Do we become what we're told us we are?

[Don't Change Your Name]

I'm not sure if this belongs to this forum, since this is more of a psychological thing.

I just want to know your thoughts about this: is it possible, for example, that if we are seen by others as "gays" and they tell us that we are "gays" all the time, that we will end up becoming (or thinking we are) gays?

I mean, can those around us "brainwash" us into being someone we wouldnt be if they wouldn't do that?

[Strange]

Like you mentioned, If something was continuosly repeated to a victim depending on the topic there is a chance they would begin to beleive it.. Like you were saying, as if some group of people continuosly called someone homosexual, You could consider this a minor form of propaganda through brainwash. Consistant repition drilling something into your head and making you beleive.

I am almost positive something like this is capable of happening yet this type of brainwashing by repitition is only succesful depending on the topic (artificial or natural) that is being repeated. For example if every single person in the world began to say "1+1=3" The victim would begin to question what they beleived before they were influenced by others. The Victim would begin to look for faults within what they used to beleive in order to explain to them why this new (repeated false theory) could be correct. To beleive a subject as "artifficial" as "1+1=3" is understandable because a topic like this can be questioned by everyone it is not a personal questoin.

However soemthing (a natural topic) like people constantly saying that someone is "homosexual" would be much harder to have the victim (person people are trying to convince) to beleive. Because a topic that can only be accuratly answered by the victim cannot be influenced as easily by others.

Although the victim may begin to question themselves about there sexuality chances are they will not outright agree that "yes they are homosexual" Without putting some serious thought into it.

This is probably hard to understand, I am not very good with wording things.

Anyways Hope you got something out of that... :)

-Strange :ph34r:

[che's long lost daughter]

I also think it is possible. The brain interprets only what the body senses (and that includes all the 5 senses). What is fed to the brain, the brain uses. Like that GIGO thing in computers. If someone keeps telling you, you are something, it can become you, but that depends if you "digest" it for your brain to use. Have you ever heard of this thing called "Self-suggestion", which is based on the premise that what the mind can conceive, you can achieve? If this were true, then, if people keep telling you that you are gay and you conceive that you are one, you can eventually become one.

[redstar2000]

Tricky question.

I do think that the repetition of a message can influence someone's outlook to a considerable extent -- especially children.

On the other hand, if there's little or no confirmation from the real world, the message weakens. If there's more or less constant negative feedback from the real world...then I don't think the message can prevail.

If people around you constantly label you "gay", then possibly you might have some doubts about your sexuality (unless, of course, you actually are gay). Nevertheless, if you seek a romantic partner among members of the opposite sex while essentially ignoring the possibilities of a gay relationship -- and, sure enough, you actually find the partners you're looking for...then the message of the label breaks down in confrontation with the real world.

I happen to know an attractive and intelligent young woman who was told throughout her childhood by her mother that she was "ugly" and "stupid".

But when she reached adolescence...boys liked her! And she did ok in her schoolwork.

It probably took until her late teens for the real world to break down that sadistic and hateful message from her mother...but it broke down nonetheless.

The "power of suggestion" can be pretty strong -- but it ultimately cannot prevail against reality.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dyst]

The "power of suggestion" can be pretty strong -- but it ultimately cannot prevail against reality.

That depends, and is not always a fact. After all, almost all we think we know is based on asumptions. But I see what you mean...

[Latifa]

I think what he means by reality is popular opinion. If for some fucked up reason all the students and teachers decided they wanted to hate her, they would all claim she was 'ugly' and 'stupid'.

Is that better, redstar?

[Trissy]

As an Existntialist I agree with the Redstar's conclusion. Although the power of repition can strongly influence us and our actions ultimately it cannot determine our actions. At the end of the day we make choices and by carrying these choices through in our actions we become who we are. Somebody may believe that years of being called gay at school made them gay but this is little more then bad faith on the part of the individual. They made different choices at different times whether it was to kiss a man or whether to get involved in a serious relationship and these are what defines them as being homosexual. The desire to say that we are not responsible for who we are comes from the fear that our freedom has with it...that ultimately we are responsible for who we are.

[dso79]

Homosexuality is not a choice. Things like sexual orientation and gender-identity are part of who you are and cannot be changed. If people would adapt to how others percieve them, there wouldn't be any transsexuals and less homosexuals.

Does anyone here really believe that a heterosexual guy will fall in love with another guy just because people keep calling him a faggot?

