No one, anyone, someone

[Mikefule]

I heard an interesting interview yesterday on the wireless. This psychologist was explaining her theory that people divide into:


No one
Anyone
Someone


"No one" is the sort of person who reacts only to what is in front of them. They have no depth of understanding, no objectives, and no stable personality. They are simply a bundle of reactions. These are the people who hang around shopping malls, drift into a life of drugs and benefits, and who might kick a man to death on the spur of the moment, in full view of witnesses and CCTV, then be mildly surprised when they are sent to prison.

All of us start as "no ones" when we are babies, reacting only to the stimuli around us, but most of us grow beyond this.


"Anyones" are people who develop into "interchangeable people", fully and unquestioningly adopting the fashions, behaviours and attitudes of their peers. Most of us develop into "anyones" but some never develop any further.


"Someones" are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.


I don't think it's a perfect model, but I think it's interesting.

Discuss.

[glen]

I find falsifiable therories more interesting.

[harper]

It would take someone like you to make a thread anyone else could have made and still be of interest to no one.

[Mikefule]

I find falsifiable theories more interesting.


Armed with this insight, I shall never admire beauty again, laugh at a joke, or tell someone I love them.

[glen]

Armed with this insight, I shall never admire beauty again, laugh at a joke, or tell someone I love them.

Is that really so much to ask?:)

alright, I'll give my two cents...

I think the phenomenon she is trying to explain is better explained by the concept of social proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof), as psychologist Robert Cialdini details in his book "Persuasion: Science and Practise".

Social proof is the tendency to look at what others are doing in order to determine what to do, and it's a great heuristic with lots of evolutionary advantages (ie. Everyone is running away:confused: ....I should probably run away:eek: ). However, it can backfire.

As Cialdini argues, we're being confronted with more and more choices today, and there's less and less time to make informed decisions, so we revert to these simple heuristics to make a lot of our decisions. This leads to people just 'copying' others...it's a lot simpler than figuring things out for yourself. That's the "anybodys".

I think the "someones" in the psychologists theory are simply the people who A) don't care about what others are doing, or B) educate themselves enough to make informed decisions based on merit, not on simple heuristics. That way, they're more likely to make unique decisions.

[vanpaun]

i would say im a someone.

[uni98]

I reckon I'm a someone because I am! LOL... coz I'm bob thats why.:)

[ivan]

i would say im a someone.
Of course you would.

No one would say they are a no one.

[Hazmat]

Of course you would.

No one would say they are a no one.
+1 on that. :D

[cathwood]

I think it's WAY too simplistic.

[Fooby]

"Someones" are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.
I believe I am a someone, because I do not listen to rap or hip hop or any other sub-genres of those, I listen to plain, pure ROCK, not many people listen to that in our modern culture, but a lot still do. I don't wear the same clothes everyone else wears, I think for myself, I have educated myself very often through observing nature and using websites, I am an individual. I am even starting to write a novel, not many people do that at almost 15 now-a-days.

[rob.northcott]

"We are all individuals..."

I'd say the people aimlessly hanging around in groups and kicking people to death etc are more "anyones" than "no ones". They're doing it because that's what their peers are doing, just copying in order to conform (even if they think they're doing it in order not to conform). I'm not sure anybody fits the "no one" description, even a baby. Some simple organisms perhaps, but not a human.

Pretty much everybody is a "someone" I reckon given that definition. Even the most seemingly mindless sheep of a person has some personality of their own.

But what do I know?

Rob

[ivan]

So, could you be "someone" in some areas, e.g. sheep grazing and "no one" or "anyone" in others, e.g. kicking people do death in public parks. If you say everyone's good at something or has some personality of their own...

[Beth]

(Is that really so much to ask?:)
Social proof is the tendency to look at what others are doing in order to determine what to do, and it's a great heuristic with lots of evolutionary advantages (ie. Everyone is running away:confused: ....I should probably run away:eek: ). However, it can backfire.

It's also not falsifiable. Any theory that rests on evolutionary justification at the level of explanation is necessarily teleological. And I think the original theory is supposed to be a useful way of categorizing individuals, and you've got to group things usefully before you can start investigating relations between them.)

I do think it's too simplistic, there's so many factors in decision making, and it's so hard to separate them out, but maybe it'd make a good self-help book. Encouraging people to think about why they're doing things is always a good thing.

