Existence in the 21st Century | You and Your Profile
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Dr. Hans-Georg Moeller talks about identity and existence.
#profilicity #existence #philosophy
Is It Possible to Get Identity Right? (Genuine Pretending):
• Is It Possible to Get ...
On Wokeism:
• Wokeism
The book announcement by Columbia University Press:
cup.columbia.e...
Customers in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean, East Asia, United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, Middle East, South Asia, South Africa and most of Latin America who purchase the book through the Columbia University Press website receive a 20% discount off the price of the book by using the promo code CUP20.
For customers in Australia and New Zealand, contact Wiley Australia to purchase books.
If you want the book in audio, you can visit here (this is read by a professional narrator):
www.amazon.com...
Reference:
Elena Esposito -- Lecture (The quote about the non-originality of being original is at ~35:00)
• Elena Esposito -- Lecture
Research on the Chinese Social Credit System:
Kostka, Genia. “China’s Social Credit Systems and Public Opinion: Explaining High Levels of Approval.” New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1565-93.
The Theme Park Guy Stefan Zwanzger’s blog:
www.thethemepa...
(for picture see blog entry Dec. 05, 2018)
Niklas Luhmann, Introduction to Systems Theory:
www.wiley.com/...
Sources for some images:
Traditional Chinese family:
Chinese family portrait, ca. 1910. David K. Jordan website,
pages.ucsd.edu... /chin/familism.html.
Photo published in Edwin J. Dingle, Across China on Foot: Life in the Interior and the Reform Movement (New York: Holt, 1911).
Woman with mask:
Image by Victor Santos on Pexels .com, www.pexels.com....
People jumping simultaneously at a beach:
Photo by Peopleshot, www.1001freedo....
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
We will do a Q&A video soon. Please feel free to leave your questions/critique!
If purchasing the book through the Columbia University Press website (cup.columbia.edu/book/you-and-your-profile/9780231196017), please use promo code CUP20 to get a 20% discount.
@@toericabaker was it recent? Is it the Tom Nichols in Twitter that writes for the Atlantic? Just curious what the response was lol
@@toericabaker can't seem to find the tweet in question.
@@toericabaker Do you mean the series of tweets where the user *Tom_Nicholas* seemed to identify with the target of the critique (Wokeism) so much that he was unable to provide coherent arguments but rather just reactionary ad hominems, presumably so he could more easily hold onto that identification in a manner that would satisfy himself and his audience on the profile?
What are your opinions on Axial Age?
Q&A:
Given that many topics of great relevance for society (global warming, social and economic equality and so forth) are strongly linked with identity, that would imply that rational discourse about these topics is no longer possible, since people cannot be convinced by rational arguments to change their identity. Sadly, this seems exactly to be the case these days.
Does this mean then that the only way to effectively change somebodies mind on an "identity topic", the identity of that person must be redifined in such a way that he/she can still identify with the new definition of his identity, and and at the same time, can cange his mind on the topic because this new definition allows that change of heart?
As an example: A self described "conservative" unwilling to accept the reality of climate change, let alone acting on it will hardly be convinced by arguments. But if he was offered a new definition of "conservativism" as a beliefe system that aims to conserve not the status quo but the planet for future generations, this would allow him to stay a "conservative" and support action against climat change. Would that be a viable way to change peoples minds on "identity topics"?
An interesting example: I always scroll to read the comments before starting a video; including this one.
lol you caught me
I usually do that after the video, but yeah
@Hans Otterson whether or not there is content present which is grounded in a “book” is not the point. The point is: in reference to what are you making value judgements? When you do so in second order observation, Moeller suggests that this is Profilicity.
Mark Fisher referred to comments (and sections) as a form of digital graffiti, and why he tended to avoid reading them.
I'm absolutely in love with your channel. It's for me the antidote for both breadtube and the peterson/shapirosphere. Thank you so much for keeping at it.
What do you mean by antidote?
@@thebigcapitalism9826According to Wikipedia, an antidote is a substance that can counteract a form of poisoning. The substance being Carefree Wandering, and the form of poisoning being the shallowness of BreadTube, debate bro culture, and the conservative side of UA-cam.
@@TheFelinesRepublic So, as I understand it, you’d like more nuance in Breadtube? Are there any creators that come to mind who are unnuanced?
When it comes to people like Fab Socialism, Olivia Sun, FD Signifier, and Khadija Mbowe, I feel there is plenty of nuance. Perhaps creators that are adjacent to Breadtube (I wouldn’t consider them a part of it) like Nickisnotgreen and whatever that Ethan guy’s channel is called could use some nuance, but they are more for entertainment than information, whereas the former are a mix of both (and in my view are more informative than amusing).
It's remarkable how accurate and applicable Luhmann's quote is to this video in a meta sense: "You get your information on the facts merely by looking at what others have to say about it.". The very act of many of us viewing this video exemplifies that statement.
Authenticity: find your best self
Profilicity: find your best selfie.
I’m really excited to get to your book. Not only to dive deeper into this idea of profilicity but also your assessment of sincerity as well. I’ve questioned whether authenticity culture was too quick to throw out sincerity and whether now all 3 of these identity tools could be helpful in different ways at different times.
Ironically my first UA-cam commend ever - but I really like your channel, so here we go: I wrote a thesis during my time in university about the nature of fiction as a "game of make-believe" - the sense that, when we consume (fictional) media, we are automatically switching to a state of "I pretend that this is true and agree to follow the rules of this fictional space". I always found the ways we humans handle fiction an interesting problem.
To build a bridge to the subject of internet profiles and the virtual space in general: Would you say that right now, in the internet culture we live in, we are all just "playing a game of make-believe", in that we pretend to be fictional characters in a fictional space, that is only arbitrarily connected to the "real world".
I would be really interested in your opinion about communications research in that matter specifically.
Keep up the good work.
Interesting point. An observation I've made here on UA-cam lately--there have been lots and lots of videos popping up about "How to be a main character" in your own life. Which, when you think about it in this context, isn't so crazy at it appears to be in the first place. A main character is generally speaking, an identity? I think. At least something or someone to identify with. And anyways, fiction is there to present us with options. We don't have the time and energy to live two hundred lives, so fiction to the rescue! Also, don't quote me on this, but I think it's a known fact that the brain doesn't care if we experience something in reality or in our imagination. It's all the same to the neurons...So I would totally agree that neither of these identities or mechanism to reach an identity (sincerity, authenticity, profilicity) is false per se, just one aspect of existence. Humans are invariable more complex than any one identity.
Is that the point the book is trying to make? I tried ordering by the way, but it's temporarily out of stock. I hope you guys get a second print run soon!
@@Tony-id6kg Thanks for the reply. Two points I want to add here: a) the ongoing trend of "Game-ification" of non-"gaming" related things, and b) the inflationary use of the word "storytelling" in all sorts of contexts (just look at the numbers of TedTalks about "how to tell your story" etc).
As a writer myself I have begun feeling more and more alienated by (my own) writings and large parts of our media landscape thanks to these phenomena. It just feels so weird, when suddenly everybody talks about "storytelling" as if it is an easy key to solve all problems.
I believe that there might be a connection with the identity paradigm somewhere here...
Feiner comment.
I miss cyberspace, that vague notion of the internet as a fantasy world, where we all ran around with Matrix/hacker names and cyberpunk imagined a future where we'd dive through portals into impossible landscapes. Ever since the rise of social media it's been replaced by the notion of the internet as augmented reality.
I learned about this concept in a game design course. They called it Suspension of Disbelief, as the reader temporarily turns off the judgement they would apply to the real world, and accept the rules of the fiction. At the same time, the author must be cautious not to break this Suspension of Disbelief, by violating their own rules established in their fictional world, or the reader feels cheated and loses interest in the work. Also different people have different levels of Suspension that they apply for different kinds of works.
Thank you for making Luhmann more accessible
Helen Keller said: "Even today i cant distinguish the ideas of my own from ideas from the books. Perhaps it is because all of my observations are from another person' s senses."
Don't know how I got here from binge watching pokemon pvp videos, but man am I happy I did!
