I want to be clear and avoid unnecessary offense to those who might be bothered by a critical discussion of some aspects of a particular religion. I am not concerned about the religious aspects of Buddhism. As far as I am personally concerned, all belief systems that are based on supernatural events are equally absurd, but there's nothing to debate about that. Absurd is absurd. I am interested in the practical outcomes of living by some specific philosophy in this world.
Philosophies about how one should live are frequently embedded in religious belief systems, and it's hard to consider the ethos of a religion without being influenced by the mythos. I am here interested only in the applications of the Buddhist philosophy and its impact on individual and community life. I will say it again: this is not about religion.
Buddhist philosophy, like Confucianism or Christian philosophy, is about how an individual might live in this world to achieve a better or happier life. As such, it can be evaluated apart from its religious aspects in terms of how useful, effective, or practical it might be, and how much its practice results in a happier life for the practitioner.
Buddhism prescribes behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that are intended to create a better life (in this world) for the practitioner. The individual is taught how to adjust their attitudes in such a way as to result in less pain and conflict. A person practicing Buddhist philosophy learns to adjust himself to his environment and social situation. He learns to accept what happens, to let go of desires and "false goals", to live at peace with his environment without conflict or struggle.
Such an approach works well. Much of human unhappiness is related to our tendency to hold on to things, to refuse to let go of bad feelings, of envy and resentment. Learning to let go of our past is an important and difficult task, but one that promotes freedom and joy in the present.
Buddhist practitioners adjust to their environment. What they do NOT do is adjust their environment to themselves. They accept what is, and make no attempt to change it or improve it. And while this is certainly beneficial to the practitioner, it creates a community which is basically passive, which accepts the status quo and adjusts to it. Buddhist communities and governments are stable and essentially passive. They are rarely involved in scientific exploration or technological advancement.
Of course individual Buddhists may not fit the above description, but that doesn't change the overall flavor of their communities. Just look at countries that profess Buddhism in this century. They are much the same as they have been for thousands of years.
Is learning to be at peace with one's life, even if it is unhealthy, uncomfortable or unsafe, a good thing? On the other hand, philosophies that lead to constant change, improvement in individual conditions, at the cost of unrest and violence at times may or may not be good. Sometimes individual comfort/happiness conflicts with community improvement. Sometimes miserably unhappy individuals have given rise to amazing and beneficial changes. Sometimes happy and content individuals have played their fiddles while Rome burns.
Which is better?
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Sunday, November 06, 2016
How "belief systems" are born and developed
Looking around at the world, full of conflicts and wars, incompatible and irrational belief systems, it is important to look at the processes by means of which all belief systems are created. How, living in the same world, did we come to have such widely discrepant belief systems, totally incompatible with one another and all believed to be totally right? How did individuals grow up with such peculiar beliefs about themselves and the people around them?
We seem to have the inborn trait of curiosity and speculation about how the world works. We want to know what influences what, what controls what. We want to predict and control the future. Where this trait arises is open to speculation. How we use it is fairly clear. Humans make theories about causation.
Two factors are important. The first factor is the post-hoc fallacy. This fallacy stipulates that when thing B happens directly after thing A, thing A "caused" thing B. This is a fallacy because it is not always and invariably true. However, it is true a lot of the time, and leads to our first discoveries of the laws of the universe. Eating the fruit of a strange plant, followed by miserable illness, leads us not to eat that fruit again. We don't know for sure that the plant was poisonous, but logical certainty is not as important as avoiding taking the chance.
The key phrase here is "not sure". We form theories of connection or causality. We think "A may have caused B". Eating the fruit MAY have caused our illness. How do we know? We try it out, or at least observe carefully. We look for evidence that our theory is valid. It is important to our survival that we try to understand how things work and make guesses (theories) as to what might hurt us. We have to accept probabilities, that is, relative proof rather than absolute. We have to look at the data coming in and allow it to strengthen or weaken our theories.
The key phrase here is "not sure". We form theories of connection or causality. We think "A may have caused B". Eating the fruit MAY have caused our illness. How do we know? We try it out, or at least observe carefully. We look for evidence that our theory is valid. It is important to our survival that we try to understand how things work and make guesses (theories) as to what might hurt us. We have to accept probabilities, that is, relative proof rather than absolute. We have to look at the data coming in and allow it to strengthen or weaken our theories.
The second factor is called (by us psychologists) confirmation bias. This bias tells us that when we think X theory may be true, we pay selective attention to evidence supporting X. We do NOT look systematically for evidence disproving X, at least not until the birth of scientific thought. And even scientists trained in collecting data don't think scientifically most of the time.
For instance, someone who believes they are "unlucky" will selectively attend to "evidence" of unluck and selectively ignore evidence of luck. The "unlucky" person accumulates data over time that "proves" his theory about luck to be correct for him. Someone who believes they are unlovable will collect rejections, and even invite them, believing rejection to be inevitable. It is easy to see how religious and political beliefs are supported.
For instance, someone who believes they are "unlucky" will selectively attend to "evidence" of unluck and selectively ignore evidence of luck. The "unlucky" person accumulates data over time that "proves" his theory about luck to be correct for him. Someone who believes they are unlovable will collect rejections, and even invite them, believing rejection to be inevitable. It is easy to see how religious and political beliefs are supported.
These two factors are sufficient to give rise to thousands, millions, of conflicting ideas and beliefs, many of which are so strongly held that people will kill to defend them. Our beliefs tell us what to look for, what to believe, how to behave. They define our civilizations, our religions, and our politics. They define which groups are "good", and which "bad".
In children the process is easier to observe than it is in adults, but adults function in pretty much the same way. Suppose we are given a theory, such as: step on a crack and you'll have bad luck all day. We then begin paying selective attention to cracks. We try stepping on one or two, and then observing the following events, which by means of the post-hoc fallacy, we believe to be directly connected to the crack-stepping behavior. A number of things happen, as they always do on any given day. However, because of confirmation bias, we notice particularly the events that "confirm" our theory about cracks. We discount or minimize those events that do not confirm it. For at least a few days, while we are paying attention, the theory seems to be more and more true. We do accept negative evidence, but it takes a lot more of it to disprove the theory than positive evidence to confirm it.
When events occur that have special emotional meaning to us, we try to find a theory that accounts for them. We wonder what we did or observed that might have "caused" the event to happen. We form a theory. When we are young, our standards for a good theory are loose. (Hopefully they get tighter as we mature). A small child once asked me if her mother had died because the child had "bad thoughts". The child is not capable of seeing the weakness of the connection between the child's thoughts and the mother's accidental death. So all of our theories seem worth investigating, at least while we are young and not appropriately skeptical.
Many events can give rise to theory formation, but events with a lot of emotion attached are primary stimuli for theory formation. Theory: If I don't take a raincoat to work it will rain. Event: If I don't take a raincoat and it does rain, the theory is supported. Event: If I don't take a raincoat and it does not rain, that doesn't count. So theories mostly find support and rarely find disproof. They get stronger over the years as we collect more "supportive evidence" and continue to discount negative evidence.
This pattern results in our changing beliefs about ourselves as we grow older. Something happens to get our attention and we form a theory of connection. We accumulate support for that theory, but not disconfirmation. Suppose some event happens that causes us to form a theory about ourselves. As an example, imagine getting a bad grade on a test in the first grade. We might begin to form a theory, such as: "Maybe I'm stupid". We then begin to look for evidence, but we pay most attention to the evidence that supports our belief in being stupid. From then on we accumulate more evidence and become more convinced that we're "stupid".
Religions get formed in the same way. In the dawn of time, a loving parent falls to his knees and prays to the heavens for the return to health of his child. The child recovers. The parent forms a theory: praying to the heavens results in blessings. He tells his friends what happened. They all begin collecting evidence that supports the theory and discounts the negative evidence. When a parent prays for their child and the child dies, the parent discounts the negative evidence by forming a new theory: one must have to pray in a specific way for it to work, and he must have got it wrong. The future evidence is heavily weighted in favor of support of the future theory(s).
Some of the theories formed may be valid, others not so much. But they continue anyway as if they were confirmed. We still throw rice at weddings, even when we are not strongly in favor of immediate fertility. A problem is that theories can never be absolutely proven or disproven. There is always the possibility of getting more evidence. We may find connections between event A and B that we didn't know before. So our world is more and more full of divergent and supported (but not proven) beliefs.
We believe we are right. We forget that "belief" is not proof. We do not really question our beliefs unless something happens that forces us to reconsider. That takes a lot of force. For instance, many people believe the universe is "fair". A cursory reading of the newspaper should be enough to cause doubts about that theory. However, in order to keep the theory intact, people develop new "theories" as to why the universe appears unfair: the people to whom bad things happen "must have deserved it" or "there must be some higher purpose we don't understand" or any number of theories designed to allow the old theory to continue in the absence of supportive evidence.
