Tajfel proposed that the groups e.
Philosophical intuition[ edit ] Bernard Williams presents a thought experiment appealing to the Social identity vs personal identity about what it is to be the same person in the future.
For the first approach Williams suggests that suppose that there is some process by which subjecting two persons to it can result in the two persons have " exchanged " bodies. The process has put into the body of person B the memoriesbehavioral dispositionsand psychological characteristics of the person who prior to undergoing the process belonged to person A ; and conversely with person B.
To show this one is to suppose that before undergoing the process person A and B are asked to which resulting person, A-Body-Person or B-Body-Person, they wish to receive a punishment and which a reward. Upon undergoing the process and receiving either the punishment or reward, it appears to that A-Body-Person expresses the memories of choosing who gets which treatment as if that person was person B; conversely with B-Body-Person.
This sort of approach to the thought experiment appears to show that since the person who expresses the psychological characteristics of person A to be person A, then intuition is that psychological continuity is the criterion for personal identity. The second approach is to suppose that someone is told that one will have memories erased and then one will be tortured.
Does one need to be afraid of being tortured? Next, Williams asked one to consider several similar scenarios. However, the last scenario is an identical scenario to the one in the first scenario. Psychological continuity[ edit ] In psychologypersonal continuity, also called personal persistence, is the uninterrupted connection concerning a particular person of his or her private life and personality.
Personal continuity is the union affecting the facets arising from personality in order to avoid discontinuities from one moment of time to another time.
Associations can result from contiguitysimilarity, or contrast. Through contiguity, one associates ideas or events that usually happen to occur at the same time. Some of these events form an autobiographical memory in which each is a personal representation of the general or specific events and personal facts.
Body and ego control organ expressions. For John Noon, David Hume undertook looking at the mind—body problem. Hume pointed out that we tend to think that we are the same person we were five years ago. We might start thinking about which features can be changed without changing the underlying self.
Hume, however, denies that there is a distinction between the various features of a person and the mysterious self that supposedly bears those features.
When we start introspecting, "we are never intimately conscious of anything but a particular perception; man is a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement".
It is likewise evident that as the senses, in changing their objects, are necessitated to change them regularly, and take them as they lie contiguous to each other, the imagination must by long custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects.
Hume, similar to the Buddha compares the soul to a commonwealthwhich retains its identity not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but by being composed of many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements.
Critics of Hume state in order for the various states and processes of the mind to seem unified, there must be something which perceives their unity, the existence of which would be no less mysterious than a personal identity.
Hume solves this by considering substance as engendered by the togetherness of its properties. No-self theory[ edit ] The "no-self theory" [q] holds that the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. Propositionallythe idea of a bundle implies the notion of bodily or psychological relations that do not in fact exist.
James Gilesa principal exponent of this view, argues that the no-self or eliminativist theory and the bundle or reductionist theory agree about the non-existence of a substantive self.
The reductionist theory, according to Giles, mistakenly resurrects the idea [r] of the self  in terms of various accounts about psychological relations.
But sense of self breaks down when considering some events such as memory loss[u] split personality disorderbrain damagebrainwashingand various thought experiments.Start studying Chapter 3 Social Identity and Card Games. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Social identity versus personal identity: an investigation into the interaction of group and personal status with collective self-esteemon ingroup favouritism E.M.
Robins and D. Foster* Departmentof Psychology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch , Republic of South Africa. social identity judgements are immediate, takes priority over other judgements, entirely visual, and allows for a prediction of how they are likely to respond we feel the need to form a social identity because every person strives to satisfy their three basic interpersonal needs.
Key Difference – Personal Identity vs Social Identity Before engaging in a discussion on the difference between personal identiy and social identity, it is vital to gain a simple understanding of what constitutes as identity. In most social sciences, identity is understood as the sense of self that an individual develops from childhood onwards.
Although identity has deeps roots in social psychology, sociology, bridges between them (e.g., symbolic interactionism), and related disciplines, the explicit distinction between personal and social identity, within social psychology at least, can be traced to J.
C. Turner's seminal article "Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Group" (). Social identity is different from personal identity because social identity groups together people of race, class, gender, and status and depending of the status of these groups in society the can be either seen in a good or bad manner.