Frank: In my case, there could still be conflict as I have many doubts about numerous issues. However, even assuming perfect agreement, I don't see how that would remove my personal identity. I'm not sure why it would.

I think ‘conflict’ is an unfortunate choice of word. Differences, divergences of view, different attitudes and philosophies are all to be expected - that is what the framework of democracy is supposed to be able to accomodate. But I don’t think ‘conflict’ is necessarily a good way of describing it.

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict — frank

People do seek interpersonal conflict. I think it is a critical piece of individuation. However, by 'conflict' I mean verbal contest. Debating, arguing, strongly disagreeing. It might be the case that in arguing you convince someone of your point of view, but at least for young people the principle benefit is convincing one's self of what one believes, holds dear, thinks is right, or wrong, and so forth.

There is also conflict within, the inability to decide. This inspires thought. Without this conflict, would there be no thinking?

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, His wife could eat no lean; And so betwixt them both, They lick'd the platter clean.

No, we don't need conflict for identity.

People do seek interpersonal conflict. I think it is a critical piece of individuation. However, by 'conflict' I mean verbal contest. Debating, arguing, strongly disagreeing. — Bitter Crank

Couldn't larger scale conflicts be performing the same function? It's not necessarily that people go into battle to flesh out their identities, but maybe that's a side-effect. Strongly emotional identity tags appear like winner, loser, strong, weak, divinely helped, divinely abandoned, etc.

Once an identity forms, it becomes passed down generationally and elaborated upon. A fresh dose of contest may be required to dust it off and rejuvenate it. Verbal contests might just be the cheapest form of energy injection.

Can you see any of that in the verbal contests you enter into? Or not?

There is also conflict within, the inability to decide. This inspires thought. Without this conflict, would there be no thinking? — Metaphysician Undercover

Is it conflict? Or questioning? Both?

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, His wife could eat no lean; And so betwixt them both, They lick'd the platter clean.

No, we don't need conflict for identity. — unenlightened

True. I don't see "I like fat" as a big part of personality. It is a part, though.

if only it were that simple.

What's the complicated part?

Once an identity forms, it becomes passed down generationally and elaborated upon. A fresh dose of contest may be required to dust it off and rejuvenate it. Verbal contests might just be the cheapest form of energy injection.

Can you see any of that in the verbal contests you enter into? Or not? — frank

Absolutely.

Larger identities (like, "Scandinavian", "Anglican", "French" (especially French), are inherited. Some identities like "millennial" or "hippy" are rather foamy identities without too much substance. And identities benefit from the refreshment of conflict, and again I am not speaking of combat. Someone who really identifies as an anarchist or a socialist or a syndicalist in 2018 is going to need to reargue his case periodically, because there is so little in current society that would positively reinforce such an identity. Gay men, on the other hand, don't need to argue their case, because we can live the identity.

Actual combat experiences forge new identities among the combatants. Strenuous political campaigns can do the same thing. But these kind of experiences can't be arranged. One signs up or is drafted, and somebody else is in charge of the war or the campaign.

Gay men, on the other hand, don't need to argue their case, because we can live the identity. — Bitter Crank

But doesn't it amplify your gayness if you're around people who are uneasy about it? Imagine being brownish in a crowd of brownish, versus being brown among all light-beige people. A sort of phantom brown person appears. The beige people talk to the phantom.

This is getting more poetic than I intended.

Personality. If you don't think it's complicated then you shouldn't have any trouble defining it clearly and comprehensively.

Personality. If you don't think it's complicated then you shouldn't have any trouble defining it clearly and comprehensively. — praxis

Actually I thought you were saying you knew the complicated part. I misunderstood.

or imagine being beige among the mauve, or being puce anywhere.

Being among a large hostile red crowd tends to squelch my lavender pheromones, but it stimulates cortisol, so... one thing is down, something else is up. I prefer to pick a fight where the odds are not overwhelmingly bad.

At this point in life (old age) I mostly welcome the opportunity to validate my gay identity where I can scan with gaydar, flirt a bit and feel a little jolt of interest. Where I need a vigorous argument is on political grounds, to validate my leftist political identity.

Is it conflict? Or questioning? Both? — frank

In my OED there's a definition of conflict in psychology as "the opposition of incompatible needs or wishes within a person". So yes, I think this is conflict.

scan with gaydar — Bitter Crank

Scan with gaydar?

or imagine being beige among the mauve, or being puce anywhere. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. Puce people have bad breath. Everybody knows that.

In my OED there's a definition of conflict in psychology as "the opposition of incompatible needs or wishes within a person". So yes, I think this is conflict. — Metaphysician Undercover

You were talking about the requirements of thought. I asked if that's conflict or questioning. Schopenhauer would say conflict, I think.

Allow me to rephrase the question: what exactly do you mean when you say 'personality' in the opening post?

Sure! I was thinking of "persona" and "personhood" when I wrote "personality." I was contrasting it to material aspects of who you are like your material history, your genetic make-up, and so forth.