To overcome our own confirmation bias requires conscious attention and respect for new data, a conscious willingness to question your beliefs and an equal willingness to consider and evaluate new data on its merits. For instance, to overcome your belief in being unlovable, you have to be willing to consider data that supports your being lovable. By challenging beliefs, you can become more aware of contradictory data, and vice-versa. Perhaps you can't entirely eliminate beliefs that have accumulated "support" over the years, but you can weaken them over time. (A central tenet of CBT).
I always value comments.
We believe we are right. We forget that "belief" is not proof. We do not really question our beliefs unless something happens that forces us to reconsider. That takes a lot of force. For instance, many people believe the universe is "fair". A cursory reading of the newspaper should be enough to cause doubts about that theory. However, in order to keep the theory intact, people develop new "theories" as to why the universe appears unfair: the people to whom bad things happen "must have deserved it" or "there must be some higher purpose we don't understand" or any number of theories designed to allow the old theory to continue in the absence of supportive evidence.
To overcome our own confirmation bias requires conscious attention and respect for new data, a conscious willingness to question your beliefs and an equal willingness to consider and evaluate new data on its merits. For instance, to overcome your belief in being unlovable, you have to be willing to consider data that supports your being lovable. By challenging beliefs, you can become more aware of contradictory data, and vice-versa. Perhaps you can't entirely eliminate beliefs that have accumulated "support" over the years, but you can weaken them over time. (A central tenet of CBT).
I always value comments.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Brainless politics
Here we are again, heading for an election that has some real importance in our future. The candidates, such as they are, have clearly decided that voters will vote on the basis of which candidate can generate the most emotional environment. In the debates and the speeches, it's clear that the goal is to emotionally activate voters, to get them excited and angry, to get them suspicious and thoughtless.
The whole operation reminds me of a basic trick in stage magic. You get the audience to watch the wrong hand, while the unwatched hand pulls the trick off. In politics the illusion engendered is not sleight-of-hand, it's emotional discombobulation. Excited and angry voters don't think. They react. They are not weighing policies and considering outcomes, they are choosing a personal champion with whom they identify, and whom they trust to be bigger, meaner, louder and more aggressive than their opponent.
Where is the thoughtful consideration of policies? Economic plans? Foreign relations? Immigration policies? Social security assets?
Of course you know the answer. There is none. None at all. The political parties have read you and the rest of us correctly. We don't understand all these policy thingies, but we know who we like and who we hate. Thoughtful voters are not really predictable nor are they easily controlled, if they can be controlled at all. Emotional voters are a piece of cake, easily manipulated with colorful language and over-the-top speeches. Emotional voters can be whipped into a frenzy and have the illusion that their vote is based on good thinking and good values.
What a laugh. We don't really care about those things. We like to be excited, to take part in a real soap-opera battle based on bad language, racial and sexual slurs, incitement to violence and distrust of the only political process in the history of the world that has ever even briefly been successful.
Don't vote your heart. Vote with your mind. If you don't know the policies of a candidate, don't vote for them. How hard is that?
The whole operation reminds me of a basic trick in stage magic. You get the audience to watch the wrong hand, while the unwatched hand pulls the trick off. In politics the illusion engendered is not sleight-of-hand, it's emotional discombobulation. Excited and angry voters don't think. They react. They are not weighing policies and considering outcomes, they are choosing a personal champion with whom they identify, and whom they trust to be bigger, meaner, louder and more aggressive than their opponent.
Where is the thoughtful consideration of policies? Economic plans? Foreign relations? Immigration policies? Social security assets?
Of course you know the answer. There is none. None at all. The political parties have read you and the rest of us correctly. We don't understand all these policy thingies, but we know who we like and who we hate. Thoughtful voters are not really predictable nor are they easily controlled, if they can be controlled at all. Emotional voters are a piece of cake, easily manipulated with colorful language and over-the-top speeches. Emotional voters can be whipped into a frenzy and have the illusion that their vote is based on good thinking and good values.
What a laugh. We don't really care about those things. We like to be excited, to take part in a real soap-opera battle based on bad language, racial and sexual slurs, incitement to violence and distrust of the only political process in the history of the world that has ever even briefly been successful.
Don't vote your heart. Vote with your mind. If you don't know the policies of a candidate, don't vote for them. How hard is that?
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Marriage and Deal-Breakers
Marriage is a very complex concept. We tend to think about it emotionally, which makes it difficult to conceptualize. At least, however, it is a contract between two people which binds them as partners with mutual obligations and responsibilities. We publicly state that this contract is "forever" and indissoluble, but we have certain unacknowledged conditions that allow the breaking of the contract. These "deal-breakers" are almost never discussed because to discuss them would destroy the romantic fantasy of eternal love.
We do sometimes consider what would happen if the contract is broken. Pre-nuptial agreements are an example. They spell out the division of goods and services between the former partners if the contract is terminated. Although they are clearly useful, they are extremely unpopular with couples who are "in love", because they are inconsistent with the romantic fantasy that characterizes the beginnings of most marriages.
We don't, as a rule, consider the conditions under which we consider the contract to be broken and terminated. "Deal-breakers" are specific behaviors and conditions under which one partner is unwilling to continue the marital contract. We like to pretend that nothing could make us unwilling to stay married, but this is clearly purely fantasy. In fact, the majority of marriages end in divorce, so it is quite unrealistic to pretend this cannot happen.
Therefore it is extremely important to consider exactly what "deal-breakers" are for each member of the contract. When they are not considered they don't go away. They are simply not discussed. In the majority of divorces, the reasons for dissolving the marital contract are accumulated over a period of time. They are, in fact, based on accumulating increasing negative feelings, which people typically describe as "being fed up".
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. Being "fed up" requires a partner to accumulate instances of intolerable behavior, which is tolerated on the grounds that at some time in the future the other partner will change. The amount of negative feelings carried by the first partner must accumulate until the breaking point, at which time there is typically an explosion of feelings used to stimulate the partners into breaking up, usually a very anxiety-provoking situation in itself.
Often the partners are not clear about what they are beginning to consider "intolerable". Frequently the transgressing partner is not aware of exactly what their partner is finding unacceptable. Often the first partner is not clearly aware of what it is they will not be able to live with. The ambiguity and uncertainty continue until some event "the last straw" and has crossed the line.
It is easier to cross the line when you don't know exactly where the the line is. Neither partner may be clear as to how close they are to marital disaster until the line is crossed. To spell out where the boundary is, is to commit yourself to an action you cannot easily imagine in advance. Yet without knowing the boundary it is far easier to cross, and once crossed it may be irrevocable.
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. Whether boundaries are easily imaginable or emotionally uncomfortable is not a good reason to ignore them. When you are contracting for a life-long partnership, it is extremely important that you know the conditions under which your partner will no longer be willing to remain in the partnership. To do that, each partner has to carefully consider exactly what their personal boundaries are and to what degree, if any, they are willing to act on their crossing.
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. For example, a deal-breaker for Partner A might be sexual infidelity by B. If A is willing to be clear that such behavior is unacceptable, then A is committed to divorce if B is unfaithful. If A is not willing to be committed to divorce under such conditions, sexual fidelity is not a boundary for A. When a boundary is set, the person setting the boundary must be willing to take action or else it is not in fact a "deal-breaker".
Deal-breakers do not have to be mutual or "equal". What is a deal-breaker for A may not be so for B. What is important is that when A sets a boundary, B knows exactly what the consequences will be. There is no boundary-testing behavior that will be acceptable. Of course, no one in the throes of romantic love wants to commit themselves to ending their romantic relationship under specific conditions. However, without such specification, boundary testing will more often lead to divorce. "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
It's unlikely that at any given moment a person can specify in advance all the possible deal-breakers. Conditions can arise in the future that could not be anticipated; life-changing events can occur that lead to unimaginable conditions. People can change in unexpected ways. A partner can become a drug-abuser or a physical or emotional bully. However, such possibilities can be considered even if they seem absurd in the present. They need to be considered whenever they arise. "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
It would be a very difficult conversation to have, considering the deal-breakers and their consequences. Each partner has to know something about their own boundaries and limits of their tolerance, no matter how deep their feelings for the other. That takes more self-knowledge than most young people have, which is why it is so difficult for early marriages to endure. Difficult or not, the attempt is an important one. Deal-breakers should not only be discussed before marriage, they should be discussed as soon as one partner becomes aware they are an issue, and should be discussed before they are irrevocably crossed.
