To understand the effects of lies, both overt and covert on relationships, it will be helpful to review the communication rules that govern the experience of closeness and intimacy. In Transactional Analysis it is proposed that closeness and intimacy are determined by some specific behavioral rules: 1) When person A expresses an emotion accurately in kind and degree, and 2) when person B acknowledges person A's statement in both kind and degree, then 3) Person A will experience greater emotional closeness to Person B. It should be noted that feelings of closeness are not necessarily (or even usually) symmetrical. Person A may experience greater closeness or distance to Person B than B does to A. The degree of closeness A experiences appears to be related to how important A's feelings are to A. For instance, if A says he "really likes cheese sandwiches a lot", and B responds that she "understands exactly how much that liking is", the amount of increase in closeness A experiences is likely to be a tiny one.
This set of observationally-based rules are easily tested out. Consider your reaction if you tell someone that you are very angry, and they look blankly at you or tell you they don't believe you. Another example: after an angry argument many couples report unusually satisfying sexual relationships. The Stockholm syndrome is a good example of the development of intimacy between captor and prisoner when feelings are expressed clearly and acknowledged correctly, even when the feelings are (at least initially) negative ones.
With this in mind consider the effects of directly lying (about emotions, specifically) on relationships. If A tells B incorrectly about a feeling, no matter how B replies, no intimacy is gained. In fact, an increase in psychological distance is likely to be noted. If A tells B correctly about a feeling, and B replies inappropriately, no increase in intimacy is experienced. Again, an increase in experienced distance will occur.
When A lies by omission about feelings, A will feel more distant. A's behavior may change and be noted by B, who will not likely understand what is happening. To the extent that the emotions are "important" ones to A, A's distance will increase in proportion to their importance. As an example, consider the following: A is angry with B but doesn't want to admit it. B may or may not notice, but in any case A experiences more distance.
It's clear, I hope, that dishonest, unexpressed, denied or concealed feelings can have a profound effect on a relationship, especially if over time the same behaviors are repeated. Frequently the lies of omission are an attempt to maintain stability in the relationship although at the cost of loss of intimacy. Intimacy.distance is never static nor symmetrical, and people negotiate for an optimal level of closeness and distance in a never-ending dance.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
The Hiding Place of the Soul
Several years ago I posted a blog questioning the possibility of the continuity of the sense of personal identity. The idea started with Star Trek (as so many good ideas do). Spock used the "transporter" to go someplace instantaneously. Setting aside the notion of "instant" anything, since time is not an absolute, the notion involved the disassembly of Spock into his constituent atoms and re-assembling them in another location. Since the re-assembly was specified as an identical reassembly, i.e. every atom and molecule duplicated, the "new" Spock had the same memories, functionality and awareness that the "old" Spock did. For the purposes of the show, this was simply instantaneous transportation.
Clearly the "new" Spock (or Spock 2) would have the sensation/illusion that he was Spock 1 and had simply moved from one location to another. However, it's interesting to look a little more closely at Spock 1. He went into a box of some sort and was methodically destroyed, atom by atom. What might he experience? Nothing. His experience and existence came to an end with his destruction. While Spock 2 was created, Spock 1 was destroyed. Spock 2 has the illusion that he has been alive as long as Spock 1, but this is an illusion. Of course Spock 1 can't object: he's dead. His awareness ended.
The assumption that his personal awareness was transferred to Spock 2 is based on Spock 2's illusion of continuity. Watching the show we make the same illogical conclusion, i.e. that Spock 1's "self" has been transported to a new place. Again, Spock 1 died. Spock 2 was created to be identical. The atoms were not transported from Spock 1 to Spock 2. Only the organization of those atoms was transmitted.
Suppose that Spock 2 had not been reassembled at that time, but had been in some kind of hold. Where would Spock 1 be? Suppose further that Spock 2 had not been assembled at all. Where then is Spock 1? Suppose even further that Spock 1 was reassembled wrongly, or in a different form. Or suppose that 7 different Spock 2s had been created in different locations. The same question is answered the same way. Spock 1 is dead. Spock 2 is a different being with the illusion of being identical with Spock 1.
Our illusion that Spock is transferred from one place to another is based on our belief in the existence of some unifying sense of self that somehow is not dependent on how it is constructed or located. This unifying sense of self that we all have as a common illusion has been called the "soul" for centuries. We believe there is something unique about us. In fact, every single one of us has that same illusion. The ubiquity of the illusion does not make it true. One hundred (or one-hundred-million) dogs barking up the wrong tree doesn't make it the right tree.