[Trissy]

Homosexuality is not a choice. Things like sexual orientation and gender-identity are part of who you are and cannot be changed. If people would adapt to how others percieve them, there wouldn't be any transsexuals and less homosexuals.
But the problem now raised by this idea is how do we account for homosexuality? If you're answer is that it is genetic then how does homosexuality manage to pass itself on genetically? The idea of somebody being homosexual and yet procreating somehow seems odd, and if the answer is that only bisexuals pass on this genetic character then how do we account for the vast difference between the numbers of homosexuals and bisexuals?

On a seperate note I'm curious to know whether you believe that all human actions are determined or just some? If all human actions are determined then I'm curious as to how you account for justice or beliefs because these would surely be products of previous causes and effects. If only some are restricted then I wonder how you can hold that I'm free to choose whether I murder person X (or not) but not free to be attracted to them (or not).

I'll freely admit that we have influences that we consider when we make our choices (such as background, social values, threats, etc.) but I deny that we can ever be determined to carry out certain actions whether we call this matterialistic causation or human nature. Choice is only ever denied by those who desire to flee from something.

[dso79]

But the problem now raised by this idea is how do we account for homosexuality?
Homosexuality is hard to explain; it doesn't serve any purpose. Social factors don't seem to influence it, but neither do genetic factors.


On a seperate note I'm curious to know whether you believe that all human actions are determined or just some? If all human actions are determined then I'm curious as to how you account for justice or beliefs because these would surely be products of previous causes and effects. If only some are restricted then I wonder how you can hold that I'm free to choose whether I murder person X (or not) but not free to be attracted to them (or not).
Beliefs and moral values are not actions. They develop because of several different factors, both nature and nurture. On the basis of these values and beliefs we decide what actions to perform, such as killing someone.
Love is not an action either, it's an emotion, and like all emotions, it's very hard to control.

[NovelGentry]

But the problem now raised by this idea is how do we account for homosexuality? If you're answer is that it is genetic then how does homosexuality manage to pass itself on genetically?

This is like wondering if Down Syndrome would ever pass itself on if people with it failed to reproduce. It's very well known that two very normal parents can produce a child with Down Syndrome. I'm not trying to relate homosexuality here with being retarded, I'm just trying to make a point that it is indeed a genetic mutation.

[Trissy]

Homosexuality is hard to explain; it doesn't serve any purpose. Social factors don't seem to influence it, but neither do genetic factors
Indeed it doesn&#39;t serve any purpose but arguabley the &#39;purpose&#39; of hetrosexuality is equally as hard to come by without resorting to some weak idea or other. I assume that most people think hetrosexuality serves a purpose in that it allows the species to survive but then what purpose does continued existence of the human race serve? I&#39;m warning people now...if anybody says &#39;God&#39;s purpose&#39; then they&#39;re getting a slap&#33; <_<

Plus things don&#39;t necessarily have to have a fixed goal (such as procreation) to have meaning or value. Homosexuality as a means to an ends (be it love or happiness, etc.) is just as valuable in my eyes.


Beliefs and moral values are not actions. They develop because of several different factors, both nature and nurture. On the basis of these values and beliefs we decide what actions to perform, such as killing someone.
Love is not an action either, it&#39;s an emotion, and like all emotions, it&#39;s very hard to control.
Yes but how can you distinguish my belief that I am sexually attracted to other men from my belief that abortion isn&#39;t necessairly wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems hard to believe that some aspects of humanity are solely determined by genetics (such as sexuality) and others are not (such as morality). I may live in a very conservative and religious society which punishes homosexuality with death...are you saying that the percentage of people who believe they are homosexual in this society is going to be the same as in a more liberal society? I&#39;m not saying that there is no genetic part to our sexuality but I fail to understand how we can be genetically determined to act in some ways and not others.

We all have influences in our lives but the idea that we are fully determined to be gay or not I find baffling. Sure we may have certain feelings towards certtain genders but that is not what makes someone gay or not, but rather it is the choice to accept this and act on it. If finding yourself attracted to one member of the same sex made you gay then we&#39;d have a lot more gay people. I believe that our existence proceeds our essence. The urge to kill someone does not make me a murder but the act does. The urge to kiss another man does not make me gay but rather the commitment to a lifestyle containing relationships to other men does. We may have thousands of influences from lots of different areas but that does not remove the fact that at the end of the day my consciousness is free to make choices, and by acting on these choices I establish who I am.

The opposite of this existential view is the view of determinists (whether they be biological determinists, psychological determinists, economical determinists, sociological determinists, etc.) in which our essence proceeds our existence. But if that is the case then I cannot be held responsible for my actions because they have other causes (whether they be mental, genetic, financial, societal, etc.). I cannot grasp how there can be any middle ground between the view of libertarians (such as Existentialists) and determinists. Therefore by saying that homosexuality is not a choice, I&#39;m wondering how you can believe in the prospect of choice at all.

