"I made a new friend."
"Real or imaginary?"
"Imaginary."
May 13, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Dr. Thurman's response is understandable in light of Donnie's poorly worded statement, as it could be interpreted as either Donnie acquired a new friend or Donnie created a new friend.
I. Socrates' gift
The following is courtesy of Daemon.
Socrates’ “unseen companion was never given a personalized name, but references to it use spellings ranging from dæmon, daemon, to daimonion. The most common, however, is 'daimon,' considering that this is the Latinized version of the [Greek].. word... δαίμων.”
“Though Socrates believed his dæmon was a gift from the gods which made him unique, future scholars speculated it was merely Socrates' voice of conscience or prudence; not something of supernatural origins, but a voice from within which we all possess.”
“Plato uses the term δαίμονες,..., which was taken from their word for knowing or wise (daēmones). The daimon was later divided into two types: Eudaemons and Kakodaemons, similar to the idea of a guardian angel and demon, respectively. …[and] the daimon was external to the man whom it inspired and guided…”
“Plato thinks that a kind of spirit, which is separate from us, receives man at his birth, and follows him in life and after death.."
Socrates “spoke often of his 'internal oracle' whose injunctions he followed. This voice of guidance gave only negative admonitions .. and would warn that certain actions or events would lead to disaster - making it most synonymous with Socrates' conscience. However, the oracle only spoke its mind, but never tried to coerce Socrates into following its advice."
Socrates himself said, "The favor of the gods has given me a marvelous gift, which has never left me since my childhood. It is a voice which, when it makes itself heard, deters me from what I am about to do and never urges me on."
Socrates had this “gift” since childhood, he can hear it and deters, but does not prevent, his behavior.
“The fact that the daimon had preferences among Socrates' friends and those who asked for advice .. seems to show that its intelligence was different from that of Socrates himself.”
“The dæmon would always warn Socrates if he was undertaking something inappropriate, but remain silent if he did good. Linked to this, the one well-known fact about Socrates' daimon is that it made no sign of opposition during the trail that would condemn Socrates to death. ... “For the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.."”
We speculate that the oracle responded when Socrates inquired about the trial and Socrates lied when he said the oracle was silent. Socrates was provoking the Athenians during the arguments before the sentencing trial. We reach our conclusion because Socrates, after the verdict of death, states that it better to die at age 70 while being mentally competent than to die later when he might be mentally feeble. Plato notes that if 30 juror voted differently, Socrates would have been acquitted. We recognize Socrates' post sentence reasoning as a poor justification for death, that is, it is a sham argument and we are reasonably certain the oracle was against it.
Socrates’ “unseen companion was never given a personalized name, but references to it use spellings ranging from dæmon, daemon, to daimonion. The most common, however, is 'daimon,' considering that this is the Latinized version of the [Greek].. word... δαίμων.”
“Though Socrates believed his dæmon was a gift from the gods which made him unique, future scholars speculated it was merely Socrates' voice of conscience or prudence; not something of supernatural origins, but a voice from within which we all possess.”
“Plato uses the term δαίμονες,..., which was taken from their word for knowing or wise (daēmones). The daimon was later divided into two types: Eudaemons and Kakodaemons, similar to the idea of a guardian angel and demon, respectively. …[and] the daimon was external to the man whom it inspired and guided…”
“Plato thinks that a kind of spirit, which is separate from us, receives man at his birth, and follows him in life and after death.."
Socrates “spoke often of his 'internal oracle' whose injunctions he followed. This voice of guidance gave only negative admonitions .. and would warn that certain actions or events would lead to disaster - making it most synonymous with Socrates' conscience. However, the oracle only spoke its mind, but never tried to coerce Socrates into following its advice."
Socrates himself said, "The favor of the gods has given me a marvelous gift, which has never left me since my childhood. It is a voice which, when it makes itself heard, deters me from what I am about to do and never urges me on."
Socrates had this “gift” since childhood, he can hear it and deters, but does not prevent, his behavior.
“The fact that the daimon had preferences among Socrates' friends and those who asked for advice .. seems to show that its intelligence was different from that of Socrates himself.”
“The dæmon would always warn Socrates if he was undertaking something inappropriate, but remain silent if he did good. Linked to this, the one well-known fact about Socrates' daimon is that it made no sign of opposition during the trail that would condemn Socrates to death. ... “For the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.."”
