Which cognitive distortions do you struggle with?

[_subgenius]

It could be reasoned that this action would preserve the super-ego of the one doing it

Not really, and you have not reasoned it at all. What you mean to say is that one could guess what was on their mind - from the article cited - "Carpenter has no memory of what happened.....Still conscious, he asked whether Eufrazio was OK, Obama said."

So, just a ruse to meet the President?

- i.e., his/her belief system and willingness to protect life at any cost, or to put another's life above their own. You can certainly interpret that as contradictory in the end result, but even the contradiction supports the assertion, because the memory of a man and his actions persist even after the man is gone.

You cannot make this argument because it actually does contradict any reasonable idea, notion, concept, or hint of self-preservation.
You specifically claimed self-preservation and now you want to include things that are contrary to self-preservation as being included in the definition of self-preservation.

putting another life above their own completely negates your original assertion. To claim that Carpenter's super-ego was considering the memorial service when the grenade landed is a most desperate and absurd relocation of the goal post.

This example is, of course, pretty rare. But 'self preservation' may be the one thing that most closely meets Amore's criteria of "an underlying motive that colors everything that they say and do".

Oh, i see....the exception does not make the rule only when applied to your arguments.

Psychological altruism is contrasted with psychological egoism, which refers to the motivation to increase one’s own welfare

I always appreciate your opinion though i rarely align with it...but...on this matter you are relying on some rather archaic Freudian theories...which I am a fan of - like his theory that homosexuality is merely a retardation in the normal sexual development....or even better - that conflicts of interest between men are settled by the use of violence. This is true of the whole animal kingdom, from which men have no business to exclude themselves.

Nevertheless, the idea that one's "self" is tantamount with an "ultimate concern" is not a surprising conclusion from secular humanist narcissist. When one believes they are the center of the universe then obviously all they consider themselves the alpha and the omega...etc.....yet, while related, not at all "close" to what Amore is driving towards (kinda like how close rubbing two sticks together is to a nuclear powered submarine)

[_Bazooka]

Not accurate. There are absolutely no goosebumps being produced at will. You are still confused yet convinced otherwise. ...shocking.

An actor who produces goosebumps when a script calls for goosebumps = "goosebumps being produced at will". (Your words, not mine.)

Can emotions be generated at will?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Can emotions be generated at will?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE

Love that scene. Remember the Fruit Fusions A Totally Organic Experience commercials?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsfNXj9s-iY

[_canpakes]

It could be reasoned that this action would preserve the super-ego of the one doing it

Not really, and you have not reasoned it at all. What you mean to say is that one could guess what was on their mind - from the article cited - "Carpenter has no memory of what happened.....Still conscious, he asked whether Eufrazio was OK, Obama said."

So, just a ruse to meet the President?

'Meeting the President' has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. You'll have to flesh that out a bit to explain its relevance to the concept.

You specifically claimed self-preservation and now you want to include things that are contrary to self-preservation as being included in the definition of self-preservation.

Yes. Because it appears contradictory only if we consider that people commit actions to preserve only their physical continuation. This may be true of animals but people have the ability to reason beyond themselves, and to calculate perpetuation of interest/self-interest vis-a-vis self-sacrifice, if need be. In other words, a person can commit an action that may extinguish their own physicality if it preserves or advances their ideals, or protects their family. A twisted example of this would be how a suicide bomber interprets a specific outcome from his action post-sacrifice.

The simple contradiction of this is obvious if we consider only self-preservation in its most well-known and simplest form - that of preserving only the physical being. The contradiction no longer exists if you consider the individual's influence capable of transcending that individual's physical existence.

putting another life above their own completely negates your original assertion. To claim that Carpenter's super-ego was considering the memorial service when the grenade landed is a most desperate and absurd relocation of the goal post.

You are painting a different intent of Carpenter than I am. Carpenter's action had nothing to do with "considering the memorial service". Carpenter's beliefs and commitment to the protection of others, even above his own life, spurred his action to risk his life by jumping onto the grenade. In fact, he survived, so he acted on and preserved his ideals without sacrificing his life, albeit paying a heavy price. The preservation of his ideals - as an extension of himself - could just have easily resulted in his death.

