatonin]

I am a person, a human being. I have always hated labels.

I am Undefined.

No, really. There is no group ''label'' for my kind.


Unless I am allowed to say:
"I am Miscellaneous"

Now go predict what I am like éh?

My reason for saying this is simple.
No matter what word you choose to present to me, It will never fully encompass my being.

[edit on 20/8/08 by -0mega-]

The first thing that to came to my mind was "human". I didn't realize I was supposed to think of anything more specific. What does that say about me?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by harrytuttle
The first thing that to came to my mind was "human". I didn't realize I was supposed to think of anything more specific. What does that say about me?

Perhaps:
That either you were trying to be smart and expected a question like this and wanted to use ''human'' as the big flaw.

Or that you do not think about labeling people.

Though I think that if someone gives an unspecified question or statement, most people will think of ''human'' + their lifestyle. But most of course won't answer with the first because that's ''obvious''.

It's like asking someone with specific clothes "What are you?"
Of course the person asking knows that he's human, so he most likely won't say that, and say what his clothes / life-style represents instead.

[edit on 20/8/08 by -0mega-]