We speculate that the oracle responded when Socrates inquired about the trial and Socrates lied when he said the oracle was silent. Socrates was provoking the Athenians during the arguments before the sentencing trial. We reach our conclusion because Socrates, after the verdict of death, states that it better to die at age 70 while being mentally competent than to die later when he might be mentally feeble. Plato notes that if 30 juror voted differently, Socrates would have been acquitted. We recognize Socrates' post sentence reasoning as a poor justification for death, that is, it is a sham argument and we are reasonably certain the oracle was against it.
II. Imaginary and invisible friends during childhood
The following quotes are from Wikipedia:
“Kutner (n.d.) reported that 65% of seven-year-old children report they have had an imaginary companion at some point in their lives. He further reported: Imaginary companions are an integral part of many children's lives. “
Two thirds of 7 year olds have had an imaginary friend and for many children these friends are an “integral” aspect of their lives. Because of the high percent of children who have imaginary friends, we suspect that researchers will not be able to find any correlation between gender, intelligence or any observable traits.
“Klausen & Passman (2007) report that imaginary companions were originally described as being supernatural creatures and spirits that were thought to connect people with their past lives.”
The connection to past lives recalls Plato’s idea of an immortal souls that reincarnates. However, this research shows that these “spirits” were not the people themselves, but in an unknown manner, connected people to their “past lives”.
“The era when children began having imaginary friends is unknown, but it is possible the phenomenon appeared in the mid–20th century…”
Researchers are unsure when children started talking to "imaginary friends", however, they speculate that it was the 20th century.
“There is a difference between the common imaginary companion that many children create, and the imaginary companions of psychopathology. Often when there is a psychological disorder, and an imaginary companion is present, the creator believes that this companion is real, and does not differentiate between the real and imagined.”
While we are assured there is a different type of "imaginary companions" between children and psychopaths, the only difference is the age of the subject. Either researchers do not want to label the 65% of children with imaginary friends as psychopaths, or their criteria for determining who is a psychopath are insufficient. The third possibility is that these psychopathic children mature into high functioning psychopaths or sociopaths.
“It has been theorized that children with imaginary companions may develop language skills ... faster than children without them, which may be because these children get more linguistic practice than their peers as a result of carrying out "conversations" with their imaginary friends”
We are skeptical regarding the theory that language skills develop faster without interaction with another person. The entity engaging the child must have linguistic skills that are equal, and preferably superior, to the subject to observe faster development. With few exceptions, such as reading, one can not become more skilled at a task by being alone.
“Another interesting result was that imaginary friends served to be mentors for children in their academics. They were encouraging, provided motivation, and increased the self – esteem of children when they did well in school.”
Although we make a distinction between mentoring and “encouraging”, we find these results to be interesting and we are certain that the importance of “self-esteem” for individuals can be dated to the middle of the 20th century.
“Many of the children reported that their imaginary friends served as a conscience and helped them to make the correct decision in times where morality was questioned.”
We note the similarity between Socrates’ “gift” and the function of a “conscience” in adults. We concluded that conscience in childhood is called an “imaginary friend”. We would like to do further research to understand the situations where these children made “the correct decision”.
“The major conclusion from the study was the there is a significant distinction between invisible companions and personified objects “
We agree that most people understand the “significant” difference between Hobbs, the stuffed tiger of comic strip fame, and "invisible companions". Unfortunately, it is not explained why children should reach this conclusion. Unless, children use reasoning to categorize personified objects and their "invisible companions" differently. If they use reasoning, we wonder what the reason could be and we note that this was a "major conclusion" of the study, that is, we assume a majority of children consistently displayed this behavior of distinguishing between two groups of non existent entities.
“Kutner (n.d.) reported that 65% of seven-year-old children report they have had an imaginary companion at some point in their lives. He further reported: Imaginary companions are an integral part of many children's lives. “
Two thirds of 7 year olds have had an imaginary friend and for many children these friends are an “integral” aspect of their lives. Because of the high percent of children who have imaginary friends, we suspect that researchers will not be able to find any correlation between gender, intelligence or any observable traits.
“Klausen & Passman (2007) report that imaginary companions were originally described as being supernatural creatures and spirits that were thought to connect people with their past lives.”
The connection to past lives recalls Plato’s idea of an immortal souls that reincarnates. However, this research shows that these “spirits” were not the people themselves, but in an unknown manner, connected people to their “past lives”.
“The era when children began having imaginary friends is unknown, but it is possible the phenomenon appeared in the mid–20th century…”
Researchers are unsure when children started talking to "imaginary friends", however, they speculate that it was the 20th century.