Oh, i see....the exception does not make the rule only when applied to your arguments.

I only claim that the answer of 'self preservation' so far best fulfills Amore's claim of a single underlying motive that "colors everything that (people) say and do". The question of tossing oneself on a grenade with the outcome being death to the person who did so is the example that you are presenting as the exception. I note that the particular example that you are giving did not result in Carpenter's death anyway.

Psychological altruism is contrasted with psychological egoism, which refers to the motivation to increase one’s own welfare

I'm referring to the definition given for 'super ego'. From http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g ... perego.htm (chosen for simplicity), here's a description:
"The primary action of the superego is to entirely suppress any urges or desires of the id that are considered wrong or socially unacceptable. It also tries to force the ego to act morally rather than realistically. Finally, the superego strives for moral perfections, without taking reality into account."
That dovetails nicely with the action of tossing oneself onto a grenade in an attempt to protect the lives of others.

I always appreciate your opinion though i rarely align with it...

Likewise. I appreciate that you push the boundaries of discussion in this forum.

...but...on this matter you are relying on some rather archaic Freudian theories...which I am a fan of - like his theory that homosexuality is merely a retardation in the normal sexual development....or even better - that conflicts of interest between men are settled by the use of violence. This is true of the whole animal kingdom, from which men have no business to exclude themselves.

This other stuff is not the concern of the topic at hand.

Nevertheless, the idea that one's "self" is tantamount with an "ultimate concern" is not a surprising conclusion from secular humanist narcissist. When one believes they are the center of the universe then obviously all they consider themselves the alpha and the omega...etc.....yet, while related, not at all "close" to what Amore is driving towards (kinda like how close rubbing two sticks together is to a nuclear powered submarine)

If you choose to interpret the desire to project and preserve moral belief - including where it results in self-sacrifice - as being 'narcissistic', then that will be your interpretation. I think that you're mired within the conclusion that 'self preservation' must always be selfish (after all, it sounds as if it must, at first glance). If we can accept that 'self-preservation' can include the ideals and morals of a person, then the contradiction created by self-sacrifice is better understood. I completely accept that the most common definition of 'self-preservation' focuses on physicality without any thought given to motive or moral.

Now, given that you don't subscribe to this idea anyway, what other answer would you give to better satisfy the question of what "colors everything that (people) say and do"?

[_subgenius]

'Meeting the President' has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. You'll have to flesh that out a bit to explain its relevance to the concept.

Carpenter received a medal for his selfish/self-centered action...which according to your theory was merely an act with the intent of gaining attention....ergo "just to meet the President".

You specifically claimed self-preservation and now you want to include things that are contrary to self-preservation as being included in the definition of self-preservation.

Yes. Because it appears contradictory only if we consider that people commit actions to preserve only their physical continuation. This may be true of animals but people have the ability to reason beyond themselves,

beyond themselves obviously, once again, contradicts your position.
Also, a mother/father may sacrifice their own life for their infant-child even though they may realize the child will never know who they were....who their "self" was at all....thus supporting the notion that "self-preservation" is properly defined by most people as opposed to your ad hoc dictionary employed to merely cover your tracks.

and to calculate perpetuation of interest/self-interest vis-à-vis self-sacrifice, if need be. In other words, a person can commit an action that may extinguish their own physicality if it preserves or advances their ideals, or protects their family. A twisted example of this would be how a suicide bomber interprets a specific outcome from his action post-sacrifice.

huh?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-preservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

again, you cannot simply move the goalposts to suit whatever fantasy definition yo want to put forth.
To claim a soldier "sacrifices his self" in order to perpetuate/promote patriotism is exactly a contradiction to what you are claiming. This "patriotism" is not a self-involved ego driven ideal that promotes the self in death....or in life.
This is a simple psychological and biological concept.

The simple contradiction of this is obvious if we consider only self-preservation in its most well-known and simplest form - that of preserving only the physical being. The contradiction no longer exists if you consider the individual's influence capable of transcending that individual's physical existence.

you have not made this argument, nor can you.
If you are proposing that the "self" is able to transcend the physical/natural world and its laws then you are claiming an existence tantamount to a soul......and all without any evidence as of yet.
Supposition is not an argument....nor is it convincing.

