I think this gets the etiology of sacredness backwards. Groups do identify with what they consider sacred and that serves many functions, but sacredness seems to arise from holding things (ideas, idols, etc.) in inviolable high regard, which can serve many functions, not just this one, and while i agree sacredness persists as a behavior because it's useful, I see no evidence in the experience of the sacred to suggest its origin is functional.
No, I'm saying something like the social benefits are the result of selection effects over the set of things people make sacred. The action of creating the sacred happens separately, but then certain sacred things are selected for because they are beneficial, and then this helps induce others to also come to relate to those same things as sacred because they see others treating them as sacred, but there's a direct held-sacred-to-held-sacred relationship transfer happening, not an adoption of sacredness because it's socially beneficial (even if that's the selective pressure causing the held-sacred-to-held-sacred transfer to happen).
This is a genuine social mechanism: much prestige comes from being perceived as an authentic embodiment of something people already value, rather than from demanding attention for oneself. If we extend this thinking further, it explains why identity conflicts become so intense. Different sacred values pull individuals in different directions, and there is rarely a single optimal identity. Instead, identity is continually negotiated across competing domains and changing contexts. The question moves from " what identity should I embody" to "how do I navigate multiple valuable identities without collapsing into a single one".
>What is ideal identity? Let me suggest that it is similar. We each aspire to be the instrument by which others can connect deeply with something they value. And the more that others are compelled and entranced by this connection, the more that we feel we have achieved our ideal of identity…
> If being French is an identity of mine, then when you interact with me, I want you to see the French way of being in me. To see it clearly, as a coherent thing, and come naturally and effortlessly to me.
I think this last example isn’t quite right. Implies that to be properly French you have to seem very French to others. I’d say you have to be French and love French things, and the group bonding comes from this shared background and love, manifested in enjoying French things together; shared enthusiasm. Not in ‘seeming French’ together.
"We don’t bond directly to each other, but instead bond via seeing something special together. A group bonds by sharing the sight of a special thing,"
I would suggest that bonding typically involves jointly experiencing something "external" (like music or a joke) because it provides evidence of shared dispositions, which is important for (social) partner choice. Consider what it takes for someone to find your joke funny: it may require a similar "sense of humor," similar cognitive abilities, overlapping preferences and values, or a shared cultural background that allows them to grasp implicit references. The fact that two people laugh at the same joke (or enjoy the same music at the same time, like in concerts) can therefore reveal the degree of their similarity, while the shared reaction (whether laughing at a joke or crying to a movie) itself allows both parties to recognize that similarity and make it common knowledge.
A good current example of this being all the attention 'conservative' news/talk shows are expending on the Europeans who've come over for the World Cup discovering the joys of Chick fil A and other fast food bargains.
I think this gets the etiology of sacredness backwards. Groups do identify with what they consider sacred and that serves many functions, but sacredness seems to arise from holding things (ideas, idols, etc.) in inviolable high regard, which can serve many functions, not just this one, and while i agree sacredness persists as a behavior because it's useful, I see no evidence in the experience of the sacred to suggest its origin is functional.
So the social benefits of holding things sacred is an accidental side effect of our universe holding amazing fantastically valuable things?
No, I'm saying something like the social benefits are the result of selection effects over the set of things people make sacred. The action of creating the sacred happens separately, but then certain sacred things are selected for because they are beneficial, and then this helps induce others to also come to relate to those same things as sacred because they see others treating them as sacred, but there's a direct held-sacred-to-held-sacred relationship transfer happening, not an adoption of sacredness because it's socially beneficial (even if that's the selective pressure causing the held-sacred-to-held-sacred transfer to happen).
Why you have Odishi dancer in thumbnail and not on the main article page ?
This is a genuine social mechanism: much prestige comes from being perceived as an authentic embodiment of something people already value, rather than from demanding attention for oneself. If we extend this thinking further, it explains why identity conflicts become so intense. Different sacred values pull individuals in different directions, and there is rarely a single optimal identity. Instead, identity is continually negotiated across competing domains and changing contexts. The question moves from " what identity should I embody" to "how do I navigate multiple valuable identities without collapsing into a single one".
>What is ideal identity? Let me suggest that it is similar. We each aspire to be the instrument by which others can connect deeply with something they value. And the more that others are compelled and entranced by this connection, the more that we feel we have achieved our ideal of identity…
> If being French is an identity of mine, then when you interact with me, I want you to see the French way of being in me. To see it clearly, as a coherent thing, and come naturally and effortlessly to me.
I think this last example isn’t quite right. Implies that to be properly French you have to seem very French to others. I’d say you have to be French and love French things, and the group bonding comes from this shared background and love, manifested in enjoying French things together; shared enthusiasm. Not in ‘seeming French’ together.
"We don’t bond directly to each other, but instead bond via seeing something special together. A group bonds by sharing the sight of a special thing,"
I would suggest that bonding typically involves jointly experiencing something "external" (like music or a joke) because it provides evidence of shared dispositions, which is important for (social) partner choice. Consider what it takes for someone to find your joke funny: it may require a similar "sense of humor," similar cognitive abilities, overlapping preferences and values, or a shared cultural background that allows them to grasp implicit references. The fact that two people laugh at the same joke (or enjoy the same music at the same time, like in concerts) can therefore reveal the degree of their similarity, while the shared reaction (whether laughing at a joke or crying to a movie) itself allows both parties to recognize that similarity and make it common knowledge.
A good current example of this being all the attention 'conservative' news/talk shows are expending on the Europeans who've come over for the World Cup discovering the joys of Chick fil A and other fast food bargains.
Does achievement have any direct role played on our identity? And how does the group affect the notion of achievement in todays’ day and age?