Very interesting. As an artist, this makes me think of how art has two different roles in society. One is the pure social role, of agreeing and sharing experiences. The other, which I would say is more important today because it is so difficult, is to try to pull people into first order observation, making them see something for themselves, and thereby thinking for themselves. However this involves a great risk, because it opens up the possibility for you as an audience member seeing something different than others. In science it makes sense to rely on expertise, because there is most of the time an honest attempt to approach the underlying reality of the world. Art on the other hand can be a free space, where we can still practice first order observation. This is what I believe great artists manage to do, they see some potential that is invisible to others. When the a great work of art is seen for the first time by an observer, it creates an encounter, an opening where the observer doesn’t yet know what they are looking at. Freedom lies in the suspense of judgement, trying to resist the urge to look to the right or left to see what other people think.
"Everyone is the other and no-one oneself"- Martini Heidegger
Prost.
"Heidegger, Heidegger, was a boozy beggar, who was very rarely stable"
@@lucaswilkins9217 Yeah hes wild
Thank you Professor Möller for this interesting video!
In regards to the Q&A ...
One aspect that caught my eye about profilicity is the discussion around restrictions and constraints, as illustrated with the Airbnb example. The video describes the case of an Airbnb host who would rather forgo payment (arguably a personal interest) in favor of her profile, suggesting that profilicity comes with certain subjugation of the self to the systems which allow us to construct our profiles.
However, I would argue that - while these observations are sound and insightful - there also is a new element of freedom and security with profilicity, which its predecessors were lacking.
As the video rightly pointed out, there was no self-determination in regards to the role one would take in sincerity, it was mostly assigned at birth by the community.
Authenticity might seem like the ultimate form of self-determination at a first glance, but I would argue that this is not the case. The “true self” stands at the center of authenticity, and so is the question if this true self is something one creates, builds, and shapes, or if it is rigid and might be hidden to others and ourselves.
The way we talk about our true self, even the terms we use to describe exploration of the true self - i.e. self-discovery, finding yourself - suggests the latter: In life, we learn about our true self, discover new parts of it, and thus get closer to it, closer to understanding or uncovering it, rather than actively and consciously shaping it. Therefore, it’s another form of identity that we submit to, rather than the other way around - regardless of uniqueness and individualism.
Profilicity on the other hand clearly and openly commits to creative freedom: One’s profile gets carefully constructed and curated. As long as the inside is invested in a profile, the identity is seen as legitimate, true. I would argue that we also openly accept the fact that one does not have just one profile, but rather an arrangement of profiles, based on the social circle we’re interacting with. I.e., the profile we’re using and performing during work is not the same one as the one we use when interacting with our lover. A mother engages with her child with a different profile than when she’s among her friend group of parents. However, none of these social groups are seeing this as a deceptive fraud, as long the self is invested in the respective profile. This gives the individual the space and freedom to consciously design their identity, to design it around security and privacy (if they wish to). I can choose whether my sexual orientation and family situation is part of my professional profile or not - i.e. does one introduce and present themselves as a “journalist, husband and father”, or just as a “journalist and US politics expert”?
It is of course noteworthy that authenticity - which, as others pointed out, shares similarities with profilicity - does provide the tools to do the same. However, it would be rather seen as masking if we hide certain aspects of our “true self”, and thus ultimately unauthentic.
It could therefore be said that profilicity is the consequential and continuous successor of sincerity and authenticity in regards to freedom, allowing even more latitude to design and shape one’s identity, embracing the concept of genuine pretending.
To close the circle and coming back to the Airbnb example; it is interesting how the tools which broadly and rightfully are getting criticized for robbing us of our privacy and subordinating us to harsh rating systems also foster a form of identity construction which allows us to (re)take control over our privacy and who we want to be.
Lastly, apologies for the extensive rambling, I’d have wished to support my claims with further examples, but that would have made the comment even longer.
I enjoy your response but I disagree on the depth of the argument here is my proposition:
1. There is a common fallacies that assume that since time, and society are "moving forward" we are progressing, and or that the system we are engaging with are getting better. This is not true, the technology and condition of living are modified, but we are still the same sapiens. So when you say that this is the continuity and successor, I would reply this is just how we rationalized our relationship with modernity, we didn't even think it through, nor it is the proof of some superior nor innovative design of identity creation.
.
2. While the profilicity you display here seem to show promise of multidimensionality, and creative freedom, in it's actual use, this is rarely the case. First of all there is no guarantee that the identity your show to other people is seen as completely true, and what does fully invested in it mean? Believing in your construction is not enough for it feel congruent with your inner experience. The persona you create also become a new prison, very much like the role, or "being authentic" is.
3. If I have to add something else, I believe that human personal development, creativity, existential depth, is about the same as it has always been, as such, regardless of the identity model we use, people will still "express" themselves in about the same way. However there is a difference with profilicity, since it's modality are ubiquitous(happen everywhere with the internet, and all the avatars we have, shape-shifting space, or matrix) I think this may be a more complex model to handle for people as such, this will require more "simplification" or "memes" to be digested properly. As such since the complexity of the model may far outpace what human beings can handle, we may actually seen more "clone" or "inauthentic" human beings, due to the necessity of creating more memes, simplification, modality of convenience that gives people a congruent identity to their level of psychological development.
That's the reason why people are becoming more boring and predictable, despite having the ability to pretend to be anything and create their own persona, their creation are actually very similar, since they use the same "memes" as a source.
@@ronygames5100 Thank you so much, very interesting reply! To address your points:
1.) Yes, very much so, agreed. My conclusion that profilicity iterates on aspects and problems of authenticity neither was meant to imply that profilicity is superior, nor that it was consciously designed before it was adopted by society. I’d rather see it as a continuous and (ever-)changing concept which adapts itself to our societal and cultural conditions. To me, it’s rather about acknowledging and studying these changes, than rating them or pitting different forms of identity constructions against each other.
2.) There are several points to address here. Let’s first tackle the creative freedom and what is needed to make a profile work. As you correctly point out, one aspect of profilicity is the congruence between the profile you’re performing and the profile perceived by others such as the general peer. But rather than one’s belief in their own profile, there needs to be a certain consistency in the way one performs and curates their profile; it needs to be in accord with the second-order observation, or it gets considered as a deception (as the video points out). Striving to do so is what is considered to be invested in the profile. This however does not conflict with one's creative freedom in the design of a profile, the need for a convincing delivery does not dictate the content. To stay with the example above: The elements of our journalist’s professional profile, if he chooses to include personal details about his family life or not, do not determine if his identity gets perceived as plausible or a fraud by his peers. His coworkers do not need to know his sleeping, eating and shopping habits to accept, like or feel associated with him. For his partner on the other hand, these aspects probably are a more crucial part of his identity than his habit of making refreshing jokes at meetings.
Or, as previous videos talked about youtubers, different youtubers choose to portrait and present different areas of themselves on their channel. Regardless of which aspects of their lives they are talking about via their UA-cam persona, we know that there are also other aspects to that person, which are not part of their presented profile. It’s not that we think that all youtubers who give a “behind the scenes” and talk about their romantic relationships are credible, and all youtubers that chose not to are unauthentic. Whether we deem them to be convincing or not does not so much depend on the chosen elements of their profile, but rather on the believable delivery and portrayal of said elements.
To quickly also address the second aspect: Yes, I very much agree. As the “Is it possible to get identity right?” video points out, every form of identity construction can become a prison.
3.) This is a very interesting point. An important notion in that regard is the general peer. So as profiles are directed at the general peer, they are directed at a sort of mean or average between multiple individuals. We therefore optimize our profile in a way that gets the best results (most credible, most views/likes/stars/money), often based on quantitative rather than qualitative aspects. Especially in conjunction with the algorithms of social media, this leads to a certain uniformity as these algorithms favor specific things.
Another point of course is how we handle the complexity and possibilities of such a tool. As you pointed out, this can be incredibly overwhelming and energy-consuming. One could argue that exactly these possibilities and the complexity is the boon and bane of profilicity: Even though sincerity, for example, is not that highly valued in modern western society, there is a certain soothing aspect to it. It’s simpler, more black and white, there is clear external guidance, and thus in many ways also easier to navigate. It’s not surprising to see the rise of ideologies and aesthetics which in many aspects celebrate simplicity (again, no judgement, but rather an observation), such as tradwives, cottagecore, or - a favorite of this channel - wokeism. This, of course, is another whole beast to tackle, so excuse me for not going into the same amount of details and the admittedly unnuanced wording.