[dso79]

Yes but how can you distinguish my belief that I am sexually attracted to other men from my belief that abortion isn&#39;t necessairly wrong?

Attraction is not really a belief, it&#39;s a feeling. Your belief that abortion is acceptable is based on a number of rational arguments, attraction is based on emotions.


I may live in a very conservative and religious society which punishes homosexuality with death...are you saying that the percentage of people who believe they are homosexual in this society is going to be the same as in a more liberal society?

They may be less likely to start a same-sex relation, but they are still gay. Even when they do everything they can to deny it, I believe they still realize that they are gay.


If finding yourself attracted to one member of the same sex made you gay then we&#39;d have a lot more gay people. I believe that our existence proceeds our essence. The urge to kill someone does not make me a murder but the act does. The urge to kiss another man does not make me gay but rather the commitment to a lifestyle containing relationships to other men does.

I do believe that if someone is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, he is gay (or bisexual). It doesn&#39;t matter whether or not he does anything with those feelings. Likewise, a man may have relationships with other men (for whatever reason), but if he doesn&#39;t feel anything for them, he is not gay.

I find it very hard to determine whether there is such a thing as a free will. Falling in love feels like something that just &#39;happens&#39;, but may in fact be the result of a number of (unconscious) decisions. Deciding to kill someone may feel like a choice, but may not be one. Psychologists armed with personalitytests are often able to predict which kids may become murderers. Whether or not they will actually murder someone depends more on outside influences than on personal choices.

[Kobbot 401]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 24 2004, 03:32 AM
I&#39;m not sure if this belongs to this forum, since this is more of a psychological thing.

I just want to know your thoughts about this: is it possible, for example, that if we are seen by others as "gays" and they tell us that we are "gays" all the time, that we will end up becoming (or thinking we are) gays?

I mean, can those around us "brainwash" us into being someone we wouldnt be if they wouldn&#39;t do that?
To say this, is like saying that if you are raised in an angry enviroment, such as your parents constantly being violent, then you will be a violent individual also. It is likly that a person will become something if they are told to do somthing that way from a young age, befor they are able to adopted their own veiws on things.

[Trissy]

Sorry for the delay in replying but I had some important essays to work on and so I couldn&#39;t afford to focus on philosophical issues outside of those I was writing on at the time.


Attraction is not really a belief, it&#39;s a feeling. Your belief that abortion is acceptable is based on a number of rational arguments, attraction is based on emotions.
I don&#39;t think you can draw the line between belief and feeling so easily. Many people believe abortion to be wrong and have no rational argument against it. In that sense believing that &#39;abortion is wrong&#39; amounts to little more then a gut instinct or feeling. On the other side of things there are probably many people who find themselves feeling a certain way around members of the same sex and yet they don&#39;t equate that with homosexuality or an attraction. Sometimes people are just unaware of it, and sometimes it is plain outright denial. In that sense they need to believe they are attracted to someone just as much as having a feeling.


They may be less likely to start a same-sex relation, but they are still gay. Even when they do everything they can to deny it, I believe they still realize that they are gay.
Quite a few people get married before realising that they are gay. A fair proportion of them do so knowing they are gay but are too scared to admit it to themselves. However I&#39;d not be willing to wager that all of them realise that they are gay prior to getting married. Considering how many people get hurt in such situation where there is divorce (and possibley children), I take a slightly Hobbesian view that some people would not choose to cause that much pain and confusion if they even had a small incling that they were gay.


I do believe that if someone is sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, he is gay (or bisexual). It doesn&#39;t matter whether or not he does anything with those feelings. Likewise, a man may have relationships with other men (for whatever reason), but if he doesn&#39;t feel anything for them, he is not gay.

I still find this a hard position to understand because there have no doubt been many occasion when a person in a rage has come close to killing someone but managed to restrain themselves from doing so. Does that makes them a murderer? If we&#39;re attaching values to people merely on the basis of some internal characteristic then it seems odd to avoid anything but this conclusion because of what we have facing us.

Essence proceeds existence
The position of the determinist. If you believe that genetics, society, psychology, mechanics, or anything else &#39;makes us&#39; act certain ways then you are a determinist. I cannot see how people can be half-determinist in their views. Either you think something determines us in some ways then how do you account for them not effecting us in every possible way? Hence if someone is gay because of their genetic makeup or psychology and regardless of there actions, then it follows that someone is a murderer is a murderer reagrdless of their actions. The whole issue of moral value struggles to make sense in a determinist account of our actions, and the notion of &#39;justice&#39; or &#39;punishment&#39; is also troubled by problems.