A note on specific deal-breakers and issues related to them will follow.
We do sometimes consider what would happen if the contract is broken. Pre-nuptial agreements are an example. They spell out the division of goods and services between the former partners if the contract is terminated. Although they are clearly useful, they are extremely unpopular with couples who are "in love", because they are inconsistent with the romantic fantasy that characterizes the beginnings of most marriages.
We don't, as a rule, consider the conditions under which we consider the contract to be broken and terminated. "Deal-breakers" are specific behaviors and conditions under which one partner is unwilling to continue the marital contract. We like to pretend that nothing could make us unwilling to stay married, but this is clearly purely fantasy. In fact, the majority of marriages end in divorce, so it is quite unrealistic to pretend this cannot happen.
Therefore it is extremely important to consider exactly what "deal-breakers" are for each member of the contract. When they are not considered they don't go away. They are simply not discussed. In the majority of divorces, the reasons for dissolving the marital contract are accumulated over a period of time. They are, in fact, based on accumulating increasing negative feelings, which people typically describe as "being fed up".
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. Being "fed up" requires a partner to accumulate instances of intolerable behavior, which is tolerated on the grounds that at some time in the future the other partner will change. The amount of negative feelings carried by the first partner must accumulate until the breaking point, at which time there is typically an explosion of feelings used to stimulate the partners into breaking up, usually a very anxiety-provoking situation in itself.
Often the partners are not clear about what they are beginning to consider "intolerable". Frequently the transgressing partner is not aware of exactly what their partner is finding unacceptable. Often the first partner is not clearly aware of what it is they will not be able to live with. The ambiguity and uncertainty continue until some event "the last straw" and has crossed the line.
It is easier to cross the line when you don't know exactly where the the line is. Neither partner may be clear as to how close they are to marital disaster until the line is crossed. To spell out where the boundary is, is to commit yourself to an action you cannot easily imagine in advance. Yet without knowing the boundary it is far easier to cross, and once crossed it may be irrevocable.
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. Whether boundaries are easily imaginable or emotionally uncomfortable is not a good reason to ignore them. When you are contracting for a life-long partnership, it is extremely important that you know the conditions under which your partner will no longer be willing to remain in the partnership. To do that, each partner has to carefully consider exactly what their personal boundaries are and to what degree, if any, they are willing to act on their crossing.
"Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage. For example, a deal-breaker for Partner A might be sexual infidelity by B. If A is willing to be clear that such behavior is unacceptable, then A is committed to divorce if B is unfaithful. If A is not willing to be committed to divorce under such conditions, sexual fidelity is not a boundary for A. When a boundary is set, the person setting the boundary must be willing to take action or else it is not in fact a "deal-breaker".
Deal-breakers do not have to be mutual or "equal". What is a deal-breaker for A may not be so for B. What is important is that when A sets a boundary, B knows exactly what the consequences will be. There is no boundary-testing behavior that will be acceptable. Of course, no one in the throes of romantic love wants to commit themselves to ending their romantic relationship under specific conditions. However, without such specification, boundary testing will more often lead to divorce. "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
It's unlikely that at any given moment a person can specify in advance all the possible deal-breakers. Conditions can arise in the future that could not be anticipated; life-changing events can occur that lead to unimaginable conditions. People can change in unexpected ways. A partner can become a drug-abuser or a physical or emotional bully. However, such possibilities can be considered even if they seem absurd in the present. They need to be considered whenever they arise. "Deal-breaker" discussions are an ongoing requirement, before AND during the marriage.
It would be a very difficult conversation to have, considering the deal-breakers and their consequences. Each partner has to know something about their own boundaries and limits of their tolerance, no matter how deep their feelings for the other. That takes more self-knowledge than most young people have, which is why it is so difficult for early marriages to endure. Difficult or not, the attempt is an important one. Deal-breakers should not only be discussed before marriage, they should be discussed as soon as one partner becomes aware they are an issue, and should be discussed before they are irrevocably crossed.
A note on specific deal-breakers and issues related to them will follow.
Friday, July 15, 2016
A letter to young composers
As you engage yourselves in the laborious process of learning the mechanics and structure of music, it is important that you ask yourself the following questions: For whom are you composing? To what end?
It's easy to get caught up in whatever the current style of music is being prompted by your teachers and your classmates. It's easy to begin writing music that will impress your peers and be approved by your teachers. A certain competitive element can creep in to your composition, emphasizing your desire to be known as "an original" composer. Your audience becomes very local, and as is the case with all music written for a local and limited audience, parochial. Music in such a setting becomes more of an intellectual exercise than a creative one. Music can become based on non-musical ideas, and as such is more self-congratulatory than satisfying. It may have been an exercise in originality but that is not enough to make it worthwhile or memorable music.
The second question follows from your honest answer to the first: What do you want to express in your composition? Clearly any event and any emotion can form the basis for a piece of music. Richard Strauss is quoted as stating he could set a laundry list to muic. But he didn't. Are all emotions worthy of expression? Why do you think people listen to "serious" music? Do they want to hear the chaos and wickedness and violence of our world brought into the concert hall or the living room?
Or is music ideally a reminder of a more beautiful and perfect world? Some of the best music, modern as well as 100 years old, is based on the following elements: melody, harmony, couterpoint, rhythm and to some degree repetition. We like to hold it in our heads and hearts as we travel through an imperfect and frightening world. It gives us a sense of order and beauty, words which many young composers don't seem to understand. To be beautiful, music does not have to be happy. It can express sorrow, grief, rage and a host of less pleasant emotions. But for those emotions to move us as an audience, they must have the basic elements. There must be a structure we can feel, not just understand intellectually.
Probably in modern times film and television musical scores are closer to the musical ideal. While they can be chaotic and without apparent structure, the visual images accompanying them provide a background against which they can be at least understood. Some of this music stays with us, and deservedly so. Some that is more purely expressive of the visual events (the "laundry list") disappears forever when the images are turned off. They served a purpose, of course, but not a musical one.
If I can't hear it in my head and heart it disappears into the chaos of everyday existence. It might as well never have been.
It's easy to get caught up in whatever the current style of music is being prompted by your teachers and your classmates. It's easy to begin writing music that will impress your peers and be approved by your teachers. A certain competitive element can creep in to your composition, emphasizing your desire to be known as "an original" composer. Your audience becomes very local, and as is the case with all music written for a local and limited audience, parochial. Music in such a setting becomes more of an intellectual exercise than a creative one. Music can become based on non-musical ideas, and as such is more self-congratulatory than satisfying. It may have been an exercise in originality but that is not enough to make it worthwhile or memorable music.
The second question follows from your honest answer to the first: What do you want to express in your composition? Clearly any event and any emotion can form the basis for a piece of music. Richard Strauss is quoted as stating he could set a laundry list to muic. But he didn't. Are all emotions worthy of expression? Why do you think people listen to "serious" music? Do they want to hear the chaos and wickedness and violence of our world brought into the concert hall or the living room?
Or is music ideally a reminder of a more beautiful and perfect world? Some of the best music, modern as well as 100 years old, is based on the following elements: melody, harmony, couterpoint, rhythm and to some degree repetition. We like to hold it in our heads and hearts as we travel through an imperfect and frightening world. It gives us a sense of order and beauty, words which many young composers don't seem to understand. To be beautiful, music does not have to be happy. It can express sorrow, grief, rage and a host of less pleasant emotions. But for those emotions to move us as an audience, they must have the basic elements. There must be a structure we can feel, not just understand intellectually.
Probably in modern times film and television musical scores are closer to the musical ideal. While they can be chaotic and without apparent structure, the visual images accompanying them provide a background against which they can be at least understood. Some of this music stays with us, and deservedly so. Some that is more purely expressive of the visual events (the "laundry list") disappears forever when the images are turned off. They served a purpose, of course, but not a musical one.
If I can't hear it in my head and heart it disappears into the chaos of everyday existence. It might as well never have been.
Saturday, July 09, 2016
Bad statistics make a bad situation worse
The shootings of white police officers in Dallas is horrific and unacceptable. It is also horrific that blacks have been treated with such violence and disrespect that many feel impelled toward violence as the only appropriate response to law enforcement. I don't know the solution to this appalling set of events. But I do have some understanding of the kinds of thinking that make this terrible situation worse and make resolution even more difficult.
In the aftermath of the Dallas shootings, lots of articles are popping up that cite statistical differences between blacks and whites in a variety of areas, including socio-economic levels, employment/income, and death rate. So far every article I have seen indicates a serious lack of understanding about statistical differences.