Thanks--very good points. We do not think that profilicity is worse or more "fake" than the other identity modes. In the book, we try to outline what you put like this: "It could therefore be said that profilicity is the consequential and continuous successor of sincerity and authenticity in regards to freedom, allowing even more latitude to design and shape one’s identity, embracing the concept of genuine pretending."
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone rated profilicity as worse or fake, but rather just elaborating a point which I thought to be interesting and I haven't come across so far.
I think the comparison between Chinese social credit system is valuable, but flawed.
The profilicity in the AirBnB example is driven by profit, and in a sense it is internalised, however one who is not motivated by profit in such a way may choose to step out of that system and still live a relatively free and meaningful life. There will be no restrictions on their travel or bank loans by having a poor AirBnB rating. It is the choice of the individual. With the Chinese credit system, someone who doesn't want to partake in the system will be punished socially, physically and financially. Thus the coercive nature is far greater. Furthermore, whilst the motivations of AirBnB and all their hosts is clearly for profit, the motivations of the Chinese government are in a sense less clear, and more subject to change.
@@khaduopha2640 Yeah that's a good way to put it. I think you're right in that they are wholly comparable and certainly operating in the same ways, just that the Chinese social credit system is far more encompassing and powerful. So yes we are talking about degrees not a type distinctions. I do however think the social credit system is more open to nefarious intentions, whilst the intentions of private companies are more transparent. Having said that, just because the profit motivation is transparent doesnt make their methods of manipulation any less effective!
Yes, I felt he missed the importance of the relationship of responsibility that was connected to the Superhost Profile. He seemed to speak like the profile had inherent status value beyond purpose, which I disagreed with. She felt compelled to keep the price the same because otherwise she would have breeched the agreed-upon contract, and losing her *Super* host status. As a Superhost, it would seem to imply she is financially successful as a host and can afford to eat costs that are due to her own mistakes (think of a company that has to honor a coupon that is accidentally printed because their brand is more important than the initial cost of the mistake).
Her being willing to own up to her mistake is what is also a main reason to be considered Super as opposed to a regular host.
there is nothing paradoxical @ being happy about the truth of one’s cause being affirmed.
Thank you, I came here to see if anyone had spoken to this. I agree about the interweaving of the personal and the cause, but in the case of Climategate, the friend getting confirmation that the scientist was telling the truth wasn’t happy about climate change, he was happy and being reassured of his friend’s character, and in the knowledge that the truth, which he already knew, would not be hidden from the public, since acknowledgment of it is requisite to doing some thing about it. The leap that was made in both examples of this was irking me.
This is the best reaction video to Bo Burnham's Inside I've seen today.
lol
i heard ppl talking about that is it worth watching?
@@farzanamughal5933 Very much so and pretty relevant too.
@@farzanamughal5933 I did not find it worth watching. Its a consciousness that speaks to itself and has no worth outside itself.
@@z0uLesslate to the party here but do you have anything on a similar subject as Inside that you feel does over useful info?
@@2DayDavid off the top of my head? maybe the movie everything everywhere all at once (2022). its not a particularly good movie, but the subject matter is interesting -- that of overstimulation and the ultimately important things it comes in conflict with. its packed into an action movie though, so maybe you are just as well of reading some well written reviews about it instead.
the second thing that comes to mind is the television series community. they sorta poke at the issue of irony and postmodernity and how friendship and the need for other people still prevail no matter how cynical and meaningless the current zeitgeist is
Currently applying for French residency and a stranger on FB is helping me. After that I am deleting my Facebook profile. It will affect my work slightly, but watching these videos has helped me realise how much damage online media is doing to us.
It's like Adam Curtis says 'We all live inside our own heads' This idea of ourselves. We are essentially all becoming our own brands.
After your wokeness video I began listening to your book on Audible. It's been an incredible listen, the connection of profilicity back to the picturesque and the discussion of French marxist critique in terms of authenticity were some of my favorite parts. I think your framework with these three regimes is incredibly valuable in making sense of new phenomenon without falling into a nostalgia for authenticity. Thank you, and please keep up these great lecture on youtube if possible.
What are some of the consequences you have observed of playing out our relationships with other people via profiles? For example, what sort of impact does online dating have on romance? What sort of impact does Indeed have on applying for a job?
Thank you for making this video Professor, it was great seeing you mention Stirner in a video!
You guys should really think about starting a podcast. I bet it’d be quite possible to be a guest on Sam Harris’s or something; I’d literally pay money to see that lol. Thanks for the content!
same but no sam harris please
I'd be really interested in hearing a discussion between Moeller and Harris. Not only about the topic of morality where Moeller has directly addressed Harris, but also about identity, Wokeism, religion, and social media. It would be particularly interesting, considering that Harris draws a lot from Buddhism in his thinking, whereas Moeller draws a lot from Daoism. Perhaps Moeller has experience with meditation as well, that they could discuss.
If by any chance you're going to invite a thinker, I recommend Jonathan Haidt. He's way better than Harris or Peterson.
@@incollectio those are just such well trodden and completely boring subjects at this point. please no
@@robinohara226 Maybe for some. Experiences vary. Still, they remain topical these days. I'd be especially interested in hearing a conversation about how Daoist and Buddhist influences can affect one's approach to the world, and what a dialogue between them would look like. I'm sure dialogue between different Eastern influences are well trodden in some corners of the Internet, but it seems rare.
Of course, there's room for many conversations. Haidt would be great too, for example, from a moral psychology perspective.
I must admit I still very much prefer individualism and authenticity. Liberalism needs them.
That said, I do agree that there is an overemphasis on identity these days with identity politics on the left and identitarianism on the right. I think this has to do, on the one hand, with the grammatical emphasis on subjects and nouns rather than verbs. This leads to people defining themselves in terms of what they are rather than what they do. But on the other hand, there are also institutional interests playing into this. For instance, Foucault talks about how the modern discourse on sexuality turned homosexuality from an act into a type of person.
I really like your thoughts, style, and personality professor; quite salient! The one thing I can think of deserving of more emphasis is the nested nature of technologies over their apparent supplantation. Each successive iteration of a functional implement incorporates something of the last (eg. ICEs are rife with pulleys, levers, differentials, I have no idea how they work, etc.) Technologies are universally nested in their predecessors, however checked and winding be the way. In tao the only motion is returning-so I'm told, and do in part believe. Thanks for being rad.
I just wanted to say that this channel has garnered a lot of my attention ever since I discovered it through the whims of the YT-Algorythm. It has jogged my mind considerably and allowed me to flesh out a few of my own experiences with a more suitable set of words than I had at my disposal.
It's refreshing and suitably selfaware enough as to, while still trying to be a hybrid between influencer and academic philosophy, to allow for a somewhat unbiased listen and comprehension of the content.
While, to fit with this videos topic, at least trying to make it obvious from which PoV the content is interpreted, so we can see on what kind of "facts" the content is based on by viewing how it's presented.
If nothing else, this channel gave me a good amount of entertainment and made me buy a few books, in an attempt to read the source-material for a change, instead of my reliance on 2nd hand sources. So, thanks for that.
It will be fun to see where this channel goes and how it will be seen through the lense of those it tries to give an introspective view on.
Wow I am quite surprised by the quality of this video. I was recommended this to me and thought it was just another ad. But what you said rang true to me and our lives in the 21st century. Great video 👍
Politicity is a fourth identity technology, under the conditions of which the psychological outside arena of issues and policy is real and the psychological inside is invested in a persona which must match this outside. Politicity involves embracing a particular set of political values and opinions, as well as expressing them in both public and private contexts. This construct is often seen in people who are heavily involved with politics--they project their ideological beliefs onto their self-identity and make sure that their behavior reflects those beliefs. For example, they may make sure to vote for the same politician or party each election cycle, advocate for certain policies within their social circles, or come to think of themselves as belonging to a particular party or ideology. This type of identity formation can be seen in many contexts such as activism, social media discourse, or fan culture (e.g., followers of particular politicians or movements). In some ways it resembles an ‘authentic’ identity, where people invest heavily in terms of demonstrating loyalty to a certain cause or ideology; however, unlike an ‘authentic’ identity it does not necessarily require the individual to possess any originality or uniqueness when it comes to their views on various issues. Instead it requires them to demonstrate agreement with specific political ideologies and norms.
my friend has talked about moving away from Fear Of Missing Out to Joy Of Missing Out on large social gatherings (... recorded on social media et c).