[BillyTheMountain]

I heard an interesting interview yesterday on the wireless. This psychologist was explaining her theory that people divide into:


No one
Anyone
Someone


"No one" is the sort of person who reacts only to what is in front of them. They have no depth of understanding, no objectives, and no stable personality. They are simply a bundle of reactions. These are the people who hang around shopping malls, drift into a life of drugs and benefits, and who might kick a man to death on the spur of the moment, in full view of witnesses and CCTV, then be mildly surprised when they are sent to prison.

All of us start as "no ones" when we are babies, reacting only to the stimuli around us, but most of us grow beyond this.


"Anyones" are people who develop into "interchangeable people", fully and unquestioningly adopting the fashions, behaviours and attitudes of their peers. Most of us develop into "anyones" but some never develop any further.


"Someones" are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.


I don't think it's a perfect model, but I think it's interesting.

Discuss.

I think my dog is a someone!!

[BillyTheMountain]

I think it's WAY too simplistic.

are you just going to throw mud, or are you going to complexify?

There's 2 kinds of people in this world,
--those who unicycle, and those who don't.

--those who know, and those who pretend they know.

Psychologist Robert Cialdini's concept of social proof is another way of saying this, but his adds a developmental component.

And it IS testable, few theories are falsifiable, we simply accept the null hypothesis.

[Kyle_Destroyer]

I believe I am a someone, because I do not listen to rap or hip hop or any other sub-genres of those, I listen to plain, pure ROCK, not many people listen to that in our modern culture, but a lot still do. I don't wear the same clothes everyone else wears, I think for myself, I have educated myself very often through observing nature and using websites, I am an individual. I am even starting to write a novel, not many people do that at almost 15 now-a-days.

Not to pull your halo down....

ROCK is not diverse, not in the slightest bit. You can listen to popular music and still be a someone. A lot of those rappers are someones too. (don't get me wrong, no rap for me either). While I do believe you're on the right path, you still have a lot to learn (as do I)

To be in a room of 30 people and have everyone remember you positivley, that's being someone.

So ask yourself this, do you really....REALLY know yourself?
And do you really....really know everyone else?
How much of the world do you see?
Do you understand not just the pain and joy you have felt, but the pain and joy others have?

It seems like in your attempt at being an autodidactic, open-minded person, you close some doors of perception.


Honestly, I think everyone here is an anyone, including myself.

[BillyTheMountain]

To be in a room of 30 people and have everyone remember you positivley, that's being someone.

Honestly, I think everyone here is an anyone, including myself.

Kyle,

Where do you get this idea that being someone is having everyone remember you positivley? That's kooky! Remember the definition:

"Someones" are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.

This means Jesus was a someone, and (except for those indebted to him for miracles, and his apostles) he was hated and crucified.

Technically, Fooby is also a someone. Sounds like you arae too.

billy

[Hazmat]

Well to me, everyone on this forum (or on my buddy list) is a someone and i don't care if that sounds gay or whatever.

It's how i feel and i'm sticking with it. :D

[DarkTom]

According to Dr. Dre:

"There are three types of people in the world;
those who don't know what happened,
those who wonder what happened,
and people like us from the streets that make things happen."

Them's good words, and from a doctor too!


T.

[kington99]

According to Dr. Dre:

"There are three types of people in the world;
those who don't know what happened,
those who wonder what happened,
and people like us from the streets that make things happen."

Them's good words, and from a doctor too!


T.


what about people who do know, but didn't make them happen?

Is he an MD or Phd?

[GILD]

Only two kinds of people in the world.
Those who divide people into two categories and those who don't.

[yoopers]

"No one" is the sort of person who reacts only to what is in front of them. They have no depth of understanding, no objectives, and no stable personality. They are simply a bundle of reactions. These are the people who hang around shopping malls, drift into a life of drugs and benefits, and who might kick a man to death on the spur of the moment, in full view of witnesses and CCTV, then be mildly surprised when they are sent to prison.