The preservation of his ideals

there is no evidence that his actions were intended to, or capable of, preserve anything of Carpenter's. If his life had already subverted his "self" then there is nothing to preserve.
The only conclusion can be that he sought to preserve someone else's life...
which is a direct contradiction to any actual concept of self-preservation.

Oh, i see....the exception does not make the rule only when applied to your arguments.

I only claim that the answer of 'self preservation' so far best fulfills Amore's claim of a single underlying motive that "colors everything that (people) say and do". The question of tossing oneself on a grenade with the outcome being death to the person who did so is the example that you are presenting as the exception. I note that the particular example that you are giving did not result in Carpenter's death anyway.

I'm referring to the definition given for 'super ego'. From http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g ... perego.htm (chosen for simplicity), here's a description:
"The primary action of the superego is to entirely suppress any urges or desires of the id that are considered wrong or socially unacceptable. It also tries to force the ego to act morally rather than realistically. Finally, the superego strives for moral perfections, without taking reality into account."
That dovetails nicely with the action of tossing oneself onto a grenade in an attempt to protect the lives of others.
Now, given that you don't subscribe to this idea anyway, what other answer would you give to better satisfy the question of what "colors everything that (people) say and do"?

But is does not join with any notion of the self. The super-ego is not "self" for that is the ego. So, to claim that suddenly the ego has successfully staged a coup' against the super-ego is interesting...but unsupported and inappropriate as a response to Amore.

[_canpakes]

Carpenter received a medal for his selfish/self-centered action...which according to your theory was merely an act with the intent of gaining attention....ergo "just to meet the President".

That's a strange and somewhat goofy leap. Even if you want to define 'selfish' as the reason for Carpenter's action, it does not follow that it was done to (1) gain attention, or (2) 'just to meet the President'. Those are your odd additions to the conversation, not mine.

beyond themselves obviously, once again, contradicts your position.
Also, a mother/father may sacrifice their own life for their infant-child even though they may realize the child will never know who they were....who their "self" was at all....thus supporting the notion that "self-preservation" is properly defined by most people as opposed to your ad hoc dictionary employed to merely cover your tracks.

.... (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-preservation) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation)

...again, you cannot simply move the goalposts to suit whatever fantasy definition yo want to put forth.
To claim a soldier "sacrifices his self" in order to perpetuate/promote patriotism is exactly a contradiction to what you are claiming. This "patriotism" is not a self-involved ego driven ideal that promotes the self in death....or in life.
This is a simple psychological and biological concept.

First off, a reminder is in order - from my original response:
"It could be reasoned that this action would preserve the super-ego of the one doing it - i.e., his/her belief system ..."
I'm not saying that this is the way that things must be, I'm only exploring the concept in tandem with your exceptional situation of a soldier throwing his body on top of a grenade. There are no tracks to cover and you are absolutely free to disagree with any of this.

If you are proposing that the "self" is able to transcend the physical/natural world and its laws then you are claiming an existence tantamount to a soul......and all without any evidence as of yet.
Supposition is not an argument....nor is it convincing.

That's one viewpoint. The opposite, and related to this topic, might be the case of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi community from the Book of Mormon. Their ultimate decision to bury their weapons - and subsequently be destroyed - certainly points to a failure of self-preservation, at least in the physical sense. But what of their soul and their covenant to their God?

Whether or not the concept of soul or the existence of God and a post-death continuation of anything is still open to debate... so we define 'self preservation' accordingly - inasmuch as it refers to the physical self in simplest terms. I accept this; my comments here aren't trying to redefine the phrase, I'm only exploring an additional dimension of it. The concept of 'self preservation' is interesting from this standpoint and from other situations - such as when arguably 'self-preserving' behavior actually serves to endanger the individual or shorten their life span.

there is no evidence that his actions were intended to, or capable of, preserve anything of Carpenter's. If his life had already subverted his "self" then there is nothing to preserve.
The only conclusion can be that he sought to preserve someone else's life...
which is a direct contradiction to any actual concept of self-preservation.

