The Monkeysphere

[Aurielius]

The point is that there is a limit to the number of people with whom you can maintain a given level of intimacy. And at the most trivial level of intimacy, you can only manage around 150 people. People beyond that group are not full-fledged humans. They are stereotypes. One-dimensional. Platonic ideals. That's the only way you can be around thousands of people without stressing your brain.

 

You can see this happening within this thread. Take the Comic Sans–user, for instance, who imagines soldiers “risking their lives every day for people they will never know”: Is this engaging with the soldiers as individuals, with complex motivations? No, it's just stuffing them into some propagandistic, one-dimensional ideal of a soldier. And doing that isn't inherently right or wrong – it's just a necessary, reflexive action. But you should know how it biases your judgment.

 

Well with a 'nom de plume' such as you have that makes naming calling redundant, but at least you have a sense of self awareness. But I will take issue with the points that you have made. First since you are a self admitted civilian, do you not think it presumptuous to speak for a class of people that you have no intimate knowledge of? Either you are in the fraternity or not and acquaintances don't count. Whenever someone wants to say something derogatory about a group they always prefix it with the phrase that they have friends of that ilk. I personally find your assumptions of the motivations of those of us who have served our country to be as insightful as the ten blind men examining the elephant, one dimensional and flawed. I have personally seen Marines die to rescue a navy pilot they had never met or knew, I don't think they were considering whether he was in their 'monkeysphere' . The second part is your polemic on what a soldier is perceived as, you are allowing you political bias to come to the fore of which gratefully is a extreme minority viewpoint. There are numerous examples of 'in country' vets coming to the aid of children who were in need of one thing or another. it's called altruism.

 

Lastly the 'comic sans' user has a name..Grannywills and she at least displayed a style of debating courtesy that you so evidently lack, you might want to learn by her example.

[Lisnpuppy]

Pay no attention to Marxist B....he and I have debated before and he loves his shock value. Probably one of those kids that liked to poke dead things with sticks but we can't know for sure. (lol)

 

Here is the problem with the Monkeysphere. In regular, everyday stuff it is probably correct. How far will we go to interact or help individuals that are outside this sphere for normal, daily issues? Not very I expect. Also there is another sociological theory that says the more people around in an adverse situation the less likely any individual is to act. *shrug*

 

What it doesn't seem to account for is the human ability to have empathy and sympathy for even these faceless strangers. (Which is kinda a weird thing if you really think about it...but that is another topic.) The human ability to replace these faceless strangers either with the known...or ideals upon which they are willing to act. It doesn't take into consideration of the true, sometimes horrifying extremes in life and the ability of folks to suspend their thoughts of self-motivation, affection and even self-preservation to intercede to help those outside their monkeysphere.

 

I think an interesting set of ideas would be to study this and then attempt to account for the myriad of times of when people DO take great pains to interact with the ones OUTSIDE their sphere and why its done.

[LadyMilla]

First of all, the name "monkeysphere" is a badly chosen one. Comparison between monkeys and humans still stir negative feelings in a lot of people. I'd rather call it "emphatic sphere". And actually, it is not a new concept. It was discussed and analyzed in my philosophy classes during my college years (+10 years ago). The quoted theory is a badly twisted version of what we debated back then.

 

Pyrosocial wrote:

"when I was in orlando, I saw a women in a wheelchair wheeling her self up a ramp to a ride, and I got behind her and pushed her up the ramp.

 

I'm fairly certain that she wasn't in my "monkey sphere". Interesting thoery though."

 

Certainly, according to the quoted theory she wasn't. But according to the theory we discussed with our philosophy lecturer back in college: she DID enter Pyrosocial's emphatic sphere, and triggered a response based on Pyrosocial's beliefs, values and emphatic capacity.