I now think this both speaks of a shift away from an Authenticity-based anxiety and also of moving into an active reaction to profility. This because the stress we both in different ways had felt abt said events where very much abt ways social media effects behaviour and life.
I haven't watched the video but I did just start reading Moeller's book today and I highly recommend it. If you can read it in his buttery voice it's basically analog ASMR
I was captivated by You and Your Profile from beginning to end, and I have already added a discussion of your "profilicity" to the online lessons on "Virtual Identity" in the course Technology and Social Change that I teach at a Canadian college.
I'm still digesting the book and would love to hear your thoughts on all sorts of stuff, but in hopes of possibly making it into your Q&A video, I'll focus here on a few moral or political hesitations that I personally felt, since I know you prefer not to speak directly about such questions. ;-) (I hope I am being critical, and not judgmental.)
As I read, I found it hard at first not to worry about “the general peer.” (I guess this says something about my view of humanity!) Do you think the general peer of social media is more virtuous or at least more legitimately reflective of the values of real human beings than the general peer of the manufactured media in the 20th century was ("the public" or "public opinion" as represented in 20th century mass media)? (I actually DO think this a lot of the time, hence my question.) Do you think it is GOOD to be shaping ourselves through seeking this new kind of mediated and abstract/algorithmic affirmation? (I know you would say it is inevitable, and probably don’t have any statement to make about whether it is good or not. Asking for a friend.) Do you see any legitimacy in worrying about the fact that the general peer also includes the specific peer-er, the Big Bugbear of surveillance society? I was surprised not to see a discussion of "Cancel Culture" in your book; any thoughts? I know you love second-orderness and Aufhebung but is it possible that "being seen as being seen" is in any way a "less real" or less satisfying way of being for the human animal, as we move further into hyperreality from embodied presence? How does it FEEL to you? It is no longer possible for people to be merely social, they must now be what I might call "hypersocial" [incredibly this term hasn't been used by a theorist yet! I dibs!! ;-)] - simultaneously social with real present other human beings, virtually social with people we know socially, parasocial for others who don't know us, and not present but presented profilicly to this “general peer"? All of these questions, I suppose, are about whether you can see anything to resist in the new identity mode and its conditions of power. Is resistance futile or merely wrong-headed?
Finally, which gives you the most pleasure in seeing your name, the “oe” or the o with the umlaut?
Again, I hope you can feel how excited (and entertained) I was reading your book. Thank you both!
We recorded the Q&A earlier today-- sorry I am not responding that way. I'll try to be brief. The general peer of the social media is more dynamic, more diverse, more democratic than the earlier "manufactured" (quoting you) media peer. But: it's also more addictive, more abusive (as I just learned myself), more intrusive, more relentless. Yes, I think it's inevitable that we shape ourselves through algorithmic affirmation or mirroring. We use this metaphor in the book: the algorithm as the mirror of profilicity. It's inevitable to look into that "mirror". But it produces similar effects to those summed up in the quote from "Stoner" in the Pre-Face of our book--you have no other option than identifying with that strange face you see there. We wrote the manuscript a few years ago (it still takes that long to publish books). Cancel culture wasn't that big back then. Hyperreality only feels less real if we're not fully accustomed to it. When I was young, people on a plane wanted window seats to look at the "real" world down below. Now most people prefer to look at a screen instead (and go for the isle seat). It's a reality that more immediately connects with them. Looking out of the window FEELS (quoting you) boring.I do think resistance to profllicity is important. Old Daoists resisted sincerity, we resist profilicity. But we don't embrace authenticity instead. Any identity technology needs to be both affirmed and resisted--the trick is to manage this kind of "genuine pretending". I prefer "Moeller" there's no umlaut on my keyboard (and maybe it gives me some distance from my "original identity"). Thanks a lot for your interest in the subject.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks very much for taking the time to answer. It is so new to have this kind of immediate quasi-dialogue. I don't find looking out the window feels boring. I get sick of hyperreality. I thought about that with the umlaut question too. "Georg is proud of not being proud of being German." Funniest line in the book, but there were many funny lines. I'll look forward to your future adventures on 游Tube. ,-) Again, I appreciate the speedy responses, as my own students would say! Gratitude and respect. Wellness. Jim.
I would argue that the value of individuality is not in the originality of behavior, but in the process of determining behavior. To me, the idea of basing what I do on what other people like me would do is repulsive. I just want to be and let the world do the sorting. Thought provoking video.
When you realize the disclaimer at the end is part of profilicity😂👍
Edit: And this comment is aswell (queue inception sound)
This was one of your most engaging videos, although they are all great. Thanks for investing your time in these fascinating observations. Looking back on my 60+ years, I've noticed a first order observation and first order living aspiration in my own way of experiencing the world that has really been of tremendous benefit. Because of the contradiction in being told to "find your own path", I can understand and live more of that which cannot be named. Patience, observation, self-reflection and simply being.
So from a historical materialist perspective, it would be like this maybe? Matching identity regimes with modes of production:
Sincerity: Agrarian feudalism / patriarchal extended family
Authenticity: Industrial capitalism / nuclear family
Profilicity: Digital-surveillance capitalism / unknown (too early to tell?)
Well, you convinced me. This books going on my reading list.
How do you reconcile the concept of identity with the Buddhist idea of the non-self/selflessness and Sam Harris' conception of the illusion of the self?
What if one can transcend the ego, becoming disillusioned of the notion of being a fixed entity attached to an identity? Identity would be replaced with the state of being in alignment with the flow of consciousness. Is it not possible to merely be the conscious witness of experience, rather than being identified with it? Or do you think this is paradoxical, as one is identified with not being identified with experience, and therefore a delusion? Or perhaps, at the very least, would you say this is a type of "loose identity" characterized by impermanence, adaptability and mindfulness?
I can imagine another identity technology called scientificity under the conditions of which the inside is real and the outside must be a scientifically factual representation of it. An example of this is the Myers-Briggs personality test which identifies people based on their personality types. Some people strongly identify with their Myers-Briggs personality type.
Hi Professor,
Not sure you'll see this comment, but (if you are intending to do another Q&A vid) I would love to hear your thoughts on Hermann Hesse's novels (Steppenwolf, in particular)? I've been getting into Hesse and would love to hear your thoughts on his exploration of authenticity, identity, and purpose.
Additionally, Hesse's blending of Western and Eastern philosophy seems right up your alley!
I have two things to point out, one minor and one major point bugging me.
1. When comparing the chinese social credit system to western socialmedia, bankcredit and whatever platforms working in a similar way, one has to point out that the choice can be made to just not take part in those similar western social credit systems. (Even if it is increasingly becoming harder, and increasingly unlikely that anyone manages in a meaningful way)
2. I dont understand how second order observation is supposed to be something intrinsically modern. I can see how profilicity is something better supported out of societal, cultural and technological change compared to the feudal world of the pre modernity, but especially the quote "getting your informations not from the facts but merely by what others have to say about it" does not seem to only fit onto a modern form of second order observation. Getting information and whatever through a different medium/person and not directly from a "source" doesnt seem explicitely modern to me.
related to p2. Indeed, it is not so obvious for me that people before XX century (or even before modernity) did not practiced second-level observation or profilicity. The social media profile looks to me as continuing the tradition of renaissance portrait, where the depicted person was surrounded by symbols their social status, spiritual values and material possessions.
I've understood second-order observation to kind of specifically describe an impersonal, disconnected form of secondhand information. So maybe for example, anonymous likes on Facebook as opposed to comments from individuals. The idea being that you're observing a universal, non-specific Other's opinion, rather than particular, specific opinions of others. I could be wrong though. And I get what you mean here. I'm not so sure that "second-order observation" and "secondhand account" are really meaningfully distinct, even if you separate into personal and impersonal conveying of information.
@@Amber-qo1cp i get what you mean, and ofc has this been accelerated by technological advancements, but i still dont see how a disconnected second hand observation is something extremely modern
@@foka.3kai Yeah that's fair. I suppose that second-order observation, impersonal or not, appears to be inherent to at least some aspects of communication in pre-modern societies too. I hope he answers your question in the next video!