Existence proceeds essence
The Existential account. There is no human nature that determines our behaviour, merely instincts that influence our actions. All choices are made freely, and our essences are defined by our choices and actions. The individual who denies his freedom is living in bad faith.


I find it very hard to determine whether there is such a thing as a free will. Falling in love feels like something that just &#39;happens&#39;, but may in fact be the result of a number of (unconscious) decisions. Deciding to kill someone may feel like a choice, but may not be one. Psychologists armed with personalitytests are often able to predict which kids may become murderers. Whether or not they will actually murder someone depends more on outside influences than on personal choices
Well Sartre would argue that the individual chooses to &#39;fall&#39; in love and that pretending their were other forces at work is just a way of living in bad faith. We live in bad faith because we don&#39;t like to think of ourselves as being partly responsible in the event of things going wrong. Being accountable for every action we commit makes some people flee from their unlimited freedom to choose.

In terms of the possiblity of us just appearing to be free then you&#39;re right to say that on a metaphysical level we could be determined. But Sartre&#39;s &#39;Being and Nothingness&#39; was a work of Phenomenal Ontology. It is about things as they appear to us because we ultimately cannot ever know the nature of the noumenal world beneath that of our senses. Science has failed to bridge that gap and to get through &#39;the veil of perception&#39;. It is not our concern how things may be if we can never know of the truth of it. We must deal with our world and the way it appears to us, and this means that freedom is what we should concern ourselves with.

As for unconscious decision then there are many arguments against this Freudian idea ranging from Popper&#39;s Falsificationism to Sartre&#39;s refference to the Cogito. If I am because I think then it makes no sense to have a part of mind that thinks and is not part of my mind. Plus the Psychologists ability to predict whether someone may become a murderer is troubling because if we are to hold the determinists view of actions how can we punish an offender? If they&#39;re not to blame for their psychology then how can we lock them up? Then we also have the troubling prospect of locking people up before they&#39;ve commited any crime merely because seem a likely candidate to commit an act.

[dso79]

I don&#39;t think you can draw the line between belief and feeling so easily. Many people believe abortion to be wrong and have no rational argument against it. In that sense believing that &#39;abortion is wrong&#39; amounts to little more then a gut instinct or feeling.
Most anti-abortion people do have arguments, though they might be simple arguments, such as: &#39;killing is wrong&#39;, or &#39;the Bible forbids it&#39;. I don&#39;t think they are against it because of an unexplainable, uncomfortable feeling that they get whenever they think about abortion.


However I&#39;d not be willing to wager that all of them realise that they are gay prior to getting married.
Defence mechanisms may indeed be strong enough to keep such feelings from reaching someone&#39;s consciousness, but they probably do realize that they don&#39;t feel sexually attracted to their wife, like heterosexual men do.


I still find this a hard position to understand because there have no doubt been many occasion when a person in a rage has come close to killing someone but managed to restrain themselves from doing so. Does that makes them a murderer?
That&#39;s a matter of definition; a murderer is defined as &#39;someone who murders another person&#39;, but a homosexual is defined as &#39;someone...who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex&#39;, according to Longman&#39;s Dictionary of Contemporary English.


Plus the Psychologists ability to predict whether someone may become a murderer is troubling because if we are to hold the determinists view of actions how can we punish an offender? If they&#39;re not to blame for their psychology then how can we lock them up?
In that case, the purpose of locking him up would not be punishment, but to prevent him from killing again.

On the subject of Determinism/Existentialism: Many modern psychologists are of the opinion that (complex) behaviour is the result of a combination of both genetic factors and environmental influences. I&#39;m not sure in which category they would fit, though.

[Trissy]

Sorry for the extreme delay in replying but I got sidetracked by essays and then there was Christmas and then New Year...


Most anti-abortion people do have arguments, though they might be simple arguments, such as: &#39;killing is wrong&#39;, or &#39;the Bible forbids it&#39;. I don&#39;t think they are against it because of an unexplainable, uncomfortable feeling that they get whenever they think about abortion.
Mmm...well I think I diagree with you stongly on this issue because in various philsophy seminars I have attended I have come across people who often have no argument and think that merely stating there feelings isenough to justify there beliefs objectively. I would not even be as gratious to say that they are simple arguments.

&#39;Killing is wrong&#39; is just a statement because it very often leads us to ask the question &#39;why?&#39;. I have talked to a few people who think killing is wrong because the lump of cells inside a womb are &#39;a baby&#39;, which I consider to be nothing more then an emotive ploy used to sway opinion. It&#39;s like when people hold up an cute animal and ask if you could kill it when they want to justify vegetarianism. &#39;You wouldn&#39;t eat Fluffy would you?&#39;. The idea of babies and fluffy animals produce a feeling of warmth and happiness in very many people. If there was no such feeling then we&#39;d have no problem with abortions or eating meat. How many people have a problem with swating flies or spiders? Buddhists mostly...


