Chapter 5 Self Summary

        In chapter 5, the self, how we understand our “self” concept is discussed. We develop self-recognition around 18-24 months of age and when we become an adult it expands into our 4 components of the “self”, those being: 

• self-knowledge (beliefs, formulation, and organization about who we think we are), 
• self-control (our plans and how we execute them), 
• impression management (presentation of our self), 
• self-esteem (how we feel about our self). 

        Each of these four items is then broken down further to elaborate on how they each work. Such as: 

• self-knowledge is a composition of cultural differences (independent western views vs. interdependent eastern views) 
• gender differences (men, group memberships, vs. women, rationale close relationships, in interdependency) 
• introspection (rationalizing our actions and decisions based on the reasoning that may or may not be accurate)
• self behavior observation (consisting of... 

1. self-perception theory, when we don’t understand how we feel and we have to rely on our actions to fill in the ambiguity 
2. over-justification effect, where extrinsic reasons rely on more than intrinsic reasons and 
3. 2-factor theory of emotion, arousal provoked then explanation for it is sought after), understanding our mindset abilities (fixed, leaving no room for growth in failure and growth, where we will fail but press on in determination),
4. social comparison theory (where we learn about ourselves through the eyes of other people and their thoughts about us). 

        Self-control is elaborated on through the explanation of expenditure of energy and how if we expend too much on one self-control we may lack enough energy to expend for another control we may be attempting at the same time. Impression management suggests that we are actors and actresses in the performances of our lives trying to convince our audiences of who we want them to think we are. 2 ways we go about doing that is through ingratiation, excessive ego-boosting and butt-kissing, and self-handicapping, where we can create our own roadblocks then gripe about them later like they were the real reason for our downfall. Self-esteem is one of the essentials to avoiding depression and helps us deal creatively (through terror management theory) with mortality, however, too much of a good thing is not a good thing anymore and can lead to a narcissistic personality where you lack empathy and just turn into a cold-hearted person who’s self-centered.

        The whole world is definitely my stage. I am very extroverted while also being extremely introverted. I keep what is highly important to me out in the open and I keep shallow things close to my heart that way people think they are digging for a treasure that’s under lock and key, leaving what I love alone. I keep them digging for a false idol. I have always been honest with people, maybe to bluntly honest, but the funny thing about that is that people really do prefer to be lied to then hear the truth because they seldom believe the truth. In an essence, you could lay it all out there and as long as you do it with a giant smile and a pleasant tone in your voice they will more than likely not believe you, but if you come up with a juicy elaborate story and Gaga-esk flamboyancies then they will believe every word you utter and watch your every move to interrupt it the wrong way. To further my on-stage performance I self handicap myself so that I have a better platform on which to stand. I mean how many simple-problem free people do you know, and if you do, do they have anything to contribute to the working classes gossip column that people use to pass the time that they spend miserably working and missing out on life. Without a platform in which to stand and commiserate with these people, I would be even lonelier than I already am. So the post office is my stage, my actions are my terror management and life is my handicap, but I do have a plan so I am not in a fixed mindset but a long hard road of growth mindset, so I’m not completely doomed.

Personal Perception Questions and Answers

• Can I think of examples from my own life in which my views of myself have been shaped by the views of my parents, friends, or teachers?     

One of the biggest views that I have of myself stems from a view that my mother had of me. Independency. My mother looked at me as an independent child, an independent teenager, and as an independent adult. She allowed her own life events to shape her perception of how I should be to such a degree that she superimposed independency on me to what she will today say “is to a fault”. Meaning that her views of how I should be were so strong that I followed the path she encouraged me to take so hard and so well that I will not let myself be dependent on anyone for anything so much so that I have theoretically isolated myself from many aspects of life.

• Or by way of community and culture in which I lived?

            I do not really remember being affiliated with any sort of community and my culture is a white girl growing up in North America, more specifically Pittsburgh Pa during the 1980s and ’90s with a very broken home and broken extended family. My culture may have had traditions when I was younger but none that mattered enough to be followed throughout my life and I didn’t attach myself to any specific group in school or outside of school because nothing seemed to fit with how I thought, which was typically more profoundly than that of the company I did end up keeping (downward social comparison). And oddly, because apparently so many people do see the world racially or otherwise separated, I never saw groups or individuals as anything but people, despite that I knew what prejudice was, older people in my extended family were, but it never resonated with me. People just seemed different shades of sun-baked to me, because logically that’s all race is, the amount of sun your heritage got due to its original location. So there weren’t communities to join or cultures to really submerge myself into cause I looked at everything differently. I mean isn’t a culture really on a set of traditions that a family comes up with that becomes widespread as more people are born into or become part of a certain family line that started the tradition, to begin with.    