@@Amber-qo1cp me too :)
A case that could illustrate the conflict that comes from building personal legitimacy is art criticism in UA-cam. Video-essays, reviews, analysis and commentary about media has gotten so popular in the platform that it's safe to assume that viewers of such genre don't necessarily engage with the content that is being discussed in a video, but they rather stick to the second-hand viewing. In the UA-cam landscape, there is a clear breach between the creators of this kind of videos. Beyond the more technical distinctions (for example, game reviewers and music reviewers), these creators are separated by the political content inherent to the pieces of art and entertainment they discuss. A cluster of creators that feature content related to left leaning politics has been labeled 'leftube', and within this community (mostly on reddit) there's an ongoing debate about who is and who isn't a 'leftuber', given that some of the people associated with this particular brand of content might actually focus more on the technical aspects of filmmaking or in the cultural relevance and history of certain pieces of art, touching on the political implications of the piece just tangentially or merely as descriptive. Every debate about this topic tends to land on the creator being discussed, with the viewers almost demanding a disclosure about whether or not this creator identifies as a 'leftuber' or not and wether they're willing to commit to that kind of content. The viewers need this confirmation to safely integrate the products of that creator to their 'leftube'-centric profile, advancing on their 'cause'. As a viewer, understanding the concept of genuine pretending helps me think less about the tension between socially constructed profiles, by eliminating the presumption that there's a need for such confirmation. Understanding a piece of media analysis as a product of genuine pretending coming from the creator allows the viewer to engage more critically with the ideas contained in the piece because the affiliation of both the creator and the viewer are no longer the most relevant part of the discussion. This leaves the viewer with a bigger incentive to engage with the piece of media being discussed.
I write this comment because I had some trouble understanding profilicity at first, but I think I'm understanding a little better, thanks to examples like this one. Or maybe, this is me misunderstanding it. We'll see.
I love the warning message you have about the platform hosting your videos being addictive and mining our data for profit.
I wish I had have thought of including a warning like that on my videos.
Please keep up the good work. This is quickly becoming one of my favourite channels.
Haha. What a great example your comment is of how *"negative press is still press"* works. You confirm it by thinking how smart it is that you could have added more credibility for your own channel because people respect it so much.
Hilarious.
I think you're right to draw attention to the perceived difference/similarities in social credit systems in the west vs China but I think the emphasis is somewhat misplaced.
I believe the core reason why the Chinese system is seen as dystopian is less about the power dynamics and more towards a difference in values.
In the west it seems somehow antihuman that an individuals failings/successes in one area should automatically and algorithmically have a bearing on how they are perceived/treated in all other aspects of public life.
There is a feeling that collapsing all the nuances of human experience into a single number invites easy prejudice and precludes the achievement of greatness in certain areas because of potential failings in other areas whilst making it more difficult for people to display multiple aspects of their personalities.
In that vein it makes sense that no qualms are raised about “ranking/review culture” in the west because, for example, super host status doesn’t necessarily have to affect other profiles, the ability to get credit, become employed and so on…. There is a freedom to wear multiple hats without having to put ones entire social experience in the balance.
On that point I’d love to hear you talk more on the “multiplicity” of profilicity. The differing and often contradictory identities we put forward on the various profiles we curate and if that has perhaps contributed to the reduced emphasis on authenticity.
I know in purely academic circles, observation and objective analysis is essential.
However, I'd really like to know of the direction we're headed and if such endeavours will bring more satisfaction to people and society.
Very interesting. This shows how low in confidence we have in our own points of view. The theme park isn’t the theme park as I see it, but rather the aggregate of people’s reactions to it.
It’s like the world is a barren wasteland if we have no one’s opinion
This is merely an outcome of cultural democracy (as opposed to economic democracy, which doesn't exist under capitalism). In a culturally democratic world, all human consciousness matters, all human consciousness is equal, so the value of one human consciousness is *how much* of all other human consciousness that single human consciousness can include. The project then becomes what we know as social media and the internet, where everyone publicizes their experiences, and everyone seeks to include all other human consciousness within their own. This ties into global capitalism - the more of the world one comprehends and analyzes, the better suited we are to operating and controlling global markets.
It's not a matter of it being a barren wasteland, but that we live in an age of cultural desperation. We are economically stagnant - capitalism is not under threat. So more and more of the pressure for social progression as well as saving the world (from nuclear terror, climate destruction, and capitalism) falls upon culture, and we've initiated radical cultural shifts - social media and the internet, to attempt to bring about profound global change for the better.
@@briankoontz1 "In a culturally democratic world, all human consciousness matters, all human consciousness is equal, so the value of one human consciousness is how much of all other human consciousness that single human consciousness can include." Could this be used as an argument for "experts" and critics? As in, the study of a subject exposes you to more "consciousness". Maybe I'm off base but this is what came to mind when I read your comment. I might be projecting something from my own life onto your statements hahah. Regardless, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
@@master09shredder I too found brians comment interesting but dont quite understand what you mean with critics? Do you mean that critics are in some way "worth" more because theyve exposed themselves to more cultural "goods" and thus more human consciousness? Or what exactly are you talking about?
@@foka.3kai Mmm, I mean that it could be an argument that their opinion has more "value" in their field of study because of their exposure to cultural goods (and thus more human consciousness?). I mention critic because I often wonder if it's possible or how to determine a piece of art's objective value. It feels to me it that the democratization of culture has devalued the perceived value of experts and expert critics?
Though I realize that I've conflated the democratization of culture with the democratization of information so I'm kind of getting lost in my own thought. Hahah, I'd like to emphasize that I don't feel strongly about this so please poke holes.
@@master09shredder I think i know what you mean, today being a "critic" or "expert" in cultural topics might not be that special anymore because the way there just isnt/doesnt seem as hard as it once was.
But apart from that i dont believe the value of critics overall has declined. The world is so complex nowadays that for any topic, thats supposed to be talked about in a podcast, tv show, whatever, there is the direct reaction to try and get a critic or expert for that certain topic.
So I dont think they lost that much value, maybe its become rather perplexing for a lot of people, as on one side, information seems to be easily accessible but on the other side, there are all of these experts that need to be asked all the time.From that point of view "anyone could be a an expert, and so could I" would be one slightly misleading conclusion, which could lead to why critics are valued lower nowadays.
This strayed pretty far from your original point, but interesting anyways :)
It seems to me, profilicity supplants awareness and reflection of one's relationship to their environment. It fosters a detached extrinsic frame of reference, that's increasingly mediated by ubiquitous technologies ( both interfaces and underlying structures, that are biased toward third party interests).
I think authenticity is an intrinsic experience that requires awareness and reflection (which builds character, as apposed to influence).
Profilicity suppresses reflective consciousness, rendering authentic values indistinguishable from curated personas - which creates an appearance of emotional stability, but in affect diminishes personal resilience in adverse situations. Undoubtedly fostering herd mentalities in remote, sequestered, echo chambers, that activate insular anarchy - as witnessed in current events documenting violent flash mobs.
This seems particularly true of individuals struggling with individuation. Unexplored inclinations and impulses are resolved through the reductive pathways of search engines, that return emotional patches in the form of acceptance. Like any other commodity, the concept of self has been eclipsed by a new and improved product that not only guarantees satisfaction - it manufactures it.
Vielen Dank Herr Moeller fuer ein sehr aufschlussreich Erklaerung!
Immaterial girls (anyhow, any place)
Immaterial boys (anywhere, anyone)
Immaterial girls (any form, any shape)
Immaterial boys (anyway, anything, anything I want)
:(
yo, this is Sophie
@@oskaraltman that song and lyrics literally promotes the lifestyle
Awesome
social constructions Like CREDIT SCORE Are also a way separate the Haves from the Have nots.
Alright, alright. I guess since I've devoured all the videos on this channel I'm obligated to get the book.
Very clear and interesting thesis with a definition and analysis of the “(un)authentic self.”
I was directed her from I, Hypocrite. Thanks for this video, it was very edifying.
glad i found this channel! thank you professor!
I just started reading the book and what you presented are the passages from the beginning I already got through.
It's nice, I really like the conversational and anecdotal style!
That said, while some examples you provide make very clear the point that you are making, others muddle it a bit. The example with the western reporter who attended the Chinese influencer/celebrity event was a bit strange to me. Even though both her and the Chinese celebrities use profiles to further their goals, it still seems to me to be of a different nature.
But I will restrain from making any final judgments until I finish the book, for it may all become clear by the end of it.
I am glad you decided to embrace UA-cam and thus help more people discover your work. It is interesting!
