I do think that identifying with one's diagnosis is a somewhat new thing. I do have anecdotal evidence of members of my generation and that of my parents aggressively identifying with something like a diagnosis, maybe not DSM-style diagnoses, but more by their "problems"... it felt to me like a way of trying to re-appropriate an accusation as an identity to be proud of. I think we have a LOT more crisply named such things (evidenced by the nuanced variants?) Or maybe I am just a "grump old get off my lawn man" now and that is my lazy way out.
I still submit that the pithy "I am who you think I think I am" covers a reat deal of the space.
noveau-tribal, freshly coined categories have been around for a very long time, most obviously to me in sweeping cultural movements... in the arts one might be a classical, romantic, realist, impressionist, dada-ist, modernist, postmodernist painter,photographer,sculptor, playwright, poet, novelist, etc...
- Steve
I'm in an ongoing argument with some of my salon goers about identity. People seem to straddle its multiple meanings for rhetorical (or confirmation biasing) purposes, fluidly switching one context/meaning for another so often and so fluidly as to prevent me from understanding whatever it is they're saying (or trying to avoid saying).Introspection is rife with such problems, including a six year old coming to some self-identification/registration as a member of some crisp class/category. The most recent Bad Faith rhetoric about identity had to do with "neurodivergent". There seems to be a trend amongst "the kids these days" to identify as autistic or ADHD. I mean, I was clearly "different" when I was a kid. We had identities like "head" (kid who does lots of drugs), "jock" (kids who spent lots of time in organized athletics), "brain" (kids who spent time doing chess, math, ...), etc. There was also a name for the [metal|wood|…] shop kids. But I've forgotten it.Some of us were diagnosed with various labels including some words we're not supposed to say anymore. Many of my friends had such conditions. But none of us *identified* as those diagnoses. The diagnoses seemed almost orthogonal to the identities/tribes. (I happened to be a member of the heads, jocks, brains, and "band nerd" tribes; that multi-tribe crossover was part of what made me feel "different".) And each group had its share of the same diagnoses.It seems to me that our tech-associated, individualistic, isolation has driven "the kids" to over-emphasize their diagnoses, to adopt them as identities/tribes, identifying from the inside->out; whereas we (can't speak for anyone else, really) mostly identified from the outside->in. We were sorted by society. The kids these days seem more self-sorted. On the one hand, that could feel like increased liberty and free association. But on the other hand, it's like everyone is a home-schooled weirdo these days and nobody knows how to, for example, bite their tongue or avoid picking their nose in public.Not everybody needs to be a Hunter S Thompson, "neurodivergent", or whatever. Some of us should be allowed to identify as "normal". Introspection is a sickness.On 8/5/24 17:01, steve smith wrote:I jumped straight to the Artistic meaning of /frottage/ as coined originally by Max Ernst and while not as an act of psychopathy, it does have strong implications for the psychological/subconscious implications in this context?In any case, I find it a compelling opening line of the /call me Ishmael/ caliber.On 8/5/24 10:04 AM, Prof David West wrote:This is very interesting, and timely. I am completing an autobiography/essay/monograph for which this will be quite relevant. The opening lines of the work:/"An act of frottage triggered the self-recognition that I was a psychopath. I did not, of course, know either term or their meanings.// / /I was six." / davew On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, at 11:03 AM, glen wrote:> Progress or Pathology? Differential Diagnosis and Intervention Criteria> for Meditation-Related Challenges: Perspectives From Buddhist > Meditation Teachers and Practitioners > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7403193/ >> Based on our conversation attempting to identify behavioral markers for > consciousness, I thought this paper might give some insight into Dave's > straddling of mystical and materialistic descriptions of experiences he > marks as conscious. In the paper, they lay out 11 levers for making the> distinction: > > • Circumstances of Onset > • Control > • Critical Attitude > • Cultural Compatibility > • Distress > • Duration > • Functional Impairment > • Health History or Condition > • Impact > • Phenomenological Qualities > • Teachers’ Skills or Resources > > From my perspective that consciousness is a kind of fusion function, > Control, Critical Attitude, Distress, and Functional Impairment are> primary and the rest are secondary. The ability to (change one's) focus> of attention is a hallmark of consciousness, and those 4 levers> direclty target one's ability to focus. Duration may well be secondary> and the rest tertiary, I guess. Because there's something like a > half-life of controllability. If, say, you're a conspiracy theorist,> and you *entertain*, say, flat earth for long enough, maybe you'll lack > the ability to re-focus and don a critical attitude. Similarly, if you > embed into, say, procedural programming long enough, maybe you'll lose > the ability to re-focus and think functionally ... a kind of Functional> Impairment (sorry for the polysemy of "functional", there). >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
