I’m pleased to make note here of the release, on March 19th, of my book Anxiety: A Philosophical Guide published by Princeton University Press. Here is the book’s description and cover:

• Today, anxiety is usually thought of as a pathology, the most diagnosed and medicated of all psychological disorders. But anxiety isn’t always or only a medical condition. Indeed, many philosophers argue that anxiety is a normal, even essential, part of being human, and that coming to terms with this fact is potentially transformative, allowing us to live more meaningful lives by giving us a richer understanding of ourselves. In Anxiety, Samir Chopra explores valuable insights about anxiety offered by ancient and modern philosophies—Buddhism, existentialism, psychoanalysis, and critical theory. Blending memoir and philosophy, he also tells how serious anxiety has affected his own life—and how philosophy has helped him cope with it.
• Chopra shows that many philosophers—including the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger—have viewed anxiety as an inevitable human response to existence: to be is to be anxious. Drawing on Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse, Chopra examines how poverty and other material conditions can make anxiety worse, but he emphasizes that not even the rich can escape it. Nor can the medicated. Inseparable from the human condition, anxiety is indispensable for grasping it. Philosophy may not be able to cure anxiety but, by leading us to greater self-knowledge and self-acceptance, it may be able to make us less anxious about being anxious.
• Personal, poignant, and hopeful, Anxiety is a book for anyone who is curious about rethinking anxiety and learning why it might be a source not only of suffering but of insight.

In an earlier post, I discussed some of my recent thinking on the topic of “What do people do better than computers?” Keep in mind that these thoughts will change over time, as the only constant we have in our work is change. In response to this post, Matthias Melcher shared this great post on what humans can do better than AI. Melcher’s emphasis on the importance of subjectivity and individuality in human thought really inspired me.

This post will unpack some of my thoughts about the self, individuality, and subjectivity as we think about the impact of generative AI in society.

Be warned, I get into the weeds a bit down below. I’ve been thinking a lot about consciousness and “what makes us human.” I’m also deep into the development of a GenEd course for my students, and I’ve been parsing out the differences between the humanities and social sciences.

Before the Advent of Generative AI

A range of theoretical stances influenced the definitions and conversations around self, individuality, and subjectivity in philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences prior to the development of artificial intelligence. The examination of these concepts has a long history in these disciplines, and interpretations have changed over time. The following summarizes the general approach to these terms:

• Self:
  • Philosophy: Traditionally, philosophical discussions about the self focused on questions of identity, consciousness, and personal experience. Philosophers such as René Descartes explored the nature of the self as a thinking, conscious entity (“I think, therefore I am”). Other philosophical traditions, like Eastern philosophies, approach the self as an interconnected part of a larger whole, emphasizing unity with the universe.
  • Humanities: Stories and representations of individual experiences are frequently used in literature and the arts to examine the self. Artists and writers aimed to convey the intricacy of personal identity, feelings, and existential concerns. Social, historical, and cultural contexts all had an impact on this investigation.
  • Social Sciences: Psychology and sociology study the self in relation to society and personal growth. Social scientists looked at how personal experiences, cultural norms, and environmental factors influenced people’s identities and social interactions.
• Individuality:
  • Philosophy: Individuality in philosophy is often discussed in relation to the uniqueness and distinctiveness of each person. Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre stressed the importance of personal autonomy and accountability in determining one’s true nature.
  • Humanities: Literature and the arts celebrated individuality through portrayals of unique characters and personal journeys. The Romantic era, for example, placed a strong emphasis on the individual’s emotions, imagination, and subjective experience.
  • Social Sciences: Psychology investigated individuality through the study of personality characteristics, thought processes, and the formation of a distinct self. Sociology examined how people navigated their identities in relation to societal institutions.
• Subjectivity:
  • Philosophy: Subjectivity refers to the interior, personal experience of individuals. Phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl studied the subjectivity of perception and the structures of consciousness. Phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: the appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience.
  • Humanities: Subjectivity involves the expression of individual viewpoints and feelings in literature and the arts. A common goal for artists was to share their distinct perspectives and understandings of the world.
  • Social Sciences: Sociology and anthropology consider subjectivity in the context of cultural practices and norms. People understood subjectivity as a lens through which they viewed and understood the social environments in which they lived.

With the Advent of Generative AI

Through the lens of AI, we have an opportunity to navigate through these complex landscapes of self, individuality, and subjectivity.

