My book with Kevin Simler describes many hidden human motives, common in our everyday lives. But that raises the question: how exactly can we humans hide our motives from ourselves? Consider that we humans are constantly watching and testing our and others’ words and deeds for inconsistency, incoherence, and hypocrisy. As our rivals are eager to point out such flaws, we each try to adjust our words and deeds to cut and smooth the flaws we notice. Furthermore, we habitually adjust our words and deeds to match those of our associates, to make remaining flaws be shared flaws. After a lifetime of such smoothing, how could much personal incoherence remain?
I like the thesis but I don't think the starting assumption is correct. We don't constantly check our words & deeds for incoherency or hypocracy. Rather I think we only check that for people we don't trust.
We don't even check much the coherency of the words & deeds of people close to us. Except in moments of uncertainty / mistrust. The person who constantly checked themselves would be commonly viewed as insecure.
Despite that, the rest of your thesis still works. People still like to hide motives because they're afraid they won't be sufficiently trusted by others, or maybe because they don't sufficiently trust others. And being reluctant to throw stones at shared glass houses is very good way of describing it!
In an environment of rising distrust, shared glass houses may become deemed some of the most sacred things around.
"We apparently all want to pretend together that school is for learning job skills".
I am surprised to hear this. I don't think I ever thought thought that about school. I don't think that view was common when I was growing up in the '50s, but maybe my household was an exception.
When I was starting grad school in '72 (chemistry), a bunch of us were chatting about whom we would like to have as an advisor. One of my cohort said, "I want to work with X, because he's discovered a new and promising reaction and when I get my doctorate I'll be able to get a job with an oil company." (Think petrochemicals.)
I was shocked. (Naive me?) It did make me think about how I would explain my own selection. I thought, "I don't even know if there will still be jobs for chemists at the time I get out. Maybe I'll have to spend the rest of my life digging ditches. But at least, I will be able to say that I did what I loved, if only for a few years, rather than regret that I never did."
I don't pretend that this is or was 100% of my motivation. The praise and (if possible) adulation of others (especially the others whom I praise and adulate) has always been important to me. In fact ,I have always been rather embarrassed about that. And of course, making a living is important for everyone, whether they like it or not. But that's not the same as having the view that school is about job training.
Love as an action, not just an abstraction.
For myself, if I consider love as a behavior, I can judge whether I am acting with love or not. I find that helpful.
Example from Brene Brown: can I cheat on someone I love? I don't know. But I can judge that behavior as not acting with love.
I like the thesis but I don't think the starting assumption is correct. We don't constantly check our words & deeds for incoherency or hypocracy. Rather I think we only check that for people we don't trust.
We don't even check much the coherency of the words & deeds of people close to us. Except in moments of uncertainty / mistrust. The person who constantly checked themselves would be commonly viewed as insecure.
Despite that, the rest of your thesis still works. People still like to hide motives because they're afraid they won't be sufficiently trusted by others, or maybe because they don't sufficiently trust others. And being reluctant to throw stones at shared glass houses is very good way of describing it!
In an environment of rising distrust, shared glass houses may become deemed some of the most sacred things around.
"We apparently all want to pretend together that school is for learning job skills".
I am surprised to hear this. I don't think I ever thought thought that about school. I don't think that view was common when I was growing up in the '50s, but maybe my household was an exception.
When I was starting grad school in '72 (chemistry), a bunch of us were chatting about whom we would like to have as an advisor. One of my cohort said, "I want to work with X, because he's discovered a new and promising reaction and when I get my doctorate I'll be able to get a job with an oil company." (Think petrochemicals.)
I was shocked. (Naive me?) It did make me think about how I would explain my own selection. I thought, "I don't even know if there will still be jobs for chemists at the time I get out. Maybe I'll have to spend the rest of my life digging ditches. But at least, I will be able to say that I did what I loved, if only for a few years, rather than regret that I never did."
I don't pretend that this is or was 100% of my motivation. The praise and (if possible) adulation of others (especially the others whom I praise and adulate) has always been important to me. In fact ,I have always been rather embarrassed about that. And of course, making a living is important for everyone, whether they like it or not. But that's not the same as having the view that school is about job training.