I just read a "fact" of this kind published today. Marc Ambinder, in The Week today, said "There's overwhelming evidence that, in the heat of the moment, police officers are more likely to shoot black people simply because they are black. (If you're a black teenager, you are 21 times more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than you would be if you were white)". That's a horrific disparity, and undoubtedly, at least to a degree, reflects genuinely biased use of force against blacks.
BUT: The ONLY way such a statistical fact can be valid is if EVERY other factor besides race were equivalent between groups. To assume that it is entirely and only because of racial difference is to fall prey to the kinds of exaggerations that promote racial anger and bigotry.
Are we comparing, for instance, white teenagers in Minneapolis with black teenagers in Atlanta? What about all the other differences? Are the groups matched for education? Socio-economic status? Gang memberships? Who kills the teenagers, white or black police? Other teenagers? Are the groups equally engaged in lawful or unlawful behavior prior to the shootings?
Actually they are not matched for ANYTHING except race, which means the person quoting these "statistics" is finding what he was already looking for, racial bias by police. We don't need to stir up the pot with misleading and misunderstood statistics. It's bad enough, and responsible reporters and writers of articles should accept an obligation to be careful and accurate in their use of statistics.
I don't anticipate much interest in the above notes, though I think they are in fact important to understand. But they are not exciting and they reveal that much of the statistical "evidence" cited to account for or explain or justify the shootings in Dallas is primarily emotional and a dramatic interpretation of statistics to exaggerate and justify the shootings.
In the aftermath of the Dallas shootings, lots of articles are popping up that cite statistical differences between blacks and whites in a variety of areas, including socio-economic levels, employment/income, and death rate. So far every article I have seen indicates a serious lack of understanding about statistical differences.
I just read a "fact" of this kind published today. Marc Ambinder, in The Week today, said "There's overwhelming evidence that, in the heat of the moment, police officers are more likely to shoot black people simply because they are black. (If you're a black teenager, you are 21 times more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than you would be if you were white)". That's a horrific disparity, and undoubtedly, at least to a degree, reflects genuinely biased use of force against blacks.
BUT: The ONLY way such a statistical fact can be valid is if EVERY other factor besides race were equivalent between groups. To assume that it is entirely and only because of racial difference is to fall prey to the kinds of exaggerations that promote racial anger and bigotry.
Are we comparing, for instance, white teenagers in Minneapolis with black teenagers in Atlanta? What about all the other differences? Are the groups matched for education? Socio-economic status? Gang memberships? Who kills the teenagers, white or black police? Other teenagers? Are the groups equally engaged in lawful or unlawful behavior prior to the shootings?
Actually they are not matched for ANYTHING except race, which means the person quoting these "statistics" is finding what he was already looking for, racial bias by police. We don't need to stir up the pot with misleading and misunderstood statistics. It's bad enough, and responsible reporters and writers of articles should accept an obligation to be careful and accurate in their use of statistics.
I don't anticipate much interest in the above notes, though I think they are in fact important to understand. But they are not exciting and they reveal that much of the statistical "evidence" cited to account for or explain or justify the shootings in Dallas is primarily emotional and a dramatic interpretation of statistics to exaggerate and justify the shootings.
Sunday, June 05, 2016
Leaves versus boats
There are two ways to look at how you live your life. Both have strengths and both have drawbacks. As a psychotherapist, I always lean to the side of having more choices, but that's because of the life style I have chosen. If you have not made a conscious and deliberate choice (yet) about your style of life, then you have chosen the one with fewer choices.
The latter approach (with fewer choices) I call the "leaves on the stream" style. It is by far the most common life-style. In it we simply respond to the circumstances that present themselves, like leaves floating on a slow-moving stream. The leaves go around the obstacles with little hindrance (most of the time) and float all the way to the ocean, where they disappear into the boundless blue water. Such a person doesn't make active choices about direction, but only responds to those problems that present themselves. "Leaf" people (most of us) make temporary choices and handle problems with as little effort as possible. They become the product of the choices that fall to them, and so they are living examples of how "temporary choices" can become our lives.
Leaf people study whatever their school offers them. They get jobs and do them, some times very well. They may or may not like what they do, but doing what they might like is either not available or not possible. They cope with the problems life presents to them, doing what they need to do to keep floating. They marry, have children, grow old and die without a lot of thought as to whether there were (or are) other possibilities. In many or most cases their culture may not allow for alternatives or choice-making. Circumstances can cause people to have few or no choice, and as a result they just have to keep plugging along, trying to find as much satisfaction and pleasure in their lives as they can. There's a certain nobility in just keeping on, doing the job, handling the problems and not giving up. The world depends a great deal on such people.
I call the other style "boats on the ocean". People navigate the streams, setting courses and goals, and going there. Choices are made on the basis of how well or how poorly they fit the chosen directions. Lives are measured by how closely People approach their goals. They don't become anything "by accident". They will give up immediate pleasures and ease for the sake of long-range goals. They focus part of their energy on solving problems that have not yet occurred. Of course unexpected obstacles pop up, and they have to deal with them, but they return to their course as soon as possible.
Things change for both groups in middle age. The "leaf" style of person expects to have fewer problems and obstacles, because they expect life to get less demanding. They look forward to "taking it easy" and drifting comfortably into old age. Sometimes they are uneasy about what they "might have missed" or what might have happened "if". Sometimes they begin to feel that life has passed them by, that life has lived them and they have not lived it. They may wonder who they have become, and may have little sense of uniqueness or individuality. Sometimes their pervasive sense of aimlessness leads to boredom and tedious and depressing self-evaluation. Their battle cry is "What's it all about, anyway?" Sometimes they revert to their 20s in a futile attempt to start over, which results in the "middle-age crisis" accompanied by red sports cars and a new spouse. This only delays the inevitable.
The people in the "boat" category do very well if their goals were directions rather than specific accomplishments. Reaching a "goal" is a stopping point, and the directions as to where to proceed (if anywhere) after reaching it are not usually easy or available. Having gone as far as you can go, you may find yourself in the same situation as the "leaf" people in middle age. Having moved in your chosen direction, however, does not limit you to an arrival point.\ Directions are open-ended by their nature and not self-limiting.
It seems to me that the "boat" style has fewer built-in problems, but overall both life styles can be quite comfortable for many years. It's not the long fall that gets us, it's the sudden stop.
The latter approach (with fewer choices) I call the "leaves on the stream" style. It is by far the most common life-style. In it we simply respond to the circumstances that present themselves, like leaves floating on a slow-moving stream. The leaves go around the obstacles with little hindrance (most of the time) and float all the way to the ocean, where they disappear into the boundless blue water. Such a person doesn't make active choices about direction, but only responds to those problems that present themselves. "Leaf" people (most of us) make temporary choices and handle problems with as little effort as possible. They become the product of the choices that fall to them, and so they are living examples of how "temporary choices" can become our lives.
Leaf people study whatever their school offers them. They get jobs and do them, some times very well. They may or may not like what they do, but doing what they might like is either not available or not possible. They cope with the problems life presents to them, doing what they need to do to keep floating. They marry, have children, grow old and die without a lot of thought as to whether there were (or are) other possibilities. In many or most cases their culture may not allow for alternatives or choice-making. Circumstances can cause people to have few or no choice, and as a result they just have to keep plugging along, trying to find as much satisfaction and pleasure in their lives as they can. There's a certain nobility in just keeping on, doing the job, handling the problems and not giving up. The world depends a great deal on such people.
I call the other style "boats on the ocean". People navigate the streams, setting courses and goals, and going there. Choices are made on the basis of how well or how poorly they fit the chosen directions. Lives are measured by how closely People approach their goals. They don't become anything "by accident". They will give up immediate pleasures and ease for the sake of long-range goals. They focus part of their energy on solving problems that have not yet occurred. Of course unexpected obstacles pop up, and they have to deal with them, but they return to their course as soon as possible.
Things change for both groups in middle age. The "leaf" style of person expects to have fewer problems and obstacles, because they expect life to get less demanding. They look forward to "taking it easy" and drifting comfortably into old age. Sometimes they are uneasy about what they "might have missed" or what might have happened "if". Sometimes they begin to feel that life has passed them by, that life has lived them and they have not lived it. They may wonder who they have become, and may have little sense of uniqueness or individuality. Sometimes their pervasive sense of aimlessness leads to boredom and tedious and depressing self-evaluation. Their battle cry is "What's it all about, anyway?" Sometimes they revert to their 20s in a futile attempt to start over, which results in the "middle-age crisis" accompanied by red sports cars and a new spouse. This only delays the inevitable.