We find it hard to give up the fantasy of having a unique identity, a soul, that somehow is separate from our physical existence and/or does not depend on that physical existence. At the same time, common sense (which is not at all common, by the way) is forced to recognize the absurdity of the idea. We believe that Spock 2 is Spock 1, because we want to believe it and we have been taught to believe it. And Spock 1 certainly can't object: he no longer exists. Since the rransporter transports physical objects and the "soul" is non-physical, it cannot be transported, and poor Spock 2 can't have a soul, assuming he had one in the first place.
So watch out for transporters. You will undoubtedly lose your soul, assuming you have one.
Clearly the "new" Spock (or Spock 2) would have the sensation/illusion that he was Spock 1 and had simply moved from one location to another. However, it's interesting to look a little more closely at Spock 1. He went into a box of some sort and was methodically destroyed, atom by atom. What might he experience? Nothing. His experience and existence came to an end with his destruction. While Spock 2 was created, Spock 1 was destroyed. Spock 2 has the illusion that he has been alive as long as Spock 1, but this is an illusion. Of course Spock 1 can't object: he's dead. His awareness ended.
The assumption that his personal awareness was transferred to Spock 2 is based on Spock 2's illusion of continuity. Watching the show we make the same illogical conclusion, i.e. that Spock 1's "self" has been transported to a new place. Again, Spock 1 died. Spock 2 was created to be identical. The atoms were not transported from Spock 1 to Spock 2. Only the organization of those atoms was transmitted.
Suppose that Spock 2 had not been reassembled at that time, but had been in some kind of hold. Where would Spock 1 be? Suppose further that Spock 2 had not been assembled at all. Where then is Spock 1? Suppose even further that Spock 1 was reassembled wrongly, or in a different form. Or suppose that 7 different Spock 2s had been created in different locations. The same question is answered the same way. Spock 1 is dead. Spock 2 is a different being with the illusion of being identical with Spock 1.
Our illusion that Spock is transferred from one place to another is based on our belief in the existence of some unifying sense of self that somehow is not dependent on how it is constructed or located. This unifying sense of self that we all have as a common illusion has been called the "soul" for centuries. We believe there is something unique about us. In fact, every single one of us has that same illusion. The ubiquity of the illusion does not make it true. One hundred (or one-hundred-million) dogs barking up the wrong tree doesn't make it the right tree.
We find it hard to give up the fantasy of having a unique identity, a soul, that somehow is separate from our physical existence and/or does not depend on that physical existence. At the same time, common sense (which is not at all common, by the way) is forced to recognize the absurdity of the idea. We believe that Spock 2 is Spock 1, because we want to believe it and we have been taught to believe it. And Spock 1 certainly can't object: he no longer exists. Since the rransporter transports physical objects and the "soul" is non-physical, it cannot be transported, and poor Spock 2 can't have a soul, assuming he had one in the first place.
So watch out for transporters. You will undoubtedly lose your soul, assuming you have one.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Whatever happened to the social contract?
Reading about the reluctance of otherwise intelligent (or at least educated) people to have their children vaccinated for measles and the like brought into highlight a major and increasing shift in our civilization. Less and less do people recognize that the goodies we get are paid for by our willingness to carry out our part of the social contract. These people act as if they were entitled to the benefits of civilization and owed nothing in return.
This is the exact equivalent of expecting running water and electricity without paying taxes. But such benefits as roads and running water are only part of the social contract. We owe each other certain considerations, even though they are not as specific and clear as city services. Living in a group requires that we consider the rights of others and can expect them to consider ours. We make some laws to exact consequences when basic rights are not respected. We try not to step on someone's toes or touch strangers unnecessarily. We try to keep our voices down in public space, such as theaters and busses. We understand that an article in a bag in someone's lap "belongs" to them and we expect not to touch it or take it.
Living together demands that we give up some freedoms in order to live with some comfort and consistent expectations. In a word, we all owe each other. Without that social contract life in close contact with others would be unbearable. that is, "nasty, brutish and short".
It seems clear that the social contract is weakening. People live more and more as if there were no other people on the planet. They talk loudly on their smart-phones about intensely personal things and they do so in public places. They spit on the sidewalk, they pick their noses while driving their cars and talking on their phones, as if they were exempt from the requirements of the social contract. They apparently do not realize how dependent they themselves are on that contract for any kind of survival. They apparently do not care about our mutual obligations, though they are quick enough (and loud enough) when people do not respect theirs.
