Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

Net-worth and self-worth: what is difference?

The difference between net worth and self worth to my mind rests on that which is extrinsic and intrinsic to our humanity.

Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:
1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)
2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)
3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)
4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)
5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)

I think that the needs 1 thru 3 are extrinsic needs. While needs 4 and 5 are to a large degree intrinsic needs. They are intrinsic in the sense that we can survive without fulfilling such needs but they are needs that will enhance our sense of self worth.

Capitalism tends to accentuate needs 1 thru 3 with little thought to 4 and 5 because such an economic system recognizes little about anything but net worth. Net worth is valuable especially if it allows us to accomplish needs 4 and 5.

“Presupposition that the work of art, as an autonomous organism, stands beside nature on equal terms and, in its deepest essence, devoid of any connection with it, in so far as by nature is understood the visible surface of things.” Wilhelm Worringer author of Abstraction and Empathy

Coberst,

Have you now taken to quoting gibberish ?

coberst----Please, Please, PLEASE--will you define your terms. I have asked you to do this before as it is essential in debate and discussion to know what the subject is. This point should have been learned in Primary School.

What do you mean (or what do you understand) by "net worth"?

net worth is assets minus liabilities

A rather common term in a capitalistic society

coberst,

Is this "capitalist" angle something to do with your admiration for Bohm the communist ?

Capitalism affects almost every aspect of our life

If so,explain how capitalism specifically "accentuates" no. 3 above.

Coberst--- Now you need to define what YOU mean by 'assets' and 'liabilities',

Do you count only financial assets and liabilities? Do you include (for example) age, drive and potential for the future? If you do not then I suggestyou are not assessing 'net' worth, as 'net' implies the total worth of something-- and could possibly include personal characteristics such as drive, personality etc: That is why in posting your original proposition you should define your terms--- thus--- you should state "net financial terms ....." if that is what you are proposing.

Your proposition would then read:
'Net financial worth equals self-worth.'

To which the best possible retort would be 'WHATEVER!" or something similar I think.

If you do not define your terms the discussion will drive you mad as people like me (and eccles) pick your argument to bits without attending to the part you think is important. (Amongst the things eccles wants to know is how your definition of capitalism impinges on your original question as you threw it in without explanation)!

So far neither of us have addressed the nub of your post because we are having too much fun nit-picking on the outer.

LATER EDIT
Unfortunately very few of coberst's posts are coherently constructed. This one is particularly bad because his final quotation is neither grammatical nor relevant.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs are usually cited to indicate levels of "control" of circumstances. Since the "developed" nations control up to 25 times more per capita than the poorest it tends to be they who have the luxury of no.s 4 and 5. Indeed some of the poorest relinquish 3. by selling their off-spring or even maiming them for begging purposes.

No.3 is also significant because there is an argument that "self" is a social construction and has no cognitive reality except with respect to others. Hence "self-worth" may need to be defined comparatively, whence the fact that money is used as a measure in such a comparison.

But coberst thinks he's "earned his self-worth points" by getting the attention of others who discuss the issues even though he is incapable of engaging in such discussion. Having made his pile, he now measures his own "self-worth" by the number of replies to his posts which he maximises by indiscriminate publishing on multiple forums.{Never mind the quality...!)

I had decided not to post on his musings as they usually lack evidence of any planning as to destination but this one was a particularly amazing frolic!

The 'hierarchy' of need is an interesting subject, but I question if it really answers the question asked- the coherence is lacking because the point to connect has been lost, obscured or never made. As you suggest eccles, the term 'self worth' needs defining too!

And nothing is helped by the last sentence which is a doozy! Although, to be fair, Wilhelm is trying to define Nature, I think.

I'll make a last plea for defining terms--- it helps clarify thoughts!

Scientists are studying and trying to develop an ability to emulate the actions of animal swarms. The birds and the bees can do it; why cannot humans emulate their behavior to our advantage?

The collective behavior of animal swarms displays advantageous collective actions without the guidance of organized leadership. Ants, as individuals, are not clever—as a collective ants, bees, birds, caribou, etc. are amazingly clever—there seems to exist something one might label as swarm intelligence—simple creatures following simple rules equal swarm intelligence.

Computer engineers attempt to emulate swarm intelligence to solve complex human problems.

Compare animal swarm intelligence with group psychology. What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

Perhaps human groups cannot develop in a similar manner as does swarm intelligence but the existence of such successful ways of handling complex problems indicates that some critical thinking regarding human group behavior is certainly in order.



Sources for ideas and quotes in this OP come from “Swarm Theory”--an article in the July 2007 edition of “National Geographic” and from “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” by Freud.

Ellis

For two or more people to reason together they must share some common pool of knowledge or they end up in this cul-de-sac we are now in.

coberst,

I don't see the word "capitalism" in your "explanation".
Why not ? ( Its okay coberst, any question directed to you is doomed to the fog of oblivion).

Presumably by "common pool of knowledge" you mean that we haven't got the "benefit" of your Readers Digest compendium of snippets from Lakoff, Becker et al. Its all a bit biblical don't you think ...you've substituted "the Good Book" with the "the Good Books" from which you issue the "lesson for today".

coberst wrote:
For two or more people to reason together they must share some common pool of knowledge or they end up in this cul-de-sac we are now in.

That is exactly my point! This can never be assumed.

Therefore when making statements clear definitions should be included in order for us to have a 'common pool' to discuss. It is possible to disagree and have a different point of view, that is part of the art of debating and conversation, but we need to have a clear idea of the starting point. It is a thoughtless, and sometimes dangerous, practice to assume everyone knows what you mean when you refuse to say what it is you are trying (very verbosely) to convey. eccles' 'fog of oblivion' is the inevitable result.

Incidentally coberst, did you say once that you used to teach? May I suggest that it is very necessary to ensure that teachers and students share the same starting point before effective teaching can start- terms have to be defined, undirected learning can be a waste of time -- but this technique can also be observed in the speeches and arguments of the more successful politicians, preachers, performers and parents reasoning with 3-year-olds, among others.

Ellis

I am not now nor have I ever been a teacher; I am a retired engineer. I am more of a Dutch uncle ("one who admonishes sternly and bluntly" [generally about things that one does not want to hear]). I seek to act as a role model for those who might seek to acquire an intellectual life. My role model is Socrates.

Hey coberst, we are learning about Maslow's hierarchy of needs in my Human Communication class in college. And we have to do an essay including, among other things, our self-worth.

But I think capitalism would help us with 4 and 5. Because working hard increases our self esteem (ideally) and that could, ideally, make us get to step 5, self-actualization, being all that we could be.

And the hierarchy of needs does make sense. That when we have food and shelter, we try to thrive and not just survive.

I agree. If we did not satisfy 1, 2, and 3 we could not have the ability to satisfy 3 and 4.