My True and Authentic Self in Conversation

Some comments from readers about "What Would You Have Done?"

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post called “What Would You Have Done?” about the tendency to imagine that had we been in the circumstances of the past, we would have taken what we, today, consider the just or moral course of action. I think we do this thanks to a combination of belief in a true or authentic self — which is an illusion — plus insufficient historical imagination. Had you or I lived in the past, you or I would have had different experiences and become different people. This is why the past must be judged on its own terms. And it is profoundly arrogant to do otherwise.

There were many excellent responses. I thought I’d share some, with an occasional comment.

From Daniel Sherrier (who has a Substack newsletter):

Excellent article. We can all benefit from more humility. Decades from now, people will no doubt look back at something considered acceptable or even righteous today, and they'll shake their heads and say, "They actually did *that*? What were they thinking???" It's so much easier to pass judgment on other people than ourselves.

From Jennifer Bulman:

You make good points and i know you have used examples that most of us can relate to. I think there is one more important consideration. Rosa Parks *trained* in non-violence. The group had not decided exactly when they would indicate their opposition to segregation. Parks is on record as saying, that day she felt tired and did not want to walk to the back of the bus.

Colin Kapernak talked to trusted people about taking a knee before he ever took a knee.

Or conside the Birkenhead drill. it was practised so when the time comes one remembered "women and children first".

If we do something more than just feel our ideals, if we consult and train for the time when we need to live up to our ideals, we have a better chance of being able to do the right thing when the time comes.

Quite right. One way to improve all sorts of decision-making is to remove the decision from circumstances in which making the right call would be difficult by making the decision when you are at your best, to be implemented if and when circumstances arise. Then you repeat the decision in hopes that, should it be necessary, you effectively implement it automatically. In other words, you train.

And I love that you used the “Birkenhead drill” to illustrate. For those who may not know: In 1845, HMS Birkenhead, one of the first iron-hulled ships of the Royal Navy, was filled with soldiers and a small number of civilians, including women and children, when it struck rocks and started to sink. There weren’t enough lifeboats on board so the commanding officer ordered the soldiers to form ranks and wait in silence. The lifeboats were filled with women and children and set on the water. Fearing that the soldiers would sink the lifeboats if they tried to swim to them, the commander ordered everyone to stand put. They did, even as the ship broke and sank. Most of the soldiers died. This was a huge story in Europe and the “Birkenhead drill” was promoted and practised — by repeating “women and children first” — ever since.

From Smith:

Isn't some of this complicated by the fact that yes, most of us would have been the oppressor and a very very few of us would have been the resister, but a not insignificant percentage of us would have been (or still are) the oppressed?

Absolutely some of the outrage or objection to figures of the past acting in accordance with their times and context is driven by folks who imagine themselves as the defiant hero, but there are also folks who know, or are related to, or would have been the victims of these figures.

What if you weren't the person joining the mob, or the person who shrugged and walked away, but instead the person being lynched?

Is it only those people who have the standing to object?

Thanks for this, Smith. I suspect many people would agree with you. But I don’t see this as about “standing” — personally, I think any sentient human capable of forming a moral judgement has “standing” — but “understanding.” (Not in the sense of justifying or excusing. In the precise and limited sense of the word.) Only when we have understanding can we reasonably judge individuals and their actions and that can’t happen without engaging in the imaginative work I described.

From the inimitable Kevin Newman:

Your mind is so cool. My own thought experiment after reading this is how many of us who self-identify with a political ‘tribe’ are willing to challenge our tribe members into better appreciating and behaviour toward the others. Call it out.

This jibes with something I always say about confirmation bias: We don’t have to worry about being insufficiently skeptical about information that doesn’t fit what we already firmly believe. When we encounter that, skepticism will come automatically. If anything, we have to be careful not to be unduly skeptical. The danger, rather, lies with information that supports what we believe, which we are naturally inclined to accept without question. The solution? Don’t worry about dissonant information. Worry about the information you love.

Same with group identity. We are almost automatically skeptical of Them and love to speak up when They offend; we have enormous difficulty doing the same for Us. So focus on the latter.

From Elizabeth Hummel, who is also on Substack:

Great insights. I agree about the non-existent self--even outside of science, this insight is at the heart of some Buddhist teaching. But it's hard to get away from in our thinking, because the fiction of the self gets us through life. The only thing I wonder about is the role of courage in a person--I do wonder what makes that man in the crowd different. Why do some rare people have courage, but most don't? Why do some people make the pursuit of truth more important than anything, including career and physical safety? That's such an interesting question. Throughout my life, I have asked myself what I would truly have done in some of the situations of your thought experiment. I think the first time I asked myself this was as a child in Sunday school, wondering why Peter betrayed Jesus three times. How could he have done that? I wondered if I would have done that, given the circumstances--and realized that probably I would have. Maybe I had a good Sunday School teacher who went to the heart of the matter. Being someone who has taken a heretical stand against gender ideology at some cost, I have often asked myself why I am doing this when my friends shrug and turn away. The only reason I can come up with is that I have certain values that override the costs. Would "me" in these other circumstances have been courageous? Given that the costs were even greater in those scenarios, the answer is still probably not. But someone with my current moral compass might have at least done some level of resistance. Those are the stories that have encouraged me to be courageous and to seek truth.

Thanks so much for the reference to Buddhism. I only know a little about it but it was certainly in the back of my mind when I wrote that piece. I really enjoyed Robert Wright’s book, Why Buddhism is True, which compares modern psychology and neuroscience with Buddhism and delivers the conclusion in the title.

And speaking of which…

F.R. Prete, who is also on Substack, writes:

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking article. As a Biological Psychologist, I agree with you. What we perceive as the self is a dynamic, emergent property and, although not infinitely malleable, it is shaped by the context in which it develops and operates over time. As true as this is, over the decades I found it a near impossible concept to teach. People are steeped in the belief that their perspective at the moment is not only static but is the correct perspective.

Amen. I think it’s similar to the (elementary and scientifically-supported) idea that we do not perceive reality directly but instead perceive a mental simulation of reality constructed by the mind. We can understand this, intellectually. But it’s all but impossible to be aware of this fact and operate in the world as if it were true. (Maybe some Buddhist monks manage it but…)

Certain illusions are too fundamental — too biological — for us to let them go.

Please remember that comments are always open, including responses to other comments. Also, it’s not mandatory to have your own Substack newsletter. Promise.