Defence mechanisms may indeed be strong enough to keep such feelings from reaching someone&#39;s consciousness, but they probably do realize that they don&#39;t feel sexually attracted to their wife, like heterosexual men do.
But how do they know how other men view their wives? They see their wife to be and they have certain thoughts and feelings, and they may also think that these are universal throughts and feelings which everyone else has. Drawing a line and saying that someone is gay when they deny it is a tricky thing to do especially since defence mechanisms are hard to conclusively establish universally in a scientific manner (Popper&#39;s criticism of Freud psychoanalysis springs to mind). I&#39;m still inclined to deny Psychological Determinism, and hold that actions and choices make a person what they are.


That&#39;s a matter of definition; a murderer is defined as &#39;someone who murders another person&#39;, but a homosexual is defined as &#39;someone...who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex&#39;, according to Longman&#39;s Dictionary of Contemporary English.

The problem with definitions being that they often oversimplify things and cover up our lack of understanding about many different things. We have Socrates to thank for highlighting this on many an occasion. Deabtes still rage in thousands of different areas.


In that case, the purpose of locking him up would not be punishment, but to prevent him from killing again.
There is another potential reason that was recognised by Nietzsche. Punishment as mere vengeful retribution...as a sign of will-to-power, or rather a lack of will-to-power...


On the subject of Determinism/Existentialism: Many modern psychologists are of the opinion that (complex) behaviour is the result of a combination of both genetic factors and environmental influences. I&#39;m not sure in which category they would fit, though.
Well even thought Psychology does not necessarily support Biological Determinism, I still view Psychology as being a discipline that upholds a Determinist view. This is because the vast majority of Psychologists believe that the make up of the mind determines our actions and in that sense they are Psychological Determinists because they believe our essence is in our Psyche. As you say some believe that nature and nurture play a role but what unites all psycholgists in the nature Vs nurture debate is there belief that the Psyche determines all human actions.

[dso79]

Sorry for the extreme delay in replying but I got sidetracked by essays and then there was Christmas and then New Year...

That&#39;s OK, I&#39;m not in a hurry :)


Mmm...well I think I diagree with you stongly on this issue because in various philsophy seminars I have attended I have come across people who often have no argument and think that merely stating there feelings isenough to justify there beliefs objectively.


It&#39;s like when people hold up an cute animal and ask if you could kill it when they want to justify vegetarianism.

Vegetarianism is an interesting example. I have to admit that when I decided to become a vegetarian, even though I could probably come up with some arguments against eating meat, the decision itself was mainly based on what I felt.


But how do they know how other men view their wives? They see their wife to be and they have certain thoughts and feelings, and they may also think that these are universal throughts and feelings which everyone else has.

When he sees a lot of passionate couples who are constantly touching and kissing each other, he might wonder why he doesn&#39;t feel that urge, but indeed, most marriages aren&#39;t very passionate, so it&#39;s possible that he doesn&#39;t notice that he is different.

[seraphim]

repetative messages can have a very detrimental effect on the psyche, I was discussing this with a work colleague he was at school with a guy I know who many people continually called gay (and other insults I will not put in writing) this guy has since come out as gay and insists he is happy and comfortable yet has tried to take his own life on a couple of occasions. I put the point to my colleague if he&#39;d ever considered that perhaps it was the continual bullying that had driven him to this conclusion. He thought not, I then pointed out that if that was the case then those people who said those things my colleague included were deffinately responsible for his mental state, and if he had died they would have blood on their hands.

[Dyst]

People become lots of things, and it doesn&#39;t matter what made them become so. If we&#39;re told long enough something, then yes, we might become that something. But then we do become that something, it isn&#39;t neccesseraly fake or anything.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 24 2004, 03:32 AM
I&#39;m not sure if this belongs to this forum, since this is more of a psychological thing.

I just want to know your thoughts about this: is it possible, for example, that if we are seen by others as "gays" and they tell us that we are "gays" all the time, that we will end up becoming (or thinking we are) gays?

I mean, can those around us "brainwash" us into being someone we wouldnt be if they wouldn&#39;t do that?
This brings the opposite occurance to mind. Homosexuals are often told that they can be heterosexual if they so choose but it seems that they in some way know this is untrue and eventualy "come out," or simply pretend and possibly lie to themself.

This is somewhat along the lines of what redstar2000 said.