The people in the "boat" category do very well if their goals were directions rather than specific accomplishments. Reaching a "goal" is a stopping point, and the directions as to where to proceed (if anywhere) after reaching it are not usually easy or available. Having gone as far as you can go, you may find yourself in the same situation as the "leaf" people in middle age. Having moved in your chosen direction, however, does not limit you to an arrival point.\ Directions are open-ended by their nature and not self-limiting.
It seems to me that the "boat" style has fewer built-in problems, but overall both life styles can be quite comfortable for many years. It's not the long fall that gets us, it's the sudden stop.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
How psychoanalysis lost its way
Freud invented psychoanalysis as a way of exploring the processes of the mind. The 'analysis' part of the title refers to his hope of finding patterns in apparently random thoughts, patterns that would reveal a logic governing mental processes. It was an experimental process. It was not aimed at 'curing' anything or anyone.
The procedure was very simple. One simply said everything that came into one's mind, without censorship, editing or correction. The 'analyst' simply listened and hoped to find a logic that governed the process of human thought. Freud wanted to explore what had never been explored before. He had no real idea as to what he would find.
But as with many experimental processes, patterns could be discerned. More properly, the analyst began finding ways of putting together the processes of thought in ways that sounded logical. Freud began hypothesizing various 'causes', forces within the person that without his knowledge dictated the order and content of his thoughts. Having apparently found such patterns, he began to find more and more cognitive events that could be fit within the patterns. The old process of confirmatory bias began to operate.
When he looked at the mental processes of the depressed or dissatisfied person he found himself looking for 'causes'. What caused people to be so dissatisfied with themselves? Were they hiding secrets from themselves? If so, how could that even happen? The idea of having a secret hidden from one's own self was almost absurd. Why would we do that?
Freud began making guesses, some inspired, others not so much. A person might keep a secret from himself because it contradicted what he wanted to think of himself. For instance, a person who prided himself on his honesty might prefer to 'forget' an instance in which he was clearly dishonest. Secrets might be kept to protect the self=image or concept. Perhaps keeping secrets from oneself contributed to someone's unhappiness. So telling the truth might be a road leading to greater comfort and self-acceptance. There's still some validity in this conjecture, but comfort and self-acceptance are not the criteria for curing mental disorders, like depression and anxiety. Not having depression or inappropriate anxiety are.
At this point Freud and his increasing army of followers left the road of pure investigation and began to consider their methods potentially curative. Not a science, now. A treatment. New theories and hypotheses abounded around a wide variety of symptoms. The underlying concept was that understanding would lead to freedom and health. Now psychoanalysis was not only a treatment but a series of methods and concepts that were aimed at a 'cure' of some sort.
There is some truth in this concept, apparently. For some, it works. For some, analysis becomes an endless exploration aimed at understanding everything, but changing nothing. Knowing how and why you are harming yourself is useless without a change in behavior. But of course there is nothing in psychoanalytic thought that suggests that behavior is important. Some enthusiasts spent years and thousands of dollars in understanding themselves, with no detectable difference. A jerk who understands why he is a jerk is still a jerk until he changes how he behaves.
The procedure was very simple. One simply said everything that came into one's mind, without censorship, editing or correction. The 'analyst' simply listened and hoped to find a logic that governed the process of human thought. Freud wanted to explore what had never been explored before. He had no real idea as to what he would find.
But as with many experimental processes, patterns could be discerned. More properly, the analyst began finding ways of putting together the processes of thought in ways that sounded logical. Freud began hypothesizing various 'causes', forces within the person that without his knowledge dictated the order and content of his thoughts. Having apparently found such patterns, he began to find more and more cognitive events that could be fit within the patterns. The old process of confirmatory bias began to operate.
When he looked at the mental processes of the depressed or dissatisfied person he found himself looking for 'causes'. What caused people to be so dissatisfied with themselves? Were they hiding secrets from themselves? If so, how could that even happen? The idea of having a secret hidden from one's own self was almost absurd. Why would we do that?
Freud began making guesses, some inspired, others not so much. A person might keep a secret from himself because it contradicted what he wanted to think of himself. For instance, a person who prided himself on his honesty might prefer to 'forget' an instance in which he was clearly dishonest. Secrets might be kept to protect the self=image or concept. Perhaps keeping secrets from oneself contributed to someone's unhappiness. So telling the truth might be a road leading to greater comfort and self-acceptance. There's still some validity in this conjecture, but comfort and self-acceptance are not the criteria for curing mental disorders, like depression and anxiety. Not having depression or inappropriate anxiety are.
At this point Freud and his increasing army of followers left the road of pure investigation and began to consider their methods potentially curative. Not a science, now. A treatment. New theories and hypotheses abounded around a wide variety of symptoms. The underlying concept was that understanding would lead to freedom and health. Now psychoanalysis was not only a treatment but a series of methods and concepts that were aimed at a 'cure' of some sort.
There is some truth in this concept, apparently. For some, it works. For some, analysis becomes an endless exploration aimed at understanding everything, but changing nothing. Knowing how and why you are harming yourself is useless without a change in behavior. But of course there is nothing in psychoanalytic thought that suggests that behavior is important. Some enthusiasts spent years and thousands of dollars in understanding themselves, with no detectable difference. A jerk who understands why he is a jerk is still a jerk until he changes how he behaves.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Then or Never: Critical periods in humans
In many, if not all, animals and birds there is a critical period shortly after birth in which certain events must occur for normal growth and maturation. An early writer in this area, Konrad Lorenz, observed ducklings immediately after hatching. He discovered they would follow any object of approximately the "right" size as if it were their mother, IF the duckling was exposed to the object immediately after hatching. By the next day the critical period was closed, and such attachment (which he called "imprinting") could no longer occur. Some photos exist that show Dr. Lorenz waddling along, crouched down, with a line of ducklings toddling along after him.
Dogs and wolves have been shown to have the same pattern. If wolves are not exposed to and handled by humans within the first few days after birth, they become untameable and feral. In dogs the critical period for socialization is considerably longer, and may be as long as 12 weeks, with 8 weeks common in certain breeds of dog. (My doctoral dissertation is in this area).
In humans there is known at least one critical period for language development. If children are not talked to or cannot hear language in the first 3 or 4 years of life, they will never be able to learn to speak. (I have not looked up this period and am not sure whether the length of time I have cited is accurate.)
It has occurred to me that there may be a critical period in humans and other primates for belonging to a group or pack. We are group animals, of course. We seek out groups to which to belong. This process can be seen in children somewhere before puberty usually noticeable at age 10 and later. It becomes more and more important through the teen years. In this period groups form, whether gangs or social groups or interest groups. What group you belong to is increasingly important.
Group boundaries can be marked by clothing or location or by title. Probably other methods of marking boundaries can be found. Transgressing a boundary can be a life-threatening event. What people wear becomes extremely important, sometimes puzzling parents, but when this happens the clothing items are boundary markers, and not having the right item can mean exclusion and humiliation.
In non-human primates being excluded is a life or death issue, and we probably have some genes that dictate this level of importance to membership. It is obvious that membership is highly valued; young people have accepted "beat-downs" or group rapes as the price of belonging to a particular group.
Adolescents have committed suicide because of group exclusion or rejection. College students may accept "hazing", sometimes quite severe, as the price of belonging to a fraternity or sorority.
So the importance of belonging is clear. We all experience it to a degree. Even adults frequently find group membership highly important. What is less clear is what happens to people who don't achieve group membership during what may be a critical period for group membership.
These people are seen by other adolescents as "weirdos", "geeks", "loners" and other pejorative names. It appears to me that school shootings have been carried out entirely by loners, non-members of groups, who are filled with otherwise inexplicable rage at those who "belong". Adults who were not accepted in groups during their adolescence are not comfortable with adult groups. They rarely join clubs. In many ways they (we) don't seem to quite know how to belong. They don't get the cues, wear the right clothes, have the right behavioral signals (i.e. "manners"). The tend to be loners their entire lives. Even when they marry, their families tend to remain socially isolate.
This is particularly observable in military families, in which the teen=age children are moved several times during the critical period for belonging, i.e. the high school years. As adults they tend to stay on the outside of groups and are isolated to a degree even in their neighborhoods. They tend to think of themselves as "different", "un-social", and equivalent titles. In my opinion they will never be able to overcome their sense of isolation. In a funny sense, they (we) are feral as far as groups are concerned.
Human infants learn at a very early age (prior to 1) to mimic expressions on a parental face. This "mirroring reflex" is automatic and apparently not accompanied by a specific matching feeling. For instance, when the parent face is smiling, the infant "smiles"; when the parent frowns, so does the infant, but does not apparently feel badly. Just the expression itself is mimicked. Very specific neurons in the human brain (and in some primates) are involved. I wonder if the beginnings of social isolation are found in a failure of the parent to provide such up-close and personal contact at a critical period as yet unidentified.