“There is a difference between the common imaginary companion that many children create, and the imaginary companions of psychopathology. Often when there is a psychological disorder, and an imaginary companion is present, the creator believes that this companion is real, and does not differentiate between the real and imagined.”
While we are assured there is a different type of "imaginary companions" between children and psychopaths, the only difference is the age of the subject. Either researchers do not want to label the 65% of children with imaginary friends as psychopaths, or their criteria for determining who is a psychopath are insufficient. The third possibility is that these psychopathic children mature into high functioning psychopaths or sociopaths.
“It has been theorized that children with imaginary companions may develop language skills ... faster than children without them, which may be because these children get more linguistic practice than their peers as a result of carrying out "conversations" with their imaginary friends”
We are skeptical regarding the theory that language skills develop faster without interaction with another person. The entity engaging the child must have linguistic skills that are equal, and preferably superior, to the subject to observe faster development. With few exceptions, such as reading, one can not become more skilled at a task by being alone.
“Another interesting result was that imaginary friends served to be mentors for children in their academics. They were encouraging, provided motivation, and increased the self – esteem of children when they did well in school.”
Although we make a distinction between mentoring and “encouraging”, we find these results to be interesting and we are certain that the importance of “self-esteem” for individuals can be dated to the middle of the 20th century.
“Many of the children reported that their imaginary friends served as a conscience and helped them to make the correct decision in times where morality was questioned.”
We note the similarity between Socrates’ “gift” and the function of a “conscience” in adults. We concluded that conscience in childhood is called an “imaginary friend”. We would like to do further research to understand the situations where these children made “the correct decision”.
“The major conclusion from the study was the there is a significant distinction between invisible companions and personified objects “
We agree that most people understand the “significant” difference between Hobbs, the stuffed tiger of comic strip fame, and "invisible companions". Unfortunately, it is not explained why children should reach this conclusion. Unless, children use reasoning to categorize personified objects and their "invisible companions" differently. If they use reasoning, we wonder what the reason could be and we note that this was a "major conclusion" of the study, that is, we assume a majority of children consistently displayed this behavior of distinguishing between two groups of non existent entities.
“This study further supports that children may create imaginary friends to work on social development. The findings that a first-born child is more likely to have an imaginary friend sheds some light on the idea that the child needs to socialize therefore they create the imaginary friend to develop their social skill.“
Children must be an incredible subject for study as they innately know that they have a deficit regarding “social development” and create imaginary friends to negate this deficiency. We doubt that unreal entities’ can assist in the ”development” of social skills in real children anymore than nonexistent entities can be the cause of the faster development of language skills. We note that the “idea” that children need to socialize is neither a fact nor demonstrable.
“An imaginary companion can be considered the product of creativity whereas the communication between the imaginary friend and the child is the process.”
Research suggests that imaginary friends many be the result of creativity in certain children. Although research shows there is no correlation between intelligence and imaginary friends, creativity is present in children with imaginary friends.
“The second study found that children without siblings reported more self-talk than children with siblings and the third study found that the students who reported having an imaginary friend also reported more self talk than the other students who did not have imaginary friends”
None of these conclusions are unexpected as increased self-talk correlates to imaginary friends.
“Self-talk and imaginary companionship contain many similarities therefore it is possible that they can be related. Through positive self-talk children can increase their self-esteem, which leads to the possibility that a positive relationship with an imaginary companion could predict a similar outcome.”
We are less hesitant to agree than these researchers who write that it is “possible” that “Self-talk and imaginary companionship” are related. We will ignore the undefined term, “self-esteem”, but we are interested in the “possibility” that a relationship with an unknown and invisible entity could lead to a “similar outcome” of higher self-esteem.
The following quotes are courtesy of Psychology Today.
“Boys tend to invent only male imaginary friends, whereas girls have either male or female ones.”
It would be interesting to read the speculations as to why this disparity exists between genders.
“Many children even offer details about hearing or touching their invisible friends.”
Children who hear voices of "invisible" friends are described as normal, whereas adults who hear voices are classified as "schizophrenic".
[Children] "with invisible friends tend to imagine an egalitarian relationship, more like a real friend.”
We are fascinated that "invisible friends" are in a more or less equal relationship, whereas those children who personify an on object tend to be the dominant or parental aspect of the relationship. Once again, children are making a distinction, based upon unknown criteria, between "invisible friends" and personified objects.