The study of self asks us to consider what makes us special, like a special blend made of our friends, family, and the knowledge we pick up. We not only discover the richness of our individuality but also question traditional notions of the untouched self, setting the stage for a transformative dialogue about our authenticity and uniqueness. Meanwhile, the concept of “subjectivity” unfolds as a dynamic interplay of roles, akin to donning various superhero costumes.

AI has the potential to serve as a creative companion, narrating stories that unveil the special qualities within each of us and showcasing the ever-changing nature of our roles. It also challenges us to reevaluate these ideas and rework how we conceptualize personal identity in new and novel contexts. Here are some possible future directions.

Rethinking Uniqueness in the Era of Generative AI

The possibilities of generative AI are upending the conventional wisdom regarding the “self” as an unexplored, singular entity. We are compelled to recognize the complex ways that culture molds our identities as we engage with artificial intelligence-generated content. The multiplicity of viewpoints generated by AI forces us to reconsider what it means to be truly original and authentic.

Subjectivity as a Fluid Concept

Because generative AI can replicate a wide range of subject positions, the idea that certain roles are inherently associated with specific individuals is called into question. As AI algorithms create content from multiple perspectives, the placeholder “subject” becomes a dynamic and fluid concept that emphasizes the malleability of subjectivity and blurs the lines between predefined roles.

Unveiling Social attributes in AI Outputs

Although AI has great promise, it also reproduces and reflects social prejudices. Analysis of AI results exposes the intrinsic prejudices in the technology, igniting debates concerning algorithmic justice and the moral ramifications of using AI in decision-making. Generative AI turns into a mirror, reflecting the prejudices ingrained in our societal systems.

AI-Driven Identity Formation: A Tapestry of Possibilities

Generative AI presents fresh accounts and viewpoints on the construction of identity. We are exposed to new perspectives on ourselves and the world around us through stories, artwork, and expressions created by AI. This rich tapestry of options upends established conventions and has the potential to promote a more flexible and inclusive understanding of personal identity.

Ethical Considerations in AI-Driven Social Construction

A growing number of ethical concerns are raised by AI’s involvement in social construction. What legal rights and obligations should be assigned, and who is responsible for content created by AI? The legal “subject” assumes novel forms in the AI context, compelling society to consider the moral ramifications of incorporating AI into our everyday existence.

Facilitating Critical Reflection on Cultural Phenomena

Generative AI turns into an effective instrument for provoking thought about cultural phenomena. AI challenges us to consider the societal norms that influence our identities by producing thought-provoking content. Engaging with AI-generated narratives forces us to consider the underlying presumptions and biases that shape our perceptions of subjectivity and the self.

The Journey Awaits

In conclusion, the integration of generative AI into society marks a transformative moment in our exploration of self, individuality, and subjectivity. As we navigate this evolving landscape, we must embrace the complexities and possibilities that AI brings to our understanding of individual identity within a broader societal context. The intersection of philosophy, technology, and culture invites us to embark on a journey into generative horizons, where these boundaries are continually redefined.

If you’d like to stay on top of areas like this, you should be reading my weekly newsletter. You can follow here.

Photo by Randy Jacob on Unsplash

The post Navigating the “Self” in the Age of AI: A Journey into Generative Horizons first appeared on Dr. Ian O'Byrne.

In A Theory of Everyone: Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going, Michael Muthukrishna contends that the core issue affecting Western societies is increasing energy scarcity, leading to economic struggles, political disillusionment, and global instability. Though the public policy solutions Muthukrishna proposes – like better immigration systems and start-up cities – are outlined only vaguely, the book offers fresh ideas in an engaging writing style, according to James Sewry.

A Theory of Everyone: Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going. Michael Muthukrishna. Basic Books. London. 2023.

Find this book: 

A Theory of Everyone by Michael Muthukrishna, Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at LSE, is a bold and ambitious book. It argues that the underlying cause of the present malaise of western societies is increasing energy scarcity. There is no doubt that the malaise is real. Since the global financial crisis, the UK has struggled to achieve economic and productivity growth; living standards are stagnant; inflation recently reached almost double figures; and the cost of energy spiked. As faith in politics and institutions is eroded, voters are drawn towards populism. Social media polarises us. The global order seems precarious: wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the words of Muthukrishna, “we can feel in our bones that the world is breaking – that something is wrong”.

The global order seems precarious: wars rage in Ukraine and the Middle East. In the words of Muthukrishna, ‘we can feel in our bones that the world is breaking – that something is wrong’.