Certainly some of us on the autistic spectrum have difficulty recognizing and responding appropriately to facial expressions, tones of voice, body language and the like. This makes us easily identifiable as potential social isolates. Asperger's syndrome is an example. However, intellectual understanding of social cues can help supplement or replace missing instinctual responses. We can learn what a specific expression means and practice appropriate responses, which can conceal the genuine social awkwardness that underlies it.
It puzzles me that there has been so little research in this general area, which is obviously of considerable importance to understanding normal and aberrant human development.
Dogs and wolves have been shown to have the same pattern. If wolves are not exposed to and handled by humans within the first few days after birth, they become untameable and feral. In dogs the critical period for socialization is considerably longer, and may be as long as 12 weeks, with 8 weeks common in certain breeds of dog. (My doctoral dissertation is in this area).
In humans there is known at least one critical period for language development. If children are not talked to or cannot hear language in the first 3 or 4 years of life, they will never be able to learn to speak. (I have not looked up this period and am not sure whether the length of time I have cited is accurate.)
It has occurred to me that there may be a critical period in humans and other primates for belonging to a group or pack. We are group animals, of course. We seek out groups to which to belong. This process can be seen in children somewhere before puberty usually noticeable at age 10 and later. It becomes more and more important through the teen years. In this period groups form, whether gangs or social groups or interest groups. What group you belong to is increasingly important.
Group boundaries can be marked by clothing or location or by title. Probably other methods of marking boundaries can be found. Transgressing a boundary can be a life-threatening event. What people wear becomes extremely important, sometimes puzzling parents, but when this happens the clothing items are boundary markers, and not having the right item can mean exclusion and humiliation.
In non-human primates being excluded is a life or death issue, and we probably have some genes that dictate this level of importance to membership. It is obvious that membership is highly valued; young people have accepted "beat-downs" or group rapes as the price of belonging to a particular group.
Adolescents have committed suicide because of group exclusion or rejection. College students may accept "hazing", sometimes quite severe, as the price of belonging to a fraternity or sorority.
So the importance of belonging is clear. We all experience it to a degree. Even adults frequently find group membership highly important. What is less clear is what happens to people who don't achieve group membership during what may be a critical period for group membership.
These people are seen by other adolescents as "weirdos", "geeks", "loners" and other pejorative names. It appears to me that school shootings have been carried out entirely by loners, non-members of groups, who are filled with otherwise inexplicable rage at those who "belong". Adults who were not accepted in groups during their adolescence are not comfortable with adult groups. They rarely join clubs. In many ways they (we) don't seem to quite know how to belong. They don't get the cues, wear the right clothes, have the right behavioral signals (i.e. "manners"). The tend to be loners their entire lives. Even when they marry, their families tend to remain socially isolate.
This is particularly observable in military families, in which the teen=age children are moved several times during the critical period for belonging, i.e. the high school years. As adults they tend to stay on the outside of groups and are isolated to a degree even in their neighborhoods. They tend to think of themselves as "different", "un-social", and equivalent titles. In my opinion they will never be able to overcome their sense of isolation. In a funny sense, they (we) are feral as far as groups are concerned.
Human infants learn at a very early age (prior to 1) to mimic expressions on a parental face. This "mirroring reflex" is automatic and apparently not accompanied by a specific matching feeling. For instance, when the parent face is smiling, the infant "smiles"; when the parent frowns, so does the infant, but does not apparently feel badly. Just the expression itself is mimicked. Very specific neurons in the human brain (and in some primates) are involved. I wonder if the beginnings of social isolation are found in a failure of the parent to provide such up-close and personal contact at a critical period as yet unidentified.
Certainly some of us on the autistic spectrum have difficulty recognizing and responding appropriately to facial expressions, tones of voice, body language and the like. This makes us easily identifiable as potential social isolates. Asperger's syndrome is an example. However, intellectual understanding of social cues can help supplement or replace missing instinctual responses. We can learn what a specific expression means and practice appropriate responses, which can conceal the genuine social awkwardness that underlies it.
It puzzles me that there has been so little research in this general area, which is obviously of considerable importance to understanding normal and aberrant human development.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Lies in relationships, an expansion
Honesty destabilizes, for good or for ill. It creates the possibility of change. But change can be in many flavors and directions. For instance, confessing to an extramarital affair will very likely result in substantial change. However, change in itself is by its nature unpredictable. When we tell the truth, something new can and will happen. There is no guarantee that the change will be for the better, depending on how you define "better".
Psychotherapists and counselors are change agents. We are hired by people who are troubled and unhappy to promote change in them and in their situation. Since they are already unhappy, change is somewhat more likely to be in a positive direction. So we tell the truth and encourage our patients to tell the truth. This honesty can destabilize their inner world and ultimately their relationships, including with the therapist. Therapists are trained in keeping the changes from damaging the relationship with the therapist, although this is not always possible. The relationship frequently becomes uncomfortable and produces anxiety, sometimes in both the patient and the therapist. Sometimes the discomfort is great enough to cause the relationship to end.
The therapist is also trained to detect dishonesty and to confront it, so that change can take place. People are frequently dishonest, even with themselves, and being confronted with the truth allows for growth to occur. A good working assumption is that recognizing the truth in oneself results in positive change. It is also necessary for the therapist to be honest. That does not mean the therapist says everything in his or her mind. The therapist has the additional obligation to consider the kind of changes and discomfort that arise and to avoid those that might be harmful to the therapy.
The therapist is obligated to be kind as well as honest. While this is a good idea for all human relationships, it is especially true in the therapeutic relationship. Therapy is not a friendship with equal and mutual obligations. Therapists are not there to get better, themselves. The relationship is not balance or equal, which is one of the reasons money changes hands.
Honesty in relationships also promotes anxiety, in that the changes that occur are not predictable, and it is easy for most of us to predict bad outcomes. Constant growth and the anxiety that accompanies it would be increasingly uncomfortable. Sometimes we need stability rather than constant change. Yet if a relationship becomes too stable and "comfortable", it can stagnate and become monotonous, even boring. We seek a balance between comfort and the excitement and intimacy of growth.
So how do we arrange stability in an intimate relationship? We tell lies of omission. In other words, we choose our honesty with care. We have to respect the right and need of the others in our relationships for some stability and comfort. Choosing which things to talk about and when requires considerable skill and sensitivity. All the parties in a relationship are not equally available for change all the time. And some topics require absolute (and kind) honesty if the relationship is to survive.
There is no simple formula for this balancing act. In psychotherapy it's relatively easy, because the client is there for change, not comfort. But in intimate relationships like marriage the comfort of both parties must be considered.
Psychotherapists and counselors are change agents. We are hired by people who are troubled and unhappy to promote change in them and in their situation. Since they are already unhappy, change is somewhat more likely to be in a positive direction. So we tell the truth and encourage our patients to tell the truth. This honesty can destabilize their inner world and ultimately their relationships, including with the therapist. Therapists are trained in keeping the changes from damaging the relationship with the therapist, although this is not always possible. The relationship frequently becomes uncomfortable and produces anxiety, sometimes in both the patient and the therapist. Sometimes the discomfort is great enough to cause the relationship to end.
The therapist is also trained to detect dishonesty and to confront it, so that change can take place. People are frequently dishonest, even with themselves, and being confronted with the truth allows for growth to occur. A good working assumption is that recognizing the truth in oneself results in positive change. It is also necessary for the therapist to be honest. That does not mean the therapist says everything in his or her mind. The therapist has the additional obligation to consider the kind of changes and discomfort that arise and to avoid those that might be harmful to the therapy.
The therapist is obligated to be kind as well as honest. While this is a good idea for all human relationships, it is especially true in the therapeutic relationship. Therapy is not a friendship with equal and mutual obligations. Therapists are not there to get better, themselves. The relationship is not balance or equal, which is one of the reasons money changes hands.
Honesty in relationships also promotes anxiety, in that the changes that occur are not predictable, and it is easy for most of us to predict bad outcomes. Constant growth and the anxiety that accompanies it would be increasingly uncomfortable. Sometimes we need stability rather than constant change. Yet if a relationship becomes too stable and "comfortable", it can stagnate and become monotonous, even boring. We seek a balance between comfort and the excitement and intimacy of growth.
So how do we arrange stability in an intimate relationship? We tell lies of omission. In other words, we choose our honesty with care. We have to respect the right and need of the others in our relationships for some stability and comfort. Choosing which things to talk about and when requires considerable skill and sensitivity. All the parties in a relationship are not equally available for change all the time. And some topics require absolute (and kind) honesty if the relationship is to survive.