[About] "one third of children with invisible friends complained that their invisible friend didn’t always come when called, didn’t leave when asked, talked too loudly, didn’t share, or did annoying things.. “
If these entities exist only in the imagination of the child, that is, they are "imaginary friends" and not "invisible friends", we look forward to reading the speculation as to why these “invisible friends” do not conform to the wishes of the child.
“One study that examined the diaries of adolescents plus questionnaire data concluded that socially competent and creative adolescents were most likely to create an imaginary friend and that this type of friend was not a substitute for relationships with real people.”
We are heartened to learn that imaginary friends are not a substitute for real relationships in the test subjects. Therefore, adolescents distinguish between imaginary friends and real people just as children distinguish between invisible friends and personified objects.
[Children] "with imaginary friends sometimes blame them [imaginary friends] for misbehavior in an attempt to avoid parental displeasure. “
We expect children to blame their "imaginary" friends for misbehavior and are not disappointed with the findings. However, if these children believe their "imaginary" friends are non existent and are incapable of any behavior, then these children are lying to their parents. This lying creates a contradiction, as we learned that "imaginary" friends assist in making the correct decision regarding morality.
We must conclude that "invisible friends" are not synonymous with "imaginary friends" and by not making a distinction between "imaginary" and "invisible" friends, these researchers are creating confusion regarding the attributes of "imaginary" and "invisible" friends.
Children must be an incredible subject for study as they innately know that they have a deficit regarding “social development” and create imaginary friends to negate this deficiency. We doubt that unreal entities’ can assist in the ”development” of social skills in real children anymore than nonexistent entities can be the cause of the faster development of language skills. We note that the “idea” that children need to socialize is neither a fact nor demonstrable.
“An imaginary companion can be considered the product of creativity whereas the communication between the imaginary friend and the child is the process.”
Research suggests that imaginary friends many be the result of creativity in certain children. Although research shows there is no correlation between intelligence and imaginary friends, creativity is present in children with imaginary friends.
“The second study found that children without siblings reported more self-talk than children with siblings and the third study found that the students who reported having an imaginary friend also reported more self talk than the other students who did not have imaginary friends”
None of these conclusions are unexpected as increased self-talk correlates to imaginary friends.
“Self-talk and imaginary companionship contain many similarities therefore it is possible that they can be related. Through positive self-talk children can increase their self-esteem, which leads to the possibility that a positive relationship with an imaginary companion could predict a similar outcome.”
We are less hesitant to agree than these researchers who write that it is “possible” that “Self-talk and imaginary companionship” are related. We will ignore the undefined term, “self-esteem”, but we are interested in the “possibility” that a relationship with an unknown and invisible entity could lead to a “similar outcome” of higher self-esteem.
The following quotes are courtesy of Psychology Today.
“Boys tend to invent only male imaginary friends, whereas girls have either male or female ones.”
It would be interesting to read the speculations as to why this disparity exists between genders.
“Many children even offer details about hearing or touching their invisible friends.”
Children who hear voices of "invisible" friends are described as normal, whereas adults who hear voices are classified as "schizophrenic".
[Children] "with invisible friends tend to imagine an egalitarian relationship, more like a real friend.”
We are fascinated that "invisible friends" are in a more or less equal relationship, whereas those children who personify an on object tend to be the dominant or parental aspect of the relationship. Once again, children are making a distinction, based upon unknown criteria, between "invisible friends" and personified objects.
[About] "one third of children with invisible friends complained that their invisible friend didn’t always come when called, didn’t leave when asked, talked too loudly, didn’t share, or did annoying things.. “
If these entities exist only in the imagination of the child, that is, they are "imaginary friends" and not "invisible friends", we look forward to reading the speculation as to why these “invisible friends” do not conform to the wishes of the child.
“One study that examined the diaries of adolescents plus questionnaire data concluded that socially competent and creative adolescents were most likely to create an imaginary friend and that this type of friend was not a substitute for relationships with real people.”
We are heartened to learn that imaginary friends are not a substitute for real relationships in the test subjects. Therefore, adolescents distinguish between imaginary friends and real people just as children distinguish between invisible friends and personified objects.
[Children] "with imaginary friends sometimes blame them [imaginary friends] for misbehavior in an attempt to avoid parental displeasure. “
We expect children to blame their "imaginary" friends for misbehavior and are not disappointed with the findings. However, if these children believe their "imaginary" friends are non existent and are incapable of any behavior, then these children are lying to their parents. This lying creates a contradiction, as we learned that "imaginary" friends assist in making the correct decision regarding morality.
