• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Personality Responsibility for Behavior

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
bluechillj;1207245; said:
It's interesting, I don't really see the same lack of responsibility-taking that it seems like others do. I think that the younger generation I see today are forced to be much more responsible than many people were at that age, myself included and I'm not that far removed. There is a ton of pressure to get the right grades, be involved in the right activities, etc, as college and other things are more competitive than ever. Yeah, there are still irresponsible people like in any age cohort, but I can't say I buy into the whole "things were better when I was that age, people are irresponsible nowadays" arguments.

And to me, as I argued above, it's not as simple as just "taking responsibility" anyway. Behavior is a complicated things, and while taking responsibility may help in many situations, it doesn't work in all the ones that are influenced by factors beyond our control.
Click to expand...

parents call teachers and blame the teachers for giving their kids bad grades. when kids get caught with drugs parents call the principal and say they aren't his. when kids graduate college they are moving home in larger and larger numbers to mooch off their parents. the list goes on and on.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;1207449; said:
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." -
-- Socrates...406 B.C.
Click to expand...

the point of my post wasn't to call out the kids, it was to call out the parents. if parents don't teach personal responsibility to their kids, who will?
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;1207289; said:
This is so much bullchit. I don't give a rat's ass about how genetics affect a person or how many studies they do. A person is responsible for his actions and needs to act as a socially responsible party.
That is why we have the options between right and wrong and are taught them by interaction our whole lives.
All this sounds like more of "it's not my fault BS"!
Click to expand...

Well, agree to disagree that my opinion is "bullchit." Damn, beat that censor! I think that understanding the causes of behavior and realizing that much influences it outside of our selves doesn't "excuse" behavior or mean that a person should lead their lives without taking responsible for their behavior. Personally, I find people who act responsible for their actions to be generally quite admirable.

However, it's laughable how much evidence there is that much of our behavior is partially outside of our control. This has been known for many many years, in the present we are just finding new ways to demonstrate this same point. I'm asking what we do with that knowledge, and how we view other people in light of that. Dismissing it out of hand isn't an argument that offers alternative explanations. Yes, one option is to say that we should continue to hold other people 100% accountable, even if we know that other things influence their behavior. I think that is perfectly fine in many cases, as long as one is aware of the assumption they are making (I often follow this).

However, after seeing demonstrated many times other people's behaviors manipulated by things as simple as changing a color they see or a single word they read, I'm willing to hold people mostly, but not completely accountable for many types of actions. In many cases they don't have complete control of what they are doing. Again, that doesn't mean that THEY shouldn't take responsibility, but it seems fair for ME to view them in a more complicated way given this knowledge.

I'm sure many people disagree with this framing, but I imagine that this is what this subforum was set up for, right? :) Interesting to hear the various views.
 
Upvote 0
bluechillj;1207788; said:
However, it's laughable how much evidence there is that much of our behavior is partially outside of our control.
Click to expand...

It's kind of laughable how much of this "evidence" is not definitive or can at best suggest that certain external factors may influence our behavior. We should indeed hold most people 100% accountable for their actions, because despite those influences we all ultimately have the capacity to make the same decisions (right or wrong ones). The burden for accomodating our unique personal makeup into the norms of human social behavior is completely our own, not society's or anyone else's.

It is admirable for you (or anyone) to attempt to understand why people do the things they do, but any understanding you may come to does not absolve their responsibility for their actions.
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck;1208010; said:
It's kind of laughable how much of this "evidence" is not definitive or can at best suggest that certain external factors may influence our behavior. We should indeed hold most people 100% accountable for their actions, because despite those influences we all ultimately have the capacity to make the same decisions (right or wrong ones). The burden for accomodating our unique personal makeup into the norms of human social behavior is completely our own, not society's or anyone else's.

It is admirable for you (or anyone) to attempt to understand why people do the things they do, but any understanding you may come to does not absolve their responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...

I'm nitpicking a little, because I agree with much of what you said....and, it's true that many times people overinterpret evidence in the media beyond what they should. However, there's still plenty of research out there that I would call definitive. When you randomly assign people to one of two external influences, and then show differences in their behavior as a result of that which external influence they had, I think that's quite definitive. There's no other explanation except that their behavior was partially outside of their control.

(Again, this is a slightly different issue than whether we should hold them completely accountable or not anywway. Just trying to justify my premise for asking the question.)
 