Two factors have come to mind with the content of this video:
1) Perhaps sincerity as has been stated, is a product of a world with a lower standard of living which is why it may have been important as a pre-modern mode of living. In the Medieval period, having the merchant as a merchant, or a blacksmith as a blacksmith, provides a reflection on pre-enlightenment era structures, but also serves as a continuation of survival. You need to legitimately know that the silk dealer is who they say they are and aren't just someone who will pull the wool from over the eyes. As the standard of living grew in the west, concerning the middle class, with the industrial revolution (coinciding with greater urbanization), this perhaps proved to be an existential issue, so maybe it is a reflection on the fact things were and have been getting better (and an existential void needs to be filled which the traditional functions no longer provide).
2) The mode of authenticity arose out of a pre-internet need, for example you have a photo book with you and your family members at a birthday: all of you are enjoying the moment authentically, in the sense that it is not privy to outside opinion; you can show people the photo book voluntarily but it's a place to cherish what memories you have. With the growth of the internet, and social media, it now becomes apparent that what you display is for the judgement of other people.
I also posted this on the Wokeism video, but I'll ask it again here (and glad to see you present similar arguments in your book):
I am quite convinced that personal identity is embodied and distributed in a similar sense as embodied and distributed cognitivists think cognition is embodied and distributed. By that I mean, I think many things external to 'us' supply personal identity or parts thereof. Those things may be other persons or relationships or geography, but they may also be religious or political movements like wokeism. And when a part of our personal identity is attacked, I think it can feel like we (the person identified) are attacked. The existence of "normies" (with respect to wokists) or more generally the existence of certain forms of political disagreement may at some level be viewed as an autonomy-infringing and existential threat to wokeism/a political view and by extension the person(s) who are woke/of that political persuasion. In the case of wokeism, if it doesn't evolve, is the Wokeist Inquisition going to take a more literal interpretation of "cancelling" persons in the abstract or via "de-platforming" and reach for more violent methods? I definitely hope not, but it has certainly happened in the past via non-civil religious extremism.
For a psychological point of view on social medias effects on identity/personality and on "wokism" i recommend watching the following videos of Prof Sam Vaknin:
"Social Media: Toxic by Design"
"Victimhood Movements Hijacked by Narcissists and Psychopaths"
Fun fact: As far as the idea of ones "true identity" is based on true memories it is always at least partially fictional since every time we remember anything we form a new memory and a significant amount of memories end up falsified over time or are even complete fiction to begin with. Remembering emotions is even impossible, you can only feel the emotion you feel right now never the one you had in the past.
It's more or less "Based on a true story" lol
I'm wondering if other human cultures might have developed different identity technologies besides those three you cited.
Sincerity is probably the most common in ancient and traditional cultures, Authenticity seems very "Western" and post-Enlightenment, and Profilicity seems become common only with the advent of the internet and social media.
Have you identified any others?
Also, do you think the focus on inner reality by Authenticity was a response to the focus on outer reality by Sincerity, and in turn Profilicity focus is a response to Authenticity? Might a future new technology be also a response to Profilicity, focused again on some sort of inner reality?
Great questions!
A great introduction to the book. I'll put it in my to-read list. Thanks!
Thanks for the insightful video. I also picked up your book 'The Moral Fool', and am looking forward to expanding my understanding on your theory. I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, both who's take on morality you've taken exception to, and while I feel like I've benefitted personally from their lectures, I'm excited to further broaden my understanding through your work. Hope you're well!
ew. these two are not philosophers and sam harris do not understand philosophy at all. plus jordan peterson is naive about the world we live in and constantly dog whistle. go read real philosophers. not this commodities that represent themselves as philosophers and intellectuals.
@@pygmalion8952 Very encouraging, thank you.
14:20 Inigo Montoya: Is very strange. I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it's over, I don't know what to do with the rest of my life.
Westley: Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
And when we are making a conscientious decision of not having a curated profile in a given platform isn't it self a form of profile curating by expressed omission in our social context.
Specially when platforms used for profile curation are almost essential for our socialization nowadays.
you will never escape the matrix
Hi Dr. Moeller, I'm curious what you think of an alternative explanation for the "paradoxical happiness" you describe in the case of the ecologist, in that perhaps the reason they felt happy is simply that they weren't being lied to by those they trust. A similar idea could be ascribed to the case of the civil rights activist.
I don't know if this is necessarily even in contention with the idea of a paradigm of profilic identity. When I think about my own experience, I find there is certainly a degree of happiness when my "side" is right, even if what we're right about is a tragic truth. But I think another part of that, aside from identification with a cause, is the ontological security I feel when I believe my narratives and information sources are trustworthy. Would you say that this differentiates from profilic identity building?
Great video!!! Please keep making more.
I think the problem with China’s social credit is it’s capacity for misuse. A dishonest review, emotional attacks, de-personalizing someone, will effect and possibly destroy that person’s future social relationships in society. Have an enemy and you can attack, be attacked and you cannot get help. And to spread that profile access across society would remove help from the majority, rather than be able to go outside and talk to people and have a normal relationship. The relationship would be biased at the first meeting. The possibility for misuse is just much higher.
This brings to mind Black Mirror: Nosedive.
Is the Q&A for general questions? If so I have one:
You mentioned in a video that Daoism, in opposition to Confucianism, is considered a philosophy of the "lower classes" and maybe even Marxist. Could you explain that a bit further?
Not an expert but daoism is more individualistic and relatable while confucianism came from teachers of bureacrats and emphasized virtues.
The ancient Chinese states, when running a country may picked what is called legalism, using laws, punishments and rewards system to improve society. Because the laws are made far way, by some king and ministers, they may and often not reflecting what the common people needed. Daoism is letting nature did its work and the world will return to equilibrium (massive oversimplification but the damn book is too hard to read). The argument against the state is that the more laws, the more confusions.
Confucianism had the same goals as daoism (want society runs by virtue) but similar methods to legalsim. Confucius argued that laws and punishments cannot shame a person, if they dislike the laws, and so there will be resentment not improvement. Basically, they talked nonstop of ethics, collective responsibilty and adherance to moral rules. An aspiring good person, may found them inspiring, a cynical ones may called them naive. The government prefer legalism, because it made things easier for them (the laws are enough). The commoners prefered daoism because it is easier for them (no confusing directives). And the confucians is for dreaming of a better world.
Confucianism is used by government to select bureaucrats. Confucius goal is to teach leaders to be responsible to those under them. I' m guessing people dislikes superiors who talked of virtues in creating regulation while not acting it them. Think of woke corporations and boss-bitches. Sure, the female ceo may want to make better world for females but how many of them actually took steps to make maternity leaves longer? If everyone acted to words of virtues, the world would be a better place but they dont.
Chinese Marxist philosophers used to read the history of Chinese philosophy as reflecting class struggles. Confucianism was seen as an ideology supporting the feudal elite in traditional China and cultivating an ethics that stabilized feudal rule.Daoism was regarded as challenging this ethics, voicing concerns of the common people regarding the hypocrisy and violent nature of the existing social order. Here's one example of Daoist social critique: ua-cam.com/video/vGtgGz5SsY0/v-deo.html
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thanks! Love the videos btw.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 I saw a paper of your friend/co-author Paul J. D’Ambrosio "Against Individualism" by Henry Rosemont and thought it was interesting. Do you think the type of communitarianism talked about in the paper, and the idea of "ethics of roles" (which sounds a lot like your "sincerity") would be a more ideal way to run society? Because otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you want everyone to do.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Does that attitude also change across time? My knowledges of those philosophies came more often from histories written by court technocrats than the texts itself, so it tend to bias. Often, daoist political policies are either signs of things going very well, or a terminal ill cancer being lazily overlooked. When things are good, nothing got written down, so often, disasters caught the court off-guard with mass refugees, corruptions and rebellions. The legalists and the confucians tend to recieve works because they promised to handle it. Like American liberterianism, there are many justifications for letting nature return to its course, but it encouraged laziness of the government and quite often, the course it took are terrible. With your link, I can understand the butcher story, but it also made me look at Robber Zhi story in a new way. While it beautifully attacked Confucius common preachings, how would any populace would live better with a cannibalistic, rapists proudly in charge, content to his natural way? It seemed the story attack daoist political theory too. The Confucians like to advocate more daoist policies whenever they believed the legalists went too far. So did commoners asked for more confucianism when they had to face local bullies and criminals? Stories of upright officials are also extremely popular.