The ultimate cause of all these different problems, Muthukrishna argues, is the lack of excess energy. Tapping into the energy contained within fossil fuels has driven society’s development since the Industrial Revolution, precipitating prosperity and increasing standards of living. Until relatively recently, energy seemed abundant. But fossil fuels are running out. The energy return on investment (EROI) that they offer is diminishing. For every single barrel of oil discovered in 1999 one could find at least another 1,000, but by 2010, this number had reduced to five. As Muthukrishna contends, we came to take energy for granted and stopped thinking about it. But as it becomes more expensive and more effort is spent on its extraction, life becomes harder. This matters because, as the availability of excess energy reduces, the “space of the possible”, that is, what humans are collectively able to achieve, shrinks with it. Humanity’s pressing challenge, therefore, is how to arrive at the “next level of abundance that leads to a better life for everyone”. Otherwise, according to Muthukrishna, the future will be bleak, with humanity beset by conflict over dwindling energy and resources.

Tapping into the energy contained within fossil fuels has driven society’s development since the Industrial Revolution, precipitating prosperity and increasing standards of living. Until relatively recently, energy seemed abundant.

To provide an approach to this enormously challenging future, A Theory of Everyone is divided into two parts. The first explains “who we are” and “how we got here”, detailing what the author proposes as the four “laws of life” which underpin human development: energy, innovation, cooperation and evolution. This layout is justified on the grounds that “the forces that shape our thinking, our economies, and our societies have become invisible to us”, and that in order to solve problems, we must first understand them. Part two then considers practical policy solutions that might begin to address our current predicament: “how this comprehensive theory of everyone can lead to practical policy applications.”

What distinguishes us is our capacity for social learning and imitation which has enabled each generation of humans to add to the stock of knowledge which is then acquired and marginally improved upon by each subsequent generation.

Given the scale and ambition of the book, it is perhaps unsurprising that the reader is left feeling disappointed by its suggestions for public policy. Muthukrishna essentially offers the following ideas: better designed immigration, educational and tax systems; start-up cities; programmable politics; the curation of free speech and genuine meritocracy; and improving the internet and social media. Taken by themselves, many of these ideas are sound, and if there were sufficient political will, ought to be implemented as soon as practically possible. There are also many powerful insights within the book that might help shift some common understandings, such as the assumption, which Muthukrishna powerfully counters, that what differentiates us as a species is our innate intelligence and ability to reason. Instead, what distinguishes us is our capacity for social learning and imitation which has enabled each generation of humans to add to the stock of knowledge which is then acquired and marginally improved upon by each subsequent generation. Our intelligence is therefore more the result of this evolving cultural “download” than it is thanks to raw ability.

It is difficult to see how the book’s policy ideas sufficiently match the scale of the challenges the author outlines.

However, some of these practical applications are frustratingly light on detail. For example, his proposals for “start-up cities” and “programme politics” in his chapter on governance in the twenty-first century are both sketched out only vaguely, with little sense of how they might be realised. Where ideas are fleshed out, they are sometimes caveated with qualifiers such as “this approach is one of many and may not even be the best approach”. On occasion the author struggles to move beyond platitudes, as in his very brief discussion of artificial intelligence: “More progress is needed to know the true limits of what machines can achieve and our role in all of this. The tides of progress can only be held back for so long.” It is difficult to see how the book’s policy ideas sufficiently match the scale of the challenges the author outlines.

Muthukrishna does not seem to appreciate, or at least makes no room for, the fact that a number of his fundamental assumptions, such as a belief in the underlying virtue of capitalism and economic growth, might not be universally shared. Others would want to see climate change given more thorough treatment.

These flaws do not mean that the book is without merit. A recognition of the world’s complexity and the author’s commitment to truth and the scientific method means he is robustly unafraid to court controversy. He lauds unfettered free speech, expresses scepticism towards affirmative action, and explores sex-based differences in intelligence, while on immigration he contends that new migrants bring “with them cultural values both desirable and less desirable”. Muthukrishna is arguably right not to shy away from these controversial areas for, as he argues, “we can only arrive at the truth in a diverse environment of different backgrounds, considering all hypotheses and ideas – both those we like and those we don’t.”

Muthukrishna is arguably right not to shy away from […] controversial areas for, as he argues, ‘we can only arrive at the truth in a diverse environment of different backgrounds, considering all hypotheses and ideas’

The book is also written in an engaging and accessible manner, and whilst it might fail to attain the heights it purports to reach, in its fresh thinking it is a welcome addition to the basket of literature that helps contemporary politicians, policymakers, and anyone with an interest in the direction of humanity grapple with the complexity of today’s challenges.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.