There is no simple formula for this balancing act. In psychotherapy it's relatively easy, because the client is there for change, not comfort. But in intimate relationships like marriage the comfort of both parties must be considered.
Mandatory alcohol detection for drivers
10,000 deaths a year and a million arrests for drunk driving. You think that's important enough for us to stop it? Do we do or do we don't want drivers on the road who are impaired by alcohol? I'm not so concerned about the danger to them. I am concerned with the danger they pose to others.
The technology is here now. Using a built-in breathalizer that disables the ignition when alcohol is detected on EVERY new car sold in the US would go a long way to stop that. New technology involves a finger scan and would be even more effective.
There would need to be a stiff penalty for disabling the alcohol detector, such as lifetime revocation of driver's license and termination of all accident or liability insurance, for the first offense. Second offense would need to be something like a lifetime sentence to a labor camp.
We could stop all those deaths and injuries if we chose to do it. The added cost of the breathalyzer is minimal weighed against the deaths and damages incurred by drunken drivers. Make the convicted drunk drivers pay for the installation in everyone else's car. How about adding to the disabling of the ignition a red flashing light on the roof or automatic alert and tracking through gps?
There is no excuse for driving while impaired. None. We don't stop impaired driving because it might inconvenience us sometimes. Let's be honest. Enough already. It is economic and human common sense to stop it now.
The technology is here now. Using a built-in breathalizer that disables the ignition when alcohol is detected on EVERY new car sold in the US would go a long way to stop that. New technology involves a finger scan and would be even more effective.
There would need to be a stiff penalty for disabling the alcohol detector, such as lifetime revocation of driver's license and termination of all accident or liability insurance, for the first offense. Second offense would need to be something like a lifetime sentence to a labor camp.
We could stop all those deaths and injuries if we chose to do it. The added cost of the breathalyzer is minimal weighed against the deaths and damages incurred by drunken drivers. Make the convicted drunk drivers pay for the installation in everyone else's car. How about adding to the disabling of the ignition a red flashing light on the roof or automatic alert and tracking through gps?
There is no excuse for driving while impaired. None. We don't stop impaired driving because it might inconvenience us sometimes. Let's be honest. Enough already. It is economic and human common sense to stop it now.
Friday, March 25, 2016
The Secret
The "secret" has been previously pubished in a variety of forms. Each, in its heyday. had many adherents. Each has subsequently disappeared into the miasma of miracle cures, and has eventually been replaced by a newer and presumably upgraded version. For instance, "the Power of Positive Thinking" was a best-seller a few decades back. The newer "Secret" has nothing new.
Points to consider: Firstly, if this book (or all its predecessors) are to be considered as some sort of scientific proposal, it is missing enough sandwiches to spoil the picnic. The article in Wikipedia states that a principle of the "theory" is that positive thinking sends out "vibrations" in some form to which the universe responds. A few questions arise: What are "vibrations"? Vibrations of what? At what speed do these vibrations travel? Even at the speed of light a relatively small amount of the universe would be included in your lifetime. So one has to assume that these vibrations affect your immediate environment, social and physical. If this theory were true, how would it fit into all the knowledge that we have about how the universe functions?
What power feeds these vibrations? Your brain? Can these vibrations be detected or is this only a metaphor which is to be taken seriously?
Secondly, what receives these vibrations? Does money or gold or good luck have a set of receptors? Does gold bullion or the stock market listen to your personal wants and arrange itself so that you are supplied? And why would it do this?
In genuine science, a proposal has to meet several criteria to be considered seriously: It must be plausible, which is to say, it should not disagree with theories known to be valid, and second, it must be testable, which is to say, falsifiable. A theory must be clear enough that an experiment can be devised which will demonstrate the validity or lack of validity of the theory. How many people reading this book have ever heard of "Occam's Razor"?
A proposal that depends only on the testimony of satisfied customers is essentially identical with a proposal to sell you snake oil or some swampland in Arizona. Market schemes and political positions are also examples. They depend on the willingness to suspend disbelief. Personal experience is the worst and least valid form of evidence, which is why eye-witness testimony is considered the weakest of evidence. There is always someone who claims (and may even believe) that they have had an experience which validates an unusual belief, such as those people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens in a flying saucer. They also seem to believe they have been anally probed, but that's probably just a coincidence.
More importantly, people with a strong belief tend to encounter evidence that supports their belief. Psychologists (like me) call this "confirmation bias". When we have a belief not only do we tend to notice events that support our belief but we tend to discount or ignore evidence that disputes our belief. This is at least one of the reasons that ALL religions find evidence to support their beliefs. People can believe in a benevolent universe or all-loving god while watching children being killed by horrible diseases or fires. That "must have just been an exception".
Richard Wiseman (whom you should look up and read) devised a series of common-sense experiments to illuminate this factor. In his experiments (and I'm simplifying and summarizing) he divided experimental subjects (i.e.humans) into two groups, one group believing they are "lucky" and the other believing they are "not lucky." He arranged for a confederate to drop money near where they were seated. The "lucky" subjects were far more likely to find the dropped money than the "unlucky" subjects, thus proving to both groups that their preconceptions were correct.
We attend to what supports our assumptions. We disbelieve or ignore that which does not. This "evidence" does not prove we were right. In Wiseman's studies, exactly the same amount and kind of luck were present for each subject. Yet each subject experienced proof that they were right.
So those people who read "The Secret" and believed it also found evidence that they were right, and the universe rearranged itself to meet their desires. This undoubtedly was convincing to them. That, however, does not make it true.
I am pretty sure that the authors of this book expected to make some money from it. And I'm sure they did. So does that make their theory valid?
Points to consider: Firstly, if this book (or all its predecessors) are to be considered as some sort of scientific proposal, it is missing enough sandwiches to spoil the picnic. The article in Wikipedia states that a principle of the "theory" is that positive thinking sends out "vibrations" in some form to which the universe responds. A few questions arise: What are "vibrations"? Vibrations of what? At what speed do these vibrations travel? Even at the speed of light a relatively small amount of the universe would be included in your lifetime. So one has to assume that these vibrations affect your immediate environment, social and physical. If this theory were true, how would it fit into all the knowledge that we have about how the universe functions?
What power feeds these vibrations? Your brain? Can these vibrations be detected or is this only a metaphor which is to be taken seriously?
Secondly, what receives these vibrations? Does money or gold or good luck have a set of receptors? Does gold bullion or the stock market listen to your personal wants and arrange itself so that you are supplied? And why would it do this?
In genuine science, a proposal has to meet several criteria to be considered seriously: It must be plausible, which is to say, it should not disagree with theories known to be valid, and second, it must be testable, which is to say, falsifiable. A theory must be clear enough that an experiment can be devised which will demonstrate the validity or lack of validity of the theory. How many people reading this book have ever heard of "Occam's Razor"?
A proposal that depends only on the testimony of satisfied customers is essentially identical with a proposal to sell you snake oil or some swampland in Arizona. Market schemes and political positions are also examples. They depend on the willingness to suspend disbelief. Personal experience is the worst and least valid form of evidence, which is why eye-witness testimony is considered the weakest of evidence. There is always someone who claims (and may even believe) that they have had an experience which validates an unusual belief, such as those people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens in a flying saucer. They also seem to believe they have been anally probed, but that's probably just a coincidence.
More importantly, people with a strong belief tend to encounter evidence that supports their belief. Psychologists (like me) call this "confirmation bias". When we have a belief not only do we tend to notice events that support our belief but we tend to discount or ignore evidence that disputes our belief. This is at least one of the reasons that ALL religions find evidence to support their beliefs. People can believe in a benevolent universe or all-loving god while watching children being killed by horrible diseases or fires. That "must have just been an exception".
Richard Wiseman (whom you should look up and read) devised a series of common-sense experiments to illuminate this factor. In his experiments (and I'm simplifying and summarizing) he divided experimental subjects (i.e.humans) into two groups, one group believing they are "lucky" and the other believing they are "not lucky." He arranged for a confederate to drop money near where they were seated. The "lucky" subjects were far more likely to find the dropped money than the "unlucky" subjects, thus proving to both groups that their preconceptions were correct.
We attend to what supports our assumptions. We disbelieve or ignore that which does not. This "evidence" does not prove we were right. In Wiseman's studies, exactly the same amount and kind of luck were present for each subject. Yet each subject experienced proof that they were right.
So those people who read "The Secret" and believed it also found evidence that they were right, and the universe rearranged itself to meet their desires. This undoubtedly was convincing to them. That, however, does not make it true.
I am pretty sure that the authors of this book expected to make some money from it. And I'm sure they did. So does that make their theory valid?