It is probably our moral obligation to oppose these credit systems be they economic, societal, or governmental. No credit system should really exist without a free and open press which can bring into doubt reliability of the credit system when it oversteps.
I still struggle with the bridge between the chinese social credit system(s) and the airbnb example. Could you try to put more emphasis on the attributes or features over which such a comparison is made? I want to believe that the sole purpose of this comparison was to show two extremes with respects to profilicity under the aspects of individualism and collectivism?
I am also confused why the chinese social credit system was compared to similar systems from the western world. Was this an attempt to shift the focus away from the political aspects?
For me personally, a comparison of the german SCHUFA and airbnb would have been much easier to follow. I think the SCHUFA as organization is similar in function to the chinese social credit system(s), although with a different scope. But i don't know much about the chinese social credit system(s), except what wikipedia has to say, i might be missing the point completely.
Thank you for reading.
in my opinion the usa is almost as dystopic as china, they just took a different strategy. china is blatant about their social control, while the usa is better at making their ideology and control look apolitical, woven into every day life, into american identity itself, and if you dont follow rhe order you're shunned by the community. you dont need to control people, if people control each other
the topic is way too vast to fit in one comment, but its really interesting, so I'll leave you links to videos that explain it from a philosophical approach
ua-cam.com/video/B_i8_WuyqAY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/tmMJbwE8j98/v-deo.html
I am afraid your response does not answer my questions.
To be fair, my second question could have been more clear.
I will try and fix that: "Was this an attempt to shift the focus away from the
political aspects and towards the core subject of profilicity? I think this
discussion threw me off and made this video difficult for me to follow."
Now, lets discuss your remarks.
Thank you for those video links, i did watch them.
Now, if we look at the social self control you mentioned. From where i am
standing this looks a bit like an extension of 'Manufacturing Consent'. If i
lean myself out of the window a little more, i would claim that this 'social
self control' happens everywhere in the world. Only the values might be
different or might change in different ways, depending on the environment
(wealth, laws, security, trust, etc.). I think, a social credit system can be
used to manipulate the already existing social self control, to reintroduce
values which got lost or to change the importance of certain values. From the
outside, the social credit system(s) China is testing seems to be an attempt to
introduce order into an otherwise chaotic and every changing system. Lets hope
it works out for the people ruled by a social credit system.
A hard cover of your book «you and your profile» is a 100€ on amazon italy! Not a shy price! 😅 Ill go for the pocket version
In your example about the airbnb superhost, what wasn't clear to me is how do you differentiate between someone who doesn't want to lose their superhost status for business reasons and another for profile reasons? What signals did you get that they where the former?
This is largely irrelevant to your overall argument, but i'd be interested to know more about the study that suggested that the Chinese public largely favor the social credit system. What were the parameters of such a study? If government surveillance is an issue, how has the potential bias this may create in surveyed subjects must be controlled for? Have those who have lower scores been surveyed and interviewed, for example?
Kostka, Genia. “China’s Social Credit Systems and Public Opinion: Explaining High Levels of Approval.” New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1565-93. (as mentioned in video description)
I have always understood that authenticity exists outside the binary that is imposed by a dualistic society.
Can we know ourselves in meaningful ways other than through identity, which seems to necessarily involve knowing our self in relationship to others?
P.s. great video, love the concepts discussed
No
If a person sees a tree fall in a forest but didn't film and post it to Facebook, did they really see the tree fall?
The cause is the profile: "I fight because I fight, I fight so that all the fighting I've already fought hasn't been for nothing. Shor as my witness I'll fight a bee! Down with you, a glorious ending!" - ulfric stormcloak speech at a typical stormcloak rally.
I have to say I'm weary of both chinese and western rating systems and do still feel very uneasy not so much for authenticity related qualms (though I may lean towards this mode of identity more than others) rather because of the self-referential nature of the approval : I'm not surprised that most people publicly value a system which has authority over their public relatability. For the westernized version of this, I would agree that it's a middle to high class form of hypocrisy to hold such rating systems as "inhumane", insofar as those who critic such system still personally bear ambitions which rely on a public's praise.
While I say this, it's also proven useless for me to maintain such distance with profilicity (though it was more in the name of a freedom from identity than to have any model preside at my ways of making choices). Though I don't value my artistic work based on any public's approval of it - if the public were to appreciate, and rate it, I would become able to make more of it - which requires to get my hands "dirty" with profilicity - your insights as it turns out, really help to consider doing it while also maintaining integrity, transparency, "genuine pretending" as you put it.
Concerning the reason why I still somewhat favor authenticity, it comes from the possibility to escape the intricacies of identity which it seems to offer to me. For instance, rather than seeking for my face to express a type of originality in reference to a set of originality traits, I express, create (originate) based on what I want (unrealted to how it appears, rather in smaller or larger time frames of the want in question), and rely on others to identify whatever I do with my face (after all, I'm always the last one to know what I look like).
Then depending on their reactions, I may behave differently and originate in new ways because of the barriers I faced last time, and this happens rather organically the more my wants remain stable overtime, and their challenges part of the path. This being said I can see how what I seem to be looking for looks like a kind of cause, but I don't seek it for the sake of a self (otherwise I wouldn't be flexible enough to do what I described), rather I want to avoid identity crisis' as much as possible which leads me to seek ways of wanting, which are sustainable on long enough terms, to encompass the distance at which I remember being a-certain-thing-that-I-still-am, and which projects into the future at the same distance.
It's also what pushed me away from profilicty as an artist, again my issue is not one of "fake" identity, but of the technologie's intricacies and practicality - looking at my [artistic] colleagues, it seems extenuous to tend to all these profiles, and to update them, and the complexity which arises from it is merely looks like an accidental byproduct, producing much "existential crisis" a feeling I experience less and less, as I recoil from contexts which rate or more generally identify me, and push me to perform with a clear distinction between "the other" and "the me". Since a long nowadays, I just cannot help but cling to works which keep feeling meaningful overtime, not eternally, but long enough that one may interpret them from different contexts, different identity set-ups, the more I do these, the less I identify to anything too particular since there are these masses of "incoherent"(linguistically or rather logically speaking I'd say?) sounds, pictures, and words, I can hold onto despite going through very contradictory ways of being.
Maybe by overestimating such arbitrary complexities, it seemed too easy to be sort of anti-aesthetic communicating my work, and blunt as you are with the attention mining warnings but now that I've felt it from another anonymous surfer on the web - I have to admit the trick works for me : I might buy your book in some near future. While this hesitancy goes on, you're welcome for another public's stranger's interaction (I'm kidding of course, thumbs up for your work).
What do you mean by "real?" What is the distinction between the external and internal being "real?"
I wonder what you thought of Bo Burnham's latest special *Inside* because it appears to be extremely personal and intimate, however probably still falls under the category of "genuine pretending" and does it well enough that the illusion of that intimacy is almost seamless. Thank you!
Most of Bo's work is about performing, make it happy and eight grade are about this subject as well
The definitions of profilicity and sincerity seem the most similar
he explained it in
ua-cam.com/video/jGMq2aVfJxc/v-deo.html
western companies and institutions which are using measurement systems similar to chines social credit system can fail by misusing/misinterpreting data, while ccp can't fail. or not in the same way.
this is a great video and Im very interested in reading the book
Hi professor, I'm not sure if you'll see this comment, I was also wondering if you had a list of recommended books for reading related to identity and existence, specifically in the way they are touched upon in this video? What has informed your views? I'm really interested in exploring the paradox of individualism and authenticity more! Also. Planning on getting your book. Excited to get it in my hands
It seems that identity and activism here in this video share some similarities to scientists getting attached to paradigms, as expressed in Kuhn's naughty little book. It also seems that there may be scientific findings (which people hold as close truth approximations) are through second order observation such as, findings in neuroscience and genetics. Yet, it is possible for people to attach their identities to such findings.
Also, I am having trouble understanding the 2010 and 2017 pictures and second order observation. It is possible that the people in the 2010 picture could be thinking something like, "I can't wait to tell my ______about this." and in the second picture they do not have to wait, they can do this immediately, but, both would be viewing the event with an expectation of "the other."
Lastly, the first 3 points at the conclusion seem like an expression of surveillance or some kind of "internal/external" monitoring process.