All of us start as "no ones" when we are babies, reacting only to the stimuli around us, but most of us grow beyond this.
Not sure if the second paragraph in the quote above is your thought or one from the psychologist, and I hear what the quote is saying, but I would disagree that babies be blindly categorized as no ones, according to the offered definition. From what perspective are we looking? Obviously from our matured, adult perspective after a lifetime of learning and experiencing. If you were able to place yourself in the perspective of a baby, I believe we'd find that they do have understanding, objectives, and stable personalities. I also believe that these characteristics and qualities are innate, that we need to give credit where credit is due, and that these characteristics and qualities constantly develop throughout a lifetime.

Babies understand what brings them food, i.e., a certain cry (in a language shared by mothers and their offspring) brings on a bottle. Brad at 15 years old understands that if he says, "Mom, I'm hungry," that Mary will most likely serve him up something delicious. I understand that if I have a problem, I can rely on solid advice from my 72-year-old father.

Babies have objectives as far as their level of understanding will allow. Again, innate charactistics and qualities allows a baby to desire to feed and survive, two pretty good objectives.

And, apart from some anomolies, what can be more stable than a baby's personality! They cry, giggle, investigate, etc., same thing day in and day out. Babies personalities are distinctly baby and lovely, even at 3:00 a.m. (Matter of deep love I suppose helps quite a bit there. :))

Therefore, in as much as the narrow definitions of this thread will allow, I believe that we start out as someones and can, somewhere along the line, choose to take the path of a no one. Where that happens or can happen....????

[vanpaun]

there are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who don't. Ivan: I never checked back into this thread, But I most certainly do not conform. I unicycle, use linux, write instructables for fun, and other stuff most people I know, never will do. I don't think axe is the best thing scince sliced bread, am a vegetatian, And I hate the inferior form of music known as pop, hip hop, and Pop rap(I've heard REAL rappers, and they have a ton of skill, for that, I respect them, and their music (although I dont enjoy it))

[yoopers]

We were discussing this thread as a family just now and Ben asked a great question. He asked, "So if you're in trouble, is it better to yell, 'Someone help me!', 'Anyone help me!', or 'No one help me!'?"

[vanpaun]

anyone help me. They will comform to the normal thing, call 911, and try and help you. But, if you are in a specific situation, a somebpdy may be able to help more precisely.

[GILD]

It's a rhetorical question.

The 'correct' response it to high-5 Ben for coming up with a question that cuts thru a lot of the BS that's been generated by the jacking of Mike's thread.

Ask if of yourself.
Answer it for yourself.

Behold.

Wisdom.
Insight.

[unibikeling]

i consider myself a someone. I'm not trying to be aragent or anything, but thats how i see myself. I havent given into any trends in our school. I mean, of course when i was like 12 or so, and go into green day via my friends, but thats not the point. I started playing runescape on my own, a lot of friends followed me. I started listening to my own type of music, my friends have followed me a little. I choose sports that I find interesting. I get in depth with certain subjects that i like, and find interesting.

[yoopers]

i consider myself a someone. I'm not trying to be aragent or anything, but thats how i see myself. I havent given into any trends in our school. I mean, of course when i was like 12 or so, and go into green day via my friends, but thats not the point. I started playing runescape on my own, a lot of friends followed me. I started listening to my own type of music, my friends have followed me a little. I choose sports that I find interesting. I get in depth with certain subjects that i like, and find interesting.
So you subscribe wholeheartedly to this one person's philosophy. I'm only assuming because you didn't qualify your response by initiating with something like, "Within the confines of this psychologist's philosophy..."

Just checking.

[cathwood]

According to Dr. Dre:

"There are three types of people in the world;
those who don't know what happened,
those who wonder what happened,
and people like us from the streets that make things happen."

Them's good words, and from a doctor too!


T.

Will what I say be better in October when I'm a Dr? Will I at last make some kind of sense? Do say yes.

[cathwood]

are you just going to throw mud, or are you going to complexify?
.

People have written libraries full of books about this kind of thing. (Yes, I'm a girlie swat so I have probably read most of them over the last 3 years). But there's no way it can be adequately discussed in anything under 600 pages, so I'll stick with slinging mud.

[Matt_V]

There are 3 types of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.

[DarkTom]

Will what I say be better in October when I'm a Dr? Will I at last make some kind of sense? Do say yes.

What you may say may be good, but it will only be made better by being a doctor.

or...


Yes.


what about people who do know, but didn't make them happen?

Is he an MD or Phd?


Those people don't count. What are you bothering with them for?