If the superego 'tries to force the ego to act morally rather than realistically... (it) strives for moral perfections, without taking reality into account', then the superego acts in self-preservation in Carpenter's situation. You cannot assume that death is imminent - or that Carpenter concluded that it was - when one jumps on a grenade. Carpenter's existence proves this.

But is does not join with any notion of the self. The super-ego is not "self" for that is the ego. So, to claim that suddenly the ego has successfully staged a coup' against the super-ego is interesting...but unsupported and inappropriate as a response to Amore.

I think that you're arguing not so much about the super-ego acting in 'self preservation' so much as asserting that my answer of 'self preservation' was not an acceptable response to her statement that "Each person has an underlying motive ("ultimate concern"/god), which colors everything they say and do". That's fine. Perhaps a better response to the statement - to also include those prone to self-sacrifice - is as simple as self awareness.

How would you answer the question?

[_subgenius]

The insistence that basic concepts be redefined simply to accommodate your speculation does not create an argument.
The original statement that the "ultimate" and underlying motive is self preservation is not yet based on any evidence or reasonable inference.
And now we are to presume that only by allowing for a broader and ambiguous definition of the "self" can your hypothesis be elevated to a soft 'maybe'. Saying phrases like "it could be reasoned" is not the same as actually reasoning.
But I suppose the only motive here is for the ego to perpetuate in the ether that which has yet to be ever perpetuated.

[_canpakes]

The insistence that basic concepts be redefined simply to accommodate your speculation does not create an argument.
The original statement that the "ultimate" and underlying motive is self preservation is not yet based on any evidence or reasonable inference.
And now we are to presume that only by allowing for a broader and ambiguous definition of the "self" can your hypothesis be elevated to a soft 'maybe'. Saying phrases like "it could be reasoned" is not the same as actually reasoning.
But I suppose the only motive here is for the ego to perpetuate in the ether that which has yet to be ever perpetuated.

Yet 'self awareness' fits the bill, as vague as it is. That's what happens when the claim ('one thing colors everything that [people] say and do') is similarly broad or implausible.

How would you answer the question?

[_subgenius]

Yet 'self awareness' fits the bill, as vague as it is. That's what happens when the claim ('one thing colors everything that [people] say and do') is similarly broad or implausible.

In the context of Amore's post the concluding statement of " Each person has an underlying motive..." is not similarly broad or implausible.
The idea that each person operates from a singular purpose is both scientifically supported, and metaphysically supported...and even you have supported that notion with your super-ego-self position.
Now, is this singular purpose well-defined? some, like yourself think so...others may not.
Is this singular purpose universal? absolute across all human beings? some, like yourself think so...others may not.
Is it possible to have more than one purpose? Can a human being think, act, and exist with more than one purpose? Can a human being make the determination to have a single purpose, dual purpose, or no purpose?

It seems that the ability to exercise a free-will would enable a person's self to be or not to be....without question.

How would you answer the question?

I would be glad to answer....
now...
....
what question was that? link?

[_canpakes]

In the context of Amore's post the concluding statement of " Each person has an underlying motive..." is not similarly broad or implausible.
The idea that each person operates from a singular purpose is both scientifically supported, and metaphysically supported...and even you have supported that notion with your super-ego-self position.
Now, is this singular purpose well-defined? some, like yourself think so...others may not.
Is this singular purpose universal? absolute across all human beings? some, like yourself think so...others may not.

You're attributing content to my posts that I did not author. I actually cannot state with certainty that any one particular thing is the "underlying motive ("ultimate concern"/god), which colors everything" that a person says or does. That's Amore's argument, so you'll need to direct your debate towards Amore if you find that to be a faulty statement or conclusion. I only propose some possible terms that might satisfy her statement, if taken at face value, somewhat accurately - but I also believe the statement to be too loose to be useful as given. I won't profess to know the answer; nor am I convinced that Amore does, nor have you seemed willing to explore one with your own suggestions.

It seems that the ability to exercise a free-will would enable a person's self to be or not to be....without question.

Do you believe that free will is what you identify as the "underlying motive ("ultimate concern"/god), which colors everything" that a person says and does? Or does free will simply allow the motive in question to be acted upon?

If that isn't 'the motive' that colors 'everything', then what do you believe it to be?