Image Credit: blvdone on Shutterstock.

When Ben was 11 years old, his parents noticed that his grades dropped. He stopped talking about school. On Sunday evenings, he often complained about stomach aches and begged his mom to keep him home the next day.

“These are all typical signs there might be a bullying problem,” says Bettina Dénervaud, co-founder of the Swiss initiative Hilfe bei Mobbing, which translates as “Help with Bullying.” She and her two colleagues use a 30-point checklist to evaluate if there is an underlying issue of mental, emotional and physical bullying or something else — maybe a conflict, which might require conflict resolution. “A conflict is usually resolved in a matter of days or weeks, but bullying can go on for months or even years,” Dénervaud says.

What happens next sounds counterintuitive. Instead of being punished, the bullies are invited to help the bullied student. In a 2008 study that looked at 220 bullying cases, the No-Blame Approach, as this method is known, was successful in 192, or 87 percent, of the cases. In most schools that were evaluated, it only took two or three weeks for the bullying to stop.

It was the stunning success rate that prompted Bettina Dénervaud to sign up for training with mediator Detlef Beck in 2016 and to start a consulting office for bullying in 2019.

Bettina Dénervaud. Courtesy of Bettina Dénervaud

With Ben, Dénervaud began by encouraging a personal talk between him and the teacher he trusts most. (Dénervaud or one of her colleagues is sometimes present in person or via Zoom if the teacher has not been trained in bullying intervention.) The goal is for Ben to talk openly and confidentially about everything that happened, his emotions and his thoughts about the bullies. 

“This is an opportunity for them to get everything off their chest that bears down on them, and to make sure we have their consent for the next steps,” Dénervaud explains. “Nothing happens against the victim’s wishes, and even the parents aren’t told details about what the child revealed in the confidential talk.” 

In Ben’s case, this was the first time anybody learned that the bullying had been much worse than his parents and teachers assumed. It included other children tripping and shoving Ben, name-calling and excluding him from games. He had also been voted “ugliest” in his class in an online “poll.” The bullying had started much earlier and gone on for much longer than the parents feared. The teacher also asked what would help him feel safe.

The second step is the core of the No-Blame Approach. It includes calling six to eight children that the teacher chooses into a meeting that is set up as a social get together: in Ben’s case, three of the bullies, three students Ben felt he could count on and two “neutral” tag-alongs. The children are not told the meeting is about Ben. “I have a problem,” the teacher might start the discussion after some small talk. “I noticed some students don’t feel supported in class. What can we do to help them, for instance, Ben?” 

The teacher carefully avoids calling out the bullies, and instead says: “I notice the other students are looking up to you. What you say counts.” In Dénervaud’s experience, “That immediately makes the bully feel seen. They feel they matter.”

The teacher then asks for suggestions: “What do you think you could do to help?”

“We could include him in our afternoon soccer group,” one boy volunteered. “I could talk to him in the breaks,” another suggested. 

The group writes these suggestions on a whiteboard.

The third step includes follow-ups with all students, including Ben, within the next few weeks. If necessary, the intervention might be repeated or tweaked.

“The goal is to change the social dynamic,” Dénervaud says, “and to lay open what has been happening.” Younger children often start crying in these meetings, Dénervaud has observed, “because they realize for the first time what has been happening and how unhappy the bullying victim has been. We talk about empathy, tolerance and respect. How do I want to be treated and how do I treat others?”

Nearly every fifth student in the US and Europe says they have experienced bullying. Credit: Ground Picture / Shutterstock

The “No-Blame Approach” was developed in the early 1990s in the UK by the psychologist Barbara Maines and the educator George Robinson. Even in severe bullying cases, this approach encourages educators and psychologists not to blame and punish the perpetrators, except for criminal offenses. Two German mediators, Heike Blume and Detlef Beck, simplified the approach further and have trained more than 20,000 educators in Germany, Austria and Switzerland since 2003.

Switzerland is number one in bullying, according to the global 2018 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) study by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The survey shows a rise in school bullying since the previous PISA survey in 2015, with the rate of physical bullying more than doubling in Switzerland. 

Bettina Dénervaud can only speculate about the reasons: “Maybe the pressure to perform?”