Upvote 0
bluechillj;1208035; said:
I'm nitpicking a little, because I agree with much of what you said....and, it's true that many times people overinterpret evidence in the media beyond what they should. However, there's still plenty of research out there that I would call definitive. When you randomly assign people to one of two external influences, and then show differences in their behavior as a result of that which external influence they had, I think that's quite definitive. There's no other explanation except that their behavior was partially outside of their control.

(Again, this is a slightly different issue than whether we should hold them completely accountable or not anywway. Just trying to justify my premise for asking the question.)
Click to expand...
But exactly what behaviors are being influenced in these studies? Are they relatively minor decisions that are being influenced, such as the color red makes people more hungry than the color blue? Or are you claiming that outside influences can make people steal, murder, rape, etc? I think it's a matter of degree - I'm sure some external factors can influence some minor decisions, but when it comes to committing major crimes or behaving in a way that is way outside of our moral standards, I don't think you can blame poor decision making on outside factors and that the individual must be held 100% accountable for their actions. (I'm excluding the mentally ill from this discussion as I don't think that's what we're talking about here)
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;1208047; said:
But exactly what behaviors are being influenced in these studies? Are they relatively minor decisions that are being influenced, such as the color red makes people more hungry that the color blue? Or are you claiming that outside influences can make people steal, murder, rape, etc? I think it's a matter of degree - I'm sure some external factors can influence some minor decisions, but when it comes to committing major crimes or behaving in a way that is way outside of our moral standards, I don't think you can blame poor decision making on outside factors and that the individual must be held 100% accountable for their actions. (I'm excluding the mentally ill from this discussion as I don't think that's what we're talking about here)
Click to expand...

A range of behaviors from trivial to more severe ones....you are accurately pointing out the question of generalizability, which is always an important one to consider, and something to be cautious about for things like murder, rape, etc, since it's obviously not ethical to attempt to see if we can cause those. But take something like the Milgram study, for example, if you are familiar with it. Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that external influences do generalize to more severe behaviors, even though personally I think we have to hold people 100% accountable in those cases. Much of what social psychologists have studied since WWII has been exploring the influences of external factors on the way seemingly normal humans can commit despicable acts.
 
Upvote 0
bluechillj;1208056; said:
A range of behaviors from trivial to more severe ones....you are accurately pointing out the question of generalizability, which is always an important one to consider, and something to be cautious about for things like murder, rape, etc, since it's obviously not ethical to attempt to see if we can cause those. But take something like the Milgram study, for example, if you are familiar with it. Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that external influences do generalize to more severe behaviors, even though personally I think we have to hold people 100% accountable in those cases. Much of what social psychologists have studied since WWII has been exploring the influences of external factors on the way seemingly normal humans can commit despicable acts.
Click to expand...

I LOVE that experiment. I still don't agree with you that those people were out of control in the sense that they reacted in ways they were not ultimately responsible for (if I am understanding your theme correctly)
In a sense they were very much in control. They were making decisions to commit acts they knew were atrocious but that their current societal makeup fully allowed and encouraged. That experiment served to show that anyone can make the choice to become "animal" or commit horrific acts if the society they are a part of condones the behavior. But it doesn't absolve responsibility. The participants are still making choices. I will grant that ultimately it isn't much of a choice, to not conform or perform as expected even while it goes against an individual's inclination as there is usually a retaliation component involved at the same time.



That experiment fully illustrates how each one of us would do awful things if we weren't constrained by societal norms that ethically and "morally" govern our behavior. We make choices to abide by these unwritten rules, until such a time as there are no rules or the rules are dramatically adjusted by someone of sufficient authority.
This scenario has been illustrated over and over in history.

Hm, that might be a wholly different musings thread.
 
Upvote 0
OCBuckWife;1208066; said:
I LOVE that experiment. I still don't agree with you that those people were out of control in the sense that they reacted in ways they were not ultimately responsible for (if I am understanding your theme correctly)
In a sense they were very much in control. They were making decisions to commit acts they knew were atrocious but that their current societal makeup fully allowed and encouraged. That experiment served to show that anyone can make the choice to become "animal" or commit horrific acts if the society they are a part of condones the behavior. But it doesn't absolve responsibility. The participants are still making choices. I will grant that ultimately it isn't much of a choice, to not conform or perform as expected even while it goes against an individual's inclination as there is usually a retaliation component involved at the same time.