• Can I think of an example in which I influenced someone else’s self-views?

            I put my ex through rehab because I influenced his thinking just enough that he looked at himself and admitted he had a problem and then wholeheartedly, for himself, looked for help to change what he realized he needed help for. He thanked me in the end for standing by him and influencing him to think better of himself and has been sober and clean for over 5 years now.  

• Can I think of a couple of ways to get a friend of mine, who needs it, a confidence boost?

            Find them a hobby that interests them so that they can feel full-filled and accomplished. X-Box, the official hobby of postal employees, is not a hobby and I am trying to make them realize that.

Chapter 4 Social Perception

        In chapter 4, Social Perceptions, the use of non-verbal cues, implicit personality theories, our determination of why people do stuff, and the cultural role of attribution formation are discussed. Non-verbal communication is broken down into the 6 universal emotional facial expressions of anger, fear, disgust, happiness, sadness, and surprise; these being cross-cultural and non-species specific. Also, the affect blend that occurs when we are experiencing more than one emotion at a time. Other forms of non-verbal communication would be display rules, that are not cross-cultural but instead very culturally specific, and emblems that are also not cross-cultural, and should be carefully studied as to not offend others from other cultures. Implicit personality theories are us simply filling in the blanks when not enough verbal communication is present and we turn to our already premade schemas to fill in the missing information, whether our schemas are correct or not. Each person’s schemas are different but do get passed down from generationally and based on culture. In order to answer why people do stuff, we must look at the attribution theory byways of its internal (personal attitudes and character) and/or external (based on a specific situation occurring) nature. A covariation model pits these two against each other were we rely on consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information to make our decision. Where we being flawed human beings are susceptible to the fundamental attribution error where we tend to match up to how a person's behavior and disposition should go together. We tend to do this by way of a 2 step process that begins with a dispositional analysis that can be, but not always is, followed up by an analysis of the situation if we possibly feel we are making an error in judgment. This chapter also discusses on, several occasions, the distinct differences between eastern and western cultures; eastern cultures being interdependent cultures that view themselves through outsiders’ eyes and with more holistic thinking, and western cultures being individualistic thinkers that analyze everything and are very self-absorbed. Attributing to the self-serving attributions of defensive attributions (mortality avoidance), belief in a just world (good and bad people get what they deserve, karma), and the bias blind spot (we are not susceptible to attribution biases, other people are). The cultural role in attribution formation is definitely different depending upon the culture you’ve grown up in.
        
        I can honestly say that I am aware that I am a girl made up of schemas. I am fully dependent upon them and I put everyone I meet and every situation I’m in into one. Though, I would like to think that I tend to think more holistically than the apparent, traditional westerner. I like to look at the situations surrounding people and when I feel that a certain situation merits my attention because I have learned that other people's business does not need to be mine, I take in the surroundings of that situation instead of focusing on just one aspect/person. People sometimes get mad at me because I like to be the outsider looking in, including on myself, that way I can see the whole picture instead of one piece. What is one piece? One-piece never finished a puzzle or told a whole story. I do look at the dispositional attributes of any one person or situation but at the same time, I am also looking for what is causing them to have that disposition. Everyone does not act a certain way for no reason. They act a certain way for very specific reasons and while I use my schemas to definitely fill in what I cannot find clear answers to, I always continue to look for those answers until my puzzle pieces all fit how they should. Because I do these people around me wish I was more apathetic, empathetic, and/or sympathetic but sometimes I just have to look at the whole picture as facts and assess it in terms of what is really going on. That way I can make my decision of whether this situation/person is something/someone I want to be around. That in itself does allude to the fact that I do follow an individualist approach; since I look at the “whole” for myself, not for the good of the group. I was not raised with strong affiliations to anything/anyone so I have only myself to affiliate to.