I heard an interesting interview yesterday on the wireless. This psychologist was explaining her theory that people divide into:
No one
Anyone
Someone
“No one” is the sort of person who reacts only to what is in front of them. They have no depth of understanding, no objectives, and no stable personality. They are simply a bundle of reactions. These are the people who hang around shopping malls, drift into a life of drugs and benefits, and who might kick a man to death on the spur of the moment, in full view of witnesses and CCTV, then be mildly surprised when they are sent to prison.
All of us start as “no ones” when we are babies, reacting only to the stimuli around us, but most of us grow beyond this.
“Anyones” are people who develop into “interchangeable people”, fully and unquestioningly adopting the fashions, behaviours and attitudes of their peers. Most of us develop into “anyones” but some never develop any further.
“Someones” are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.
I don’t think it’s a perfect model, but I think it’s interesting.
I think the phenomenon she is trying to explain is better explained by the concept of social proof, as psychologist Robert Cialdini details in his book “Persuasion: Science and Practise”.
Social proof is the tendency to look at what others are doing in order to determine what to do, and it’s a great heuristic with lots of evolutionary advantages (ie. Everyone is running away …I should probably run away ). However, it can backfire.
As Cialdini argues, we’re being confronted with more and more choices today, and there’s less and less time to make informed decisions, so we revert to these simple heuristics to make a lot of our decisions. This leads to people just ‘copying’ others…it’s a lot simpler than figuring things out for yourself. That’s the “anybodys”.
I think the “someones” in the psychologists theory are simply the people who A) don’t care about what others are doing, or B) educate themselves enough to make informed decisions based on merit, not on simple heuristics. That way, they’re more likely to make unique decisions.
I believe I am a someone, because I do not listen to rap or hip hop or any other sub-genres of those, I listen to plain, pure ROCK, not many people listen to that in our modern culture, but a lot still do. I don’t wear the same clothes everyone else wears, I think for myself, I have educated myself very often through observing nature and using websites, I am an individual. I am even starting to write a novel, not many people do that at almost 15 now-a-days.
I’d say the people aimlessly hanging around in groups and kicking people to death etc are more “anyones” than “no ones”. They’re doing it because that’s what their peers are doing, just copying in order to conform (even if they think they’re doing it in order not to conform). I’m not sure anybody fits the “no one” description, even a baby. Some simple organisms perhaps, but not a human.
Pretty much everybody is a “someone” I reckon given that definition. Even the most seemingly mindless sheep of a person has some personality of their own.
So, could you be “someone” in some areas, e.g. sheep grazing and “no one” or “anyone” in others, e.g. kicking people do death in public parks. If you say everyone’s good at something or has some personality of their own…
It’s also not falsifiable. Any theory that rests on evolutionary justification at the level of explanation is necessarily teleological. And I think the original theory is supposed to be a useful way of categorizing individuals, and you’ve got to group things usefully before you can start investigating relations between them.)
I do think it’s too simplistic, there’s so many factors in decision making, and it’s so hard to separate them out, but maybe it’d make a good self-help book. Encouraging people to think about why they’re doing things is always a good thing.
ROCK is not diverse, not in the slightest bit. You can listen to popular music and still be a someone. A lot of those rappers are someones too. (don’t get me wrong, no rap for me either). While I do believe you’re on the right path, you still have a lot to learn (as do I)
To be in a room of 30 people and have everyone remember you positivley, that’s being someone.
So ask yourself this, do you really…REALLY know yourself?
And do you really…really know everyone else?
How much of the world do you see?
Do you understand not just the pain and joy you have felt, but the pain and joy others have?
It seems like in your attempt at being an autodidactic, open-minded person, you close some doors of perception.
Honestly, I think everyone here is an anyone, including myself.
Where do you get this idea that being someone is having everyone remember you positivley? That’s kooky! Remember the definition:
“Someones” are the people who develop a stable personality that is sufficiently robust to enable them to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to conform. Their personality remains stable and reliable in the face of changes of circumstances, temptation and external pressure.
This means Jesus was a someone, and (except for those indebted to him for miracles, and his apostles) he was hated and crucified.
Technically, Fooby is also a someone. Sounds like you arae too.
“There are three types of people in the world;
those who don’t know what happened,
those who wonder what happened,
and people like us from the streets that make things happen.”
…I should probably run away 
). However, it can backfire.