I don't think this need to commodify identity is by any means new, but social media and access to the internet has certainly brought it in to the public domain in a big way. Status, status envy and conveying status on to public idols, heroes and role models is not new either, but it also seams to have become greatly magnified by social media and internet access. Identity existentialism and nihilism aren't new, but they have been greatly commodified and politicised. It's a little disheartening that so many people buy into ready made identity by allowing themselves and others to be categorised, which I feel is dehumanising to all involved.
I’m wondering how this ties into religion. The “sincerity” mode lends itself to classical theism (God provides identities in the world for us to sincerely take on) and the “profilicity” mode, as you have said, is expressed in wokeism. But what religious beliefs or practices express the “authenticity” mode?
I think romanticism is a good candidate.
There is no such thing as an individual; there is only society.
What we may call our "authentic self" is but only a collection of all the social structures we are a part of.
The climate activist does not only exist as someone who cares about the climate. Otherwise they wouldn't care about what the scientists say and if they lie. They care about a whole range of things like science, honesty, and ethnics.
But what is someone without all these ghosts of society in one's mind? If we stop pretending for the society we live in? What is left besides an animal that eats, sleeps and dies?
Once you strip away all of that, you are only left with nothing but your biology.
In accordance with the idea of second order observation wouldn't it be more accurate to say that in the paradigm of profilicity the divide between outside and inside is negated since the outside consist of other's observations and the subject builds his/her identity by making themselves into an object to be observed in a certain way?
Great video and great content by the way!
I have a question regarding second order observation: A person in the year 1995 is on vacation, lying at the beach and enjoying the phantasy of telling everyone at work how amazing their vacation was. Isn't this also a more obscured form of second order observation?
More Philosophy in Motion when?
To what extent do you believe that technology has been the driving factor in the rise of profilicity? Do you think that the need for some kind of "profile system" in digital bi-directional media is a driving force in this cultural transition as perhaps Marshall McLuhan or Neil Postman would have argued, or that the success of such media is merely a symptom of it.
Is it possible to opt out of profilicity and try to maintain an authentic expression of self, or, at the very least, minimize the impact that our online profiles have on our identities?
Do you believe that it is important to construct an identity that is useful to society, or ought we construct an identity solely to try to make ourselves happy?
Sehr geehrter Herr Moeller,
verhält es sich mit Eifersucht ähnlich wie mit den genannten Beispielen von Menschen, die lieber ihre Befürchtungen bestätigt sehen als den Teil ihrer Identität verlieren um den es geht? Schließlich ist es für die Eifersucht irrelevant, ob sie "berechtigt" ist oder nicht, sie wird vom eifersüchtigen Menschen als Teil der eigenen Identität benötigt?
Is 'genuine pretending' considered the absence of self-reflection or a more nuanced specification where the self-reflection needs to be in service of gain by understanding the power ones persona may have within group politics? (To NOT be considered genuine, but *artificial pretending* )
If the pretending is considered _genuine_ (because the person isn't either aware or maybe isn't aware they are pretending for mirror-personality gain), how does intellect fit into the distinction? In that we mirror and act (pretend) so as to practice feedback loops to test scenarios of expectation. In this way, it's hard for me to distinguish how the term genuine can be applicable, but I'm very interested to understand how it may be used that I'm missing.
How does one avoid an addiction to identity? The second order observation of oneself through the lens of an iPhone camera sparks heavy emotions (disgust, pride, embarrassment). Does this signify an overly developed and obsessive relationship with ones identity?
Thanks for the video! It was very interesting.
I don't know if I'm late for the Q&A, but I would like to know more precisely what's the difference between the sincerity and the profilicity paradigms. Both seem to be about fulfilling a particular role as best as we can, but in the case of profiles that role is determined by our own selves rather than tradition. Is this correct, or are there more differences between the two? T
hanks!
An how are people that is not genuinely pretending being perceived?
Yeah,
I remember a time ago in my youth that I went too a metal festival in Belgium, and I was wearing a blue shirt. Waiting outside in line to get in, surrounded by people wearing the classic trademarked black T-Shirts with names like: Megadeth, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Opeth, ... etc. One of the younger people out there yelled at me: "Shouldn't you be at the love-parade in Berlin?", pointing at my blue shirt. Here I was, surrounded in a crowd of "alternative" people, and they all looked the same.Being yelled at because I stood out as a single blue dot in a giant mass of black cheap overprized T-shirts sold to saturate the tribal tendencies of the "alternative" crowd.
How much I wish you would have yelled what you wrote right back at that poser. My bet would be that the crowd would've backed you at least 80% once getting called out like that.
Great observation.
@@JH-ji6cj @J H I'm not really the yelling type... but that moment struck me so hard, that I still think about how absurd it actually was.
Especially because these people like to label themselves the "Alternative" crowd.
Anyway, identity it's a fascinating subject. I just don't think you can outrun it. I recently read a book by Erik Erikson, talking about identity crisis in children that go through puberty and how they go look for rollmodels to define themselves. In other words, they look at others and take this information in to use it to create an identity. So there is no "original" you, it's just a combination of things that you pasted together to create a "original" you.
I actually am deeply conflicted about the concept or "originality". I think, if the concept means that you have created something new that no one else ever did... then this will never happen. I came to the conclussion (and I might be wrong) that our brain does nothing else then gather information (data), and then our being reproduces the data that we like in changed form (mixing, copy pasting, it in with data that we also gathered) ... and if we repoduce something that others around us perceive as something they never seen before, that's what is "original", but for the person that created it, it's just snippets of data that he/she already learned somewhere else.
I might not explain it well (I need to make it a lot longer to get it right)... and my english grammar is lacking (sorry for the spellng too). But that's how I think that people work. Therefore, it's important to have a good data-diet (or at least try to keep it healthy), because the data that you consume will eventually contribute to the "you" you will become.
@@kwekvonscaf Absolutely agree with you. We are all compilations of ideas. There is no reason to be genuinely unique but there is a solid reason to build an identity that can successfully survive and thrive by properly arranging your data-diet.
@@SkinnerSpace On one of our war monuments that remember the holocaust you can read the following text:
Watch your thoughts, they become words;
Watch your words, they become actions;
Watch your actions, they become habits;
Watch your habits, they become character;
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
And yes, an identity that is able to face the "issues" that life brings, is important. But I'm a bit of an idealist and I hope that this identity also has some moral conception concerning the world and individuals that surround it. Immoral and pragmatic realism is highly effective, but you don't want those people at your dinner table.
13:45 I see this happening all the time. It's like with Covid, last year I had anti-Boris Johnson friends seemingly cheering for more Covid deaths so they could blame Boris for not taking appropriate measures. He was also scarily excited in the early days at the sight of a photo of a nurse wearing a bin bag.
Are you who I think you are
@@leafguy95 Yeah Blaise, how's it going?
@@leafguy95 What happened to your content?
The word "seemingly" is doing a LOT of work in this anecdote.
@@neoepicurean3772 I gave up. Shit was too stressful while working. Showing up on nazi boards wasnt great either
13:40
There's levels. Say they exaggerated their findings by some significant percentage but climate change is still happening. That's a major problem because then you've exposed climate scientists as liars for a major problem which is real. The public response is likely to swing against them hard when the rational approach is still to try to solve the problem. If the exaggeration is big enough then of course it'd be great news, in a way. Except we have a malign global conspiracy of scientists at such an incomprehensible scale we'd probably see a second French revolution. I don't think whoever said that would have ever imagined that possibility.
The hate crime case is similar too. Her perception is that hate-crime and racism is rampant (I'm assuming). This one case (exaggerated data) can impact the just cause in a negative way.
It's not a preference of news at all its just an analysis on the media impact this has. The conclusion was already made in the hate crime case and the global warming case. They'd both need extraordinary evidence to change their minds.
I think if you actually had such overwhelming evidence that you'd convince these people they'd be happy about that. They'll struggle all the way there of course.
or it might be because humans feel safer when they don't need to challenge their current views. if climate change wasn't real, that activist would have to reevaluate years of his life, turn his worldview around, and that makes people feel outside their comfort zone. I'd say this is even more noticeable in conservatives, their whole ideology is rooted in staying in a political and informational comfort zone and protecting it from changing. the world health organisation might say that being gay isn't a disorder, but your homophobic uncle will still say it is, because he doesn't want to exit his comfort zone and reevaluate his life. social media definitely deepened this need to stay in a comfort zone, but the problem already existed long before