I think Dr. Dre has a Phd in awesome yellow. Either that or he bought it somewhere. He's certainly not an MD.

T.

[jaseman]

It would take someone like you to make a thread anyone else could have made and still be of interest to no one.

LOL! i don't really get this topic anyway, but this seems like a good summary. heheheh
CHeers Jase?

[wobbling bear]

"Someones" are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.

don't agree: you can make rational decisions without being "stable". a good personnality evolves under changes, temptation and external pressure.

[Mikefule]

don't agree: you can make rational decisions without being "stable". a good personnality evolves under changes, temptation and external pressure.

A bicycle is stable without being static.

I think the psychologist's theory was based on an idea of "stable" in the sense that the person made decisions that were consistent with a general way of approaching life. In common sense terms: an identifiable personality which is consistent throughout that person's life, allowing for it to develop.

The "no ones" in the theory would be unpredictable, in the sense that they would simply react to stimuli according to their mood at that moment.

"Anyones" would react to situations in a manner that is consistent with what they perceive as the social norms of their group.

"Someones" would act according to their own "lights" but in a consistent way: that might be consistently good or bad, but definitely consistent.

It's not my theory, just something I heard that sounded interesting if a little simplistic.

It maybe struck a chord because in the UK at the moment we seem to be caught in a wave of random killings by "youths" between about 12 and about 30 years old, who seem to kill without motive on the spur of the moment, with no regard for the almost inevitability of them being caught. The next few years of their own life ruined for the sake of a 5 minute thrill. They sound like no ones to me.

[BillyTheMountain]

The "no ones" in the theory would be unpredictable, in the sense that they would simply react to stimuli according to their mood at that moment.

Like BF Skinner said: "We attribute freedom to an individual when the contingencies which guide his behavior are not apparent to us."

It maybe struck a chord because in the UK at the moment we seem to be caught in a wave of random killings by "youths" between about 12 and about 30 years old, who seem to kill without motive on the spur of the moment, with no regard for the almost inevitability of them being caught. The next few years of their own life ruined for the sake of a 5 minute thrill. They sound like no ones to me.

Like BF Skinner said: "We attribute freedom to an individual when the contingencies which guide his behavior are not apparent to us."

[glen]

(

Is that really so much to ask?
Social proof is the tendency to look at what others are doing in order to determine what to do, and it's a great heuristic with lots of evolutionary advantages (ie. Everyone is running away ....I should probably run away ). However, it can backfire.

It's also not falsifiable. Any theory that rests on evolutionary justification at the level of explanation is necessarily teleological.

Sure it's falsifiable. Get a person to perform similar tasks under individual and group situations. See if there's a systematic difference in their behaviour. You may be suprised.

Social proof has been well documented experimentally (ask a group of people questions by show of hands, where all but one person is told ahead of time to answer wrong. The remaining person will begin to answer wrong as well), as well as in real life (in the weeks following a well publicized suicide, the suicide rate in the area will increase by a predictable amount). It's the reason time-share companies have their own employees to pretend to be potential buyers, who eagerly and loudly are the first to purchase a time share. To my knowledge there is no real scientific disagreement over social proof as a working theory.

I also can't quite see how the evolutionary explanation implies teleology.

[BillyTheMountain]

Like BF Skinner said: "We attribute freedom to an individual when the contingencies which guide his behavior are not apparent to us."



Like BF Skinner said: "We attribute freedom to an individual when the contingencies which guide his behavior are not apparent to us."

Is Skinner saying no one is truly free? Some people just appear to be free?

[GILD]

No, he's saying no one cares. Some people just appear to care.

[BillyTheMountain]

What you may say may be good, but it will only be made better by being a doctor.or...

Those people don't count. What are you bothering with them for?

I think Dr. Dre has a Phd in awesome yellow. Either that or he bought it somewhere. He's certainly not an MD.

T.

look where you're taking this thread

Hi Dave!

[yoopers]

Like BF Skinner said: "We attribute freedom to an individual when the contingencies which guide his behavior are not apparent to us."
Freedom is in the eye of the beholder? I think not.

[hugo]

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

[BillyTheMountain]

Freedom is in the eye of the beholder? I think not.

i think he meant there really is no freedom. we are all the product of (and slave to) our learning--meaning our stimulus-response bonds.