That experiment fully illustrates how each one of us would do awful things if we weren't constrained by societal norms that ethically and "morally" govern our behavior. We make choices to abide by these unwritten rules, until such a time as there are no rules or the rules are dramatically adjusted by someone of sufficient authority.
This scenario has been illustrated over and over in history.

Hm, that might be a wholly different musings thread.
Click to expand...

If I read you correctly, I think you are saying, perhaps more clearly than I am, what I was trying to express. Like you, I hold those people responsible in the end, but I want to point out that they are not in complete control of their behavior. This probably means I'm defining "control" a bit differently than you are, but I'm in agreement.

If people are defining "in control" as "eventually conducted the behavior, regardless of the causes" then yes, it is total control. If people define "in control" as fully 100% causing the behavior, then I would argue this is not total control in this example (because free of outside influence, people aren't going to do this behavior).
 
Upvote 0
bluechillj;1208072; said:
If I read you correctly, I think you are saying, perhaps more clearly than I am, what I was trying to express. Like you, I hold those people responsible in the end, but I want to point out that they are not in complete control of their behavior. This probably means I'm defining "control" a bit differently than you are, but I'm in agreement.

If people are defining "in control" as "eventually conducted the behavior, regardless of the causes" then yes, it is total control. If people define "in control" as fully 100% causing the behavior, then I would argue this is not total control in this example (because free of outside influence, people aren't going to do this behavior).
Click to expand...

We may be getting to a closer point of agreement I think.

Yes, it is definitely easier to commit acts otherwise deemed abhorrent if your "control" system, such as society expectations, is looser and less judgemental. I still think you are perhaps giving too much leeway however. You seem to be seeing "outside influence" as a cause, rather than an influence or factor.

Continuing to use the Oskar Schindler extreme example:
"Oh, society says its ok to work Jews to death but I don't agree but aw, what the heck, maybe just this once, lets see how it feels."

Being free of an outside influence is not the end all be all of a decision to take an action or an not. It's a factor in the internal evaluation of the "rightness" of an action, regardless of how split second that final decision might be.
Otherwise, you wouldn't also see "Oh, society says its ok to work Jews to death, but I don't agree so, although can't do a lot for them or I may lose my businessI can try to do a little something."
 
Upvote 0
I'm not completely certain how we got onto such extreme examples, sorry! Godwin's Law jumped in really quick and almost unseen!

Referring back to the original idea of genetics playing a part in behavior, and the subsequent lack of control due to predisposition, I still have to disagree. It may give a very strong INCLINATION to a certain behavior but it doesn't guarantee a certain behavior every time, IMHO. Once the inclination is recognized, a choice is then made to make adjustments to the behavior or not and that is control. The initial behavior may be out of the individual's control but once undertaken and recognized as "bad", it is totally within an individual's control from that point on.
 
Upvote 0
OCBuckWife;1208082; said:
We may be getting to a closer point of agreement I think.

Yes, it is definitely easier to commit acts otherwise deemed abhorrent if your "control" system, such as society expectations, is looser and less judgemental. I still think you are perhaps giving too much leeway however. You seem to be seeing "outside influence" as a cause, rather than an influence or factor.

Continuing to use the Oskar Schindler extreme example:
"Oh, society says its ok to work Jews to death but I don't agree but aw, what the heck, maybe just this once, lets see how it feels."

Being free of an outside influence is not the end all be all of a decision to take an action or an not. It's a factor in the internal evaluation of the "rightness" of an action, regardless of how split second that final decision might be.
Otherwise, you wouldn't also see "Oh, society says its ok to work Jews to death, but I don't agree so, although can't do a lot for them or I may lose my businessI can try to do a little something."
Click to expand...

Interesting. You are right that I do view outside influences as causal, although as partial causes. And some would argue that if a person is even 1% causing a behavior, then that might as well be 100% (not sure yet where I fall on this). If I'm understanding, I think your example illustrates the situations in which there is an ability to more consciously determine behavior, but I would go back to things like implicit associations which can partially cause our behavior while being outside of our conscious control and awareness, and are likely heavily derived from things like culture, which are also largely outside of our control. The very alarming thing about these associations is that a person can totally consciously disagree with them (your example: "I don't think we should work Jewish people so hard"), and yet can be unconsciously caused to act in a biased way toward those people for certain behaviors (this is where my using your example no longer fits, as I don't think this behavior would be applicable :)).

It seems like a lot of the difference in perspective may come down to how much one "buys into" these particular types of causes and a person's ability to act independently of them.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top