For example, "In the spring, Jean had painted a large, semi-abstract mural in her bedroom full of red circles, turquoise blocks, and pink splashes. It was very foreign to her black and blue personality. When autumn came and it was time to transform the mural to something earthy, pending the dive into a brooding, deathly winter mural, she breathed a sigh of relief as if something was unwinding inside her."

Here, personality is associated with a season. It's manifest in the kind of aesthetic Jean identifies with. There are obviously connections between her material self and this persona, but it's more in the realm of the abstract. There are also ties to that boundless experience of being, but it's less immediate than that. I tend to think of it as being something like music, but that may be too obscure a way to think of it.

Scan with gaydar? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, is "gaydar" not known everywhere? Gay radar or "Gaydar" is the mystical ability of gay men to recognize each other at a distance based on nothing more than a glance. First-glance ID is fairly accurate, but if in doubt, one looks twice or thrice. With firm confidence, one can consider asking the guy if he'd like to fuck and where would he prefer going. So you go there and a good time is had by all and sundry. Later on you might ask him his name. Or not.

IF one is quite mistaken, a situation of intense conflict might ensue, the outcome of which may be a more refined sense of how precarious existence can be.

If all this doesn't make sense, just RSVP and I will happily explain it all in excruciating detail.

IF one is quite mistaken, a situation of intense conflict might ensue, the outcome of which may be a more refined sense of how precarious existence can be. — Bitter Crank

When the gaydar fails it could turn into a gay bashing? That precariousness scares me.

You were talking about the requirements of thought. I asked if that's conflict or questioning. Schopenhauer would say conflict, I think. — frank

Yes, I think that type of conflict is a requirement for thought.

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict reflects what? — frank

The degree of seriousness in whatever the purpose is for seeking conflict, I suppose. The purpose for seeking conflict could be practice in argumentation in order to improve skills, or to gain a reward of some kind (perhaps only an ego boost), or merely for amusement.

When the gaydar fails it could turn into a gay bashing? That precariousness scares me. — Metaphysician Undercover

As well it should. Of course, proceed with caution. But actually, it's not all that risky if one uses common sense. There are people I wouldn't approach for so much as the time of day, even if I had a stack of affidavits stating that they were definitely gay and available.

OK then, being old and experienced as you are, I won't worry about you ... unless you start to tell me that your gaydar can work over the internet.

There are people I wouldn't approach for so much as the time of day, even if I had a stack of affidavits stating that they were definitely gay and available. — Bitter Crank

Isn't that just personal preference though? You know, we all have innate inclinations to be attracted to this rather than that. Or are you talking about the capacity to discern a person's character just by looking at them? Is that a valid judgement, which is properly derived from experience, or is that a form of bias which manifests as racism in the extreme?

The purpose for seeking conflict could be practice in argumentation in order to improve skills, or to gain a reward of some kind (perhaps only an ego boost), or merely for amusement. — praxis

I agree. Any sort of conflict may or may not boost identity.

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict reflects what? — frank

Great question. Not sure I have a great answer, but here's a try.

Interpersonal conflict seems to often involve some kind of superiority claim. I am right, you are wrong etc. Put another way, I am big, you are small.

Why do we want to feel big, as measured by some social comparison? Because we feel small.

Why do we feel small? Because we are made of thought, an electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of dividing reality in to conceptual parts. This process creates the experience of reality being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very small and "everything else" being very big.

One way we attempt to overcome this perceived smallness is by attaching ourselves to something larger. So I become a Democrat, a Catholic, an American, something, anything larger than myself. Once I've attached myself to this something larger the something larger becomes an extension of my small self. If you question my something larger I will defend it, because it is me. If you present an effective challenge to my something larger, I may have to burn you at the stake.

I'm not entirely satisfied with this answer, but it's the direction I'm exploring. We're made of thought, so we experience ourselves as small, so the need arises to demonstrate that we are at least bigger than somebody.

Or are you talking about the capacity to discern a person's character just by looking at them? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, no. Not character. I do not think one can identify someone's character at a glance, or even through a little casual interaction, such as a fairly simple financial transaction. Judging character takes time, I think.

This gaydar thing doesn't reveal very much about someone, other than that they are exhibiting certain subtle traits. [And what all those subtle traits are, I would be hard pressed to list.] Gaydar doesn't tell one what the guy is like, whether you will like them, and so on. Spotting another gay guy in a crowd of straights means one can at least pursue the possibility.

The purpose for seeking conflict could be practice in argumentation in order to improve skills, or to gain a reward of some kind (perhaps only an ego boost), or merely for amusement.
— praxis

I agree. Any sort of conflict may or may not boost identity. — frank

So in the situation where someone seeks out a conflict in order to gain a gratifying sense of superiority your claim is that, if they’re victorious, their identity will be boosted?

The particular behavior or habit would be boosted if they got a dopamine hit or whatever, but I don’t see how their ‘identity’ would be boosted. And what about the looser of the conflict who did not seek conflict? Your claim would seem to imply that their identity would be weakened. But what if they strongly identified as a looser? Then wouldn’t their identity be strengthened?

Maybe it would help if you explained exactly how identity is strengthened or weakened?