Experts agree that bullying can cause severe harm, including depression and anxiety, self-harm, health complaints and decreased academic achievement. “If this issue is not dealt with, the harm can persist for many years, even far into adulthood,” Dénervaud has observed. A Washington Post analysis found nearly 200 incidents in the US in recent years when a bullied student took his or her own life. 

Nearly every fifth student in the US and Europe says they have experienced bullying. Nearly half of teens say they have been the victim of cyberbullying, according to a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center. In the US, most states have enacted laws against bullying, but how they are implemented on the ground varies greatly, not only from state to state, but also from school to school.

Become a sustaining member today!

Join the Reasons to be Cheerful community by supporting our nonprofit publication and giving what you can.

Join

Dénervaud has been a language teacher for more than two decades, mostly for adults but also for teenagers and children. Because parents, students and teachers frequently asked her for advice on bullying, she grasped the enormity of the need and decided to focus on that issue: “I realized there were not a lot of specialized offerings. In the standard teacher training, the topic is addressed in a two-hour lecture, which simply isn’t sufficient.” Concerned parents or teenagers are often told to call the mental health hotline, Dénervaud says, “but it usually offers general psychological advice, not specifically how to proceed and what the next steps should be regarding bullying.” 

Hers is the only office in Switzerland solely dedicated to the issue of bullying, though the magnitude of the issue is rising worldwide.

She and her two colleagues get about 10 calls a week, she says, “mostly from parents or from schools who request training for their staff.” She is frustrated by what she sees as a failure of schools to take the issue seriously. “We often hear, ‘Oh, the kids will sort it out.’ We sometimes see glaring inaction by the schools who try to dodge responsibility,” Dénervaud says. “Too often, we learn that the schools do nothing, or even worse, they put the victim and the perpetrator at one table and expect them to sort it out. That’s almost always counterproductive.” 

In Dénervaud’s experience, punishing the perpetrators tends to make the bullying worse for the victim. “Usually the bullies will make the victim ‘pay.’ Or the victim gets sent into therapy, enforcing the feeling there must be something wrong with him or her, because they are singled out and need to get help, while no intervention happens with the bullies.”

Somewhat surprisingly, Dénervaud says in her experience, bullying is not tied to specific victim characteristics, such as weight, looks or social status, though data shows LGBTQ+ students are at a significantly greater risk of bullying than their peers. 

“Contrary to what most people believe and what I, too, believed at the beginning, there is no ‘typical’ bullying victim. Really anybody can be singled out to become the victim of bullying,” she says. “That’s why focusing on what is perceived as being ‘wrong’ with the target, such as losing weight or changing their looks, does not work.”

She sees the underlying causes of bullying in the social dynamics at a school. The nerd with glasses who is bullied in one school might be envied in another community for his smarts.

Hilfe bei Mobbing provides training on the No-Blame approach for teachers, principals and other educational specialists. Courtesy of Hilfe bei Mobbing

This is part of the reason Dénervaud is convinced parents and bullying victims must not be left alone to solve the issue. “These parents are often desperate and sometimes even sell their home and leave the community they were a part of, uprooting the siblings, too, in order to send their kid to a different school,” she explains. In Switzerland, parents have to send their kids to the public school closest to their zip code unless they can afford the tuition for private school. 

Because she tried in vain to get public funding and make her service free, Dénervaud and her two colleagues have to charge either the parents or the schools for the consultations and trainings. “I wish we could offer it for free,” she says.

She sees limits to the No-Blame Approach “when bullying has gone on for too long, sometimes for years. Then the patterns are so ingrained that removing the victim from the situation might be the best solution.” And sometimes, she admits, the approach is poorly implemented. “Then we intervene or try the approach again with a different group of students.”

Crushed by negative news?

Sign up for the Reasons to be Cheerful newsletter.
[contact-form-7]

When bullying turns into criminal behavior, she recommends involving the authorities. One of the worst cases in her practice was that of a student who was made drunk and severely sexually abused. “He ended up leaving that school because the abuse had also been documented on video and circulated at school and there was no way for him to go back there,” she says. “But the school then still needs to work with the students who stay there.”

Other approaches that have shown success include the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, which involves the entire school; KiVa, a method developed at the University of Turku, Finland, with funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture, that claims to have helped 98 percent of students; and Positive Action.

Virtually all experts agree that it is best to act preventatively or intervene at the first signs of bullying rather than hoping the issue might resolve itself on its own.

In Ben’s case, the intervention was successful. After a month, his stomach pains stopped and he looked forward to going to school again. 

The post A Surprising Way to Stop Bullying appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.