The examples are, unfortunately, endless and apparently increasing in quantity and volume. The refusal to allow their children to be vaccinated is an excellent example. Younger people who have grown up without worries about infectious diseases don't seem to recognize that the reason they have not seen them is vaccination. So they think of these illnesses as unimportant. When somebody raises the question that it might be possible for vaccinations to cause an illness, they see that risk, no matter how small the data indicate that risk is, as easy to avoid. No vaccination to their children.
They don't recognize that our protection from infectious illnesses is a group protection, depending on the vast majority of the members of the group being immune and thereby not carriers of an illness. The non-vaccinators benefit from this protection without recognizing any corresponding obligation to the others in their groups. Once the number of non-vaccinated individuals reaches a certain percentage, the disease can and will spread. Not recognizing the social contract and relying on the universe to continue to treat them as special will have its cost.
The same idea applies to the social contract. As the number of "entitled people" who consider themselves excused from obligations to others reaches a certain percentage, society will collapse rapidly as the percentage of entitled grows. No obligations to others? Just look out for what I want and the hell with the rest of you? Civilization is not unlike a herd immunity which protects against savagery and other uncivilized behavior. When enough members are no longer immune to savagery, the herd loses its protection and civilization (like health) will fail.
This is the exact equivalent of expecting running water and electricity without paying taxes. But such benefits as roads and running water are only part of the social contract. We owe each other certain considerations, even though they are not as specific and clear as city services. Living in a group requires that we consider the rights of others and can expect them to consider ours. We make some laws to exact consequences when basic rights are not respected. We try not to step on someone's toes or touch strangers unnecessarily. We try to keep our voices down in public space, such as theaters and busses. We understand that an article in a bag in someone's lap "belongs" to them and we expect not to touch it or take it.
Living together demands that we give up some freedoms in order to live with some comfort and consistent expectations. In a word, we all owe each other. Without that social contract life in close contact with others would be unbearable. that is, "nasty, brutish and short".
It seems clear that the social contract is weakening. People live more and more as if there were no other people on the planet. They talk loudly on their smart-phones about intensely personal things and they do so in public places. They spit on the sidewalk, they pick their noses while driving their cars and talking on their phones, as if they were exempt from the requirements of the social contract. They apparently do not realize how dependent they themselves are on that contract for any kind of survival. They apparently do not care about our mutual obligations, though they are quick enough (and loud enough) when people do not respect theirs.
The examples are, unfortunately, endless and apparently increasing in quantity and volume. The refusal to allow their children to be vaccinated is an excellent example. Younger people who have grown up without worries about infectious diseases don't seem to recognize that the reason they have not seen them is vaccination. So they think of these illnesses as unimportant. When somebody raises the question that it might be possible for vaccinations to cause an illness, they see that risk, no matter how small the data indicate that risk is, as easy to avoid. No vaccination to their children.
They don't recognize that our protection from infectious illnesses is a group protection, depending on the vast majority of the members of the group being immune and thereby not carriers of an illness. The non-vaccinators benefit from this protection without recognizing any corresponding obligation to the others in their groups. Once the number of non-vaccinated individuals reaches a certain percentage, the disease can and will spread. Not recognizing the social contract and relying on the universe to continue to treat them as special will have its cost.
The same idea applies to the social contract. As the number of "entitled people" who consider themselves excused from obligations to others reaches a certain percentage, society will collapse rapidly as the percentage of entitled grows. No obligations to others? Just look out for what I want and the hell with the rest of you? Civilization is not unlike a herd immunity which protects against savagery and other uncivilized behavior. When enough members are no longer immune to savagery, the herd loses its protection and civilization (like health) will fail.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Legal executions
Firstly let me say that I am opposed to capital punishment, on the grounds that it is basically inhumane and because our justice system is imperfecr enough to allow an occasional innocent person to be executed.
However, that being said, I don't understand the conflicts about using various combinations of drugs to kill a prisoner. Why such a complicated and tedious system? I have heard that an overdose of heroin kills almost instantly. People who overdose are found dead with the needle still in their arm, which argues a certain instantaneous quality to the effect. Why do we not use that method? I'm sure there must be a reason that this is not done, but I (not being a drug user) do not understand. Any readers out there have an answer to that question?
However, that being said, I don't understand the conflicts about using various combinations of drugs to kill a prisoner. Why such a complicated and tedious system? I have heard that an overdose of heroin kills almost instantly. People who overdose are found dead with the needle still in their arm, which argues a certain instantaneous quality to the effect. Why do we not use that method? I'm sure there must be a reason that this is not done, but I (not being a drug user) do not understand. Any readers out there have an answer to that question?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