 

Also, Aurelius wrote:

 

"I have personally seen Marines die to rescue a navy pilot they had never met or knew, I don't think they were considering whether he was in their 'monkeysphere' "

 

Certainly he was not, but as soon as they learned about the navy pilot, that pilot entered their emphatic sphere. (The sphere is actually a misleading term: it is a set of entities/beings that interact with you and the strength of interaction with them exceeds a certain trigger level. The kind of response elicited by the interaction, of course, depends on the values or scripts (accepted behaviour patterns) internalized by the observer. Obviously, you cannot belong to a group (Marines) without internalizing most or all of their values, and those values will shape your response to emphatic triggers.)

 

 

[Marxist ßastard]

Because i said never written destroy the monkey spheres

Okay? Um, good for you, I guess. But I never read your post and I wasn't replying to it. I'd ask why you made a logical leap like that to draw yourself into a contentious discussion, but I honestly don't care.

 

Either you are in the fraternity or not

Are you?

[Lisnpuppy]

Because i said never written destroy the monkey spheres

Okay? Um, good for you, I guess. But I never read your post and I wasn't replying to it. I'd ask why you made a logical leap like that to draw yourself into a contentious discussion, but I honestly don't care.

 

Either you are in the fraternity or not

Are you?

 

*rolls eyes at Marxist*

 

What do either of those comments have to do with the topic? However since I know Aurielius was a Navy Pilot I believe he may even BE that Navy guy getting helped by those Marines...and thus....yes is in the fraternity.

 

You can do better than that. Make an argument for your belief here.

[HeyYou]

I think being a member of a 'club', (the military being an example of what I mean here......) expands your 'sphere' to include those that are also members..... Hence, why soldiers are more than willing to risk their own lives, for other members of the military.

[grannywils]

Because i said never written destroy the monkey spheres

Okay? Um, good for you, I guess. But I never read your post and I wasn't replying to it. I'd ask why you made a logical leap like that to draw yourself into a contentious discussion, but I honestly don't care.

 

Either you are in the fraternity or not

Are you?

- Marxist Bastard, this is not my quote. I could answer anyway, but now you have become simply inane and annoying so I choose not to. I will just ignore you.

[Aurielius]

I think being a member of a 'club', (the military being an example of what I mean here......) expands your 'sphere' to include those that are also members..... Hence, why soldiers are more than willing to risk their own lives, for other members of the military.

I see your point and would have to agree with you since at times they are closer than family and the empathy might be considered extended to all cousins no matter how distant. That still leaves the example of children and the medically disadvantaged that are helped by vets in place , that is still altruistic behavior.

 

@MB

I think that I agree with Lisnpuppy you are just enthralled with the concept of shock value but none the less ...yes.

 

@Grannywills

The latest remark was aimed at me not you, he is attempting to depersonalize us by refusing to acknowledge or respond by name. It is a ploy to support his thesis, which only attempts to prove his concept of limited empathy of which I can believe might be personally true for him. Marxism after all is not a benign philosophy and empathy for others is not one of their known attributes if history is any guide, the Gulags were full of people that the Marxists felt were beyond their sphere.

 

@Lisnpuppy

Thanks , you spared me the trouble of having to compose one of my droll sarcastic responses, I have been trying hard to be a good lad on this thread and would like it to remain focused. The thesis has two sides ..the glass half full or half empty.. of which is revealing in itself as to the nature of the adherents of either position.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Altruism can be seen in many folks. Not just vets. (although, they tend to be in places where it is more likely to come into play.....)

 

I will at least make the attempt to help damn near anyone that I see 'in need'..... mostly folks broke down on the side of the road..... but, I am also a vet. :D Does that negate my argument??

[Aurielius]

Altruism can be seen in many folks. Not just vets. (although, they tend to be in places where it is more likely to come into play.....)

 

I will at least make the attempt to help damn near anyone that I see 'in need'..... mostly folks broke down on the side of the road..... but, I am also a vet. :D Does that negate my argument??

I certainly hope that it doesn't negate your position and I definably was not laying sole claim to altruism as the sole province of the military, we just happen to be in places where bad things are easy to see...Doctors Without Frontiers comes to mind as a civilian example.