We must conclude that "invisible friends" are not synonymous with "imaginary friends" and by not making a distinction between "imaginary" and "invisible" friends, these researchers are creating confusion regarding the attributes of "imaginary" and "invisible" friends.
III. Discussion
We are heartened to learn that the majority of children have imaginary friends and therein lies one of the major issues, if not the problem, of psychological research: normal and abnormal are determined by numbers or, more accurately stated, percentages.
While all Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences have IQs above 140 and, if distributed on a Bell curve, those in the bottom 20 percent will, by definition, be classified as Morons. Because the majority of children have imaginary friends, this is normal or expected, whereas a minority of adults have imaginary friends and this is classified as abnormal. This researcher is not impressed with the subjective nature that psychological researchers hold themselves accountable.
While there are certain discrepancies between the information found on the Wikipedia and on the Psychology Today websites, we understand how researchers perceive, but not necessarily, understand, the phenomena of imaginary friends.
The following list are highlights of our learning so far:
Socrates had the “gift” since childhood.
Imaginary friends are an integral part of a child’s life.
Both statements agree.
Socrates oracles only advised when not to do an activity.
Imaginary friends assist in making correct decisions.
It is possible that both statements are in agreement. Socrates “gift” is considered conscious today.
Socrates oracles did not guide or lead Socrates.
Imaginary friends provide motivation.
Modern imaginary friends provide motivation.
The daemon is external and inspires and guides man.
Socrates oracle was internal.
Therefore, Socrates’ “gift” was not a daemon.
The daemon is external and inspires and guides man.
Imaginary friends provide motivation.
These statements are in agreement.
Details about hearing their imaginary friend.
Socrates oracle had preferences among Socrates’ friends.
Imaginative friends do not always respond to the child’s request.
The three statements are in agreement.
Additional statements of interest-
Imaginary friends possibly assist in developing linguistic skills faster.
The presence of imaginary friends assist in developing social skills faster.
There is a correlation between self talk and imaginary friends.
Boys tend to create male friends.
Imaginative friends tend toward more egalitarian relationships.
While all Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences have IQs above 140 and, if distributed on a Bell curve, those in the bottom 20 percent will, by definition, be classified as Morons. Because the majority of children have imaginary friends, this is normal or expected, whereas a minority of adults have imaginary friends and this is classified as abnormal. This researcher is not impressed with the subjective nature that psychological researchers hold themselves accountable.
While there are certain discrepancies between the information found on the Wikipedia and on the Psychology Today websites, we understand how researchers perceive, but not necessarily, understand, the phenomena of imaginary friends.
The following list are highlights of our learning so far:
Socrates had the “gift” since childhood.
Imaginary friends are an integral part of a child’s life.
Both statements agree.
Socrates oracles only advised when not to do an activity.
Imaginary friends assist in making correct decisions.
It is possible that both statements are in agreement. Socrates “gift” is considered conscious today.
Socrates oracles did not guide or lead Socrates.
Imaginary friends provide motivation.
Modern imaginary friends provide motivation.
The daemon is external and inspires and guides man.
Socrates oracle was internal.
Therefore, Socrates’ “gift” was not a daemon.
The daemon is external and inspires and guides man.
Imaginary friends provide motivation.
These statements are in agreement.
Details about hearing their imaginary friend.
Socrates oracle had preferences among Socrates’ friends.
Imaginative friends do not always respond to the child’s request.
The three statements are in agreement.
Additional statements of interest-
Imaginary friends possibly assist in developing linguistic skills faster.
The presence of imaginary friends assist in developing social skills faster.
There is a correlation between self talk and imaginary friends.
Boys tend to create male friends.
Imaginative friends tend toward more egalitarian relationships.
IV. conclusion
If the Gentle Reader is confused by the reason for this essay at this point, it is because we have been discussing different phenomena: Socrates' "gift", daemons, and invisible or imaginary friends. By removing daemons and their poorly explained attributes, we see that the “oracle” of Socrates and imaginary and invisible friends of children are virtually identical.
Since childhood Integral Assists in decisions Leads Motivates Can be heard Egalitarian Always responsive |
Socrates' "gift"
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No |
Imaginary and Invisible Friends
Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Yes Yes No |
We conclude that Socrates' "gift" was his imaginary childhood friend. We speculate that Socrates asked of his "friend" (1) if he should make it known that the oracle leads him and (2) if he should make it known that it is external to him. It follows that the oracle responded to both questions in the only manner it could.