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Social media and relationships
As we have allowed more and more of our previously "private" lives become public, we are more and more vulnerable. Not only are our "secrets" becoming known, we are more open to attacks by others which can be highly personal.
It's much easier to be cruel when we don't have to face directly the object of our cruelty. "Trolling" has become much more common, and people say things on websites that they would never say face to face. It's easier to believe whatever we want to believe about someone when we don't have all the information.
Typed information is more abstract than face to face contact. We don't have facial expressions and voice tones; we don't have the immediate feedback that comes from a direct reaction to something we have said or done. It's easier to harm others when we don't actually see them being harmed. A number of psychological experiments have confirmed this idea.
The cruelty of war becomes easier when we don't actually see those we hurt. Over the years our weapons have allowed us to be at a greater and greater distance, physically and psychologically, from our victims. They become "targets" or "casualties". We dehumanize our victims. Could we have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima if we had seen all the faces of those we killed, knew their histories, how much their mothers loved them, how their partner's hearts were broken?
Now we see the same behaviors on small scale on the internet. We attack, we try to hurt, we urge people to kill themselves, we encourage damaging behaviors... it's all "out there", it's not real, they are just targets in a video game.
Positive relationships conducted via computer are equally biased and distorted. Fantasies about others, positive and negative, flourish best in the absence of specific information. Anybody can be flawless and wonderful if they choose to be so, and if the person to whom they are providing information chooses to believe them. Fantasies don't like reality. Nobody belches or passes gas in a fantasy.
People even decide to get married based on a series of internet conversations. People choosing to believe what they are told via computer are easy marks, both financially and emotionally. Not only is a sucker born every minute, as Barnum allegedly said, someone is out there to take advantage of the sucker.
I myself am going to be a multimillionaire soon. I have to make my bank account open to this Prince from Nigeria and he's going to give me millions of dollars. I can hardly wait.
It's much easier to be cruel when we don't have to face directly the object of our cruelty. "Trolling" has become much more common, and people say things on websites that they would never say face to face. It's easier to believe whatever we want to believe about someone when we don't have all the information.
Typed information is more abstract than face to face contact. We don't have facial expressions and voice tones; we don't have the immediate feedback that comes from a direct reaction to something we have said or done. It's easier to harm others when we don't actually see them being harmed. A number of psychological experiments have confirmed this idea.
The cruelty of war becomes easier when we don't actually see those we hurt. Over the years our weapons have allowed us to be at a greater and greater distance, physically and psychologically, from our victims. They become "targets" or "casualties". We dehumanize our victims. Could we have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima if we had seen all the faces of those we killed, knew their histories, how much their mothers loved them, how their partner's hearts were broken?
Now we see the same behaviors on small scale on the internet. We attack, we try to hurt, we urge people to kill themselves, we encourage damaging behaviors... it's all "out there", it's not real, they are just targets in a video game.
Positive relationships conducted via computer are equally biased and distorted. Fantasies about others, positive and negative, flourish best in the absence of specific information. Anybody can be flawless and wonderful if they choose to be so, and if the person to whom they are providing information chooses to believe them. Fantasies don't like reality. Nobody belches or passes gas in a fantasy.
People even decide to get married based on a series of internet conversations. People choosing to believe what they are told via computer are easy marks, both financially and emotionally. Not only is a sucker born every minute, as Barnum allegedly said, someone is out there to take advantage of the sucker.
I myself am going to be a multimillionaire soon. I have to make my bank account open to this Prince from Nigeria and he's going to give me millions of dollars. I can hardly wait.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Love or like
The best predictor for longevity in marriage is not romantic love. The best predictors are liking and respect. Marriages based on liking and mutual respect tend to wear well. Over time, with respect and like "romantic" affection increases. Many years ago, marriages were frequently based on convenience and reliability. Many were arranged by families or "matchmakers". Many couples met for the first time on their wedding day. Western cultures, as a whole, did not see "love" as a necessary requirement. It is only with the dawn of fiction in literature and other media that "love" was even a desirable emotion; more often it was seen as leading to disaster.
Attachment is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. When couples are in close proximity over a period of time, and when feelings are discussed and treated with respect, attachment and mutual affection grow naturally. This is sometimes referred to as the "Stockholm syndrome", but it simply refers to this basic fact of human nature. We naturally become attached to others when we share feelings, goals and respect.
So if a marriage is based on respect and liking, affection grows naturally.
However, movies, tv and fiction have emphasized the importance of "romantic" love. Such love is dramatic, fierce and passionate. It makes a better story and better movie. Unfortunately, being based on fiction, it does not last. In a movie or book it only has to last a few hours. But real life is different. Fantasies don't survive real life. The bubble pops, usually sooner rather than later.
The current divorce rate is evidence of that. Romantically-based marriages only last if over time another basis is found, one based on respect and liking, and the honest sharing of feelings, good and bad. Romance may get us into a marriage and keep us there for few months or a few years, but it alone will not and cannot keep us in a marriage. We need the Stockholm syndrome.
We expect too much from marriage. Earlier in history the marriage partnership was based on expediency, usefulness, even help in surviving. How the partners felt about each other was no more important than in any other business partnership. Business partners did not need to hold hands or cling together in the moonlight to the sound of violins. They needed to trust each other, to respect each other and value the other person as a person, which meant that how the other felt was important and deserved respect. Usually affection between the partners grew over time, although it is true that sometimes it did not.
People are now encouraged to believe that their marriage should be permanently exciting and emotionally fulfilling, with all (or essentially all) of their needs being met by their partner and their relationship. This is a huge burden of expectation and demand. None of us can meet every need or fulfill every dream for our partner, and our marriages should not stand or fail based on fulfilling this impossible expectation. Hopefully what we do gain from a healthy relationship is far more satisfying than our ability to mutually act out one another's romantic fantasies.
Love, like every other emotion, comes and goes. It never remains constant, except in fiction. In real life we love one another more at one time than another, and it is rarely a symmetrical emotion. The Stockholm syndrome insures it will return if we continue to respect and communicate with one another. Commitment should not be a decision based on the sand of emotion. It should be based on the rock of respect.
Attachment is a naturally-occurring phenomenon. When couples are in close proximity over a period of time, and when feelings are discussed and treated with respect, attachment and mutual affection grow naturally. This is sometimes referred to as the "Stockholm syndrome", but it simply refers to this basic fact of human nature. We naturally become attached to others when we share feelings, goals and respect.
So if a marriage is based on respect and liking, affection grows naturally.
However, movies, tv and fiction have emphasized the importance of "romantic" love. Such love is dramatic, fierce and passionate. It makes a better story and better movie. Unfortunately, being based on fiction, it does not last. In a movie or book it only has to last a few hours. But real life is different. Fantasies don't survive real life. The bubble pops, usually sooner rather than later.
The current divorce rate is evidence of that. Romantically-based marriages only last if over time another basis is found, one based on respect and liking, and the honest sharing of feelings, good and bad. Romance may get us into a marriage and keep us there for few months or a few years, but it alone will not and cannot keep us in a marriage. We need the Stockholm syndrome.
We expect too much from marriage. Earlier in history the marriage partnership was based on expediency, usefulness, even help in surviving. How the partners felt about each other was no more important than in any other business partnership. Business partners did not need to hold hands or cling together in the moonlight to the sound of violins. They needed to trust each other, to respect each other and value the other person as a person, which meant that how the other felt was important and deserved respect. Usually affection between the partners grew over time, although it is true that sometimes it did not.
People are now encouraged to believe that their marriage should be permanently exciting and emotionally fulfilling, with all (or essentially all) of their needs being met by their partner and their relationship. This is a huge burden of expectation and demand. None of us can meet every need or fulfill every dream for our partner, and our marriages should not stand or fail based on fulfilling this impossible expectation. Hopefully what we do gain from a healthy relationship is far more satisfying than our ability to mutually act out one another's romantic fantasies.
Love, like every other emotion, comes and goes. It never remains constant, except in fiction. In real life we love one another more at one time than another, and it is rarely a symmetrical emotion. The Stockholm syndrome insures it will return if we continue to respect and communicate with one another. Commitment should not be a decision based on the sand of emotion. It should be based on the rock of respect.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
A possible solution to our drug problem
Not only do we spend a great deal of money on drugs, but a lot more is spent as a result of the huge amount of petty crime carried out in order to pay for drug usage. Most of the money spent directly on drugs leaves the United States, and ultimately improves the standard of living for people in other countries at the cost of our own.
What if the government took over the drug business? Suppose that the US government bought directly from the drug manufacturers at their price, and distributed the drugs in the US to whoever wanted them for free and without legal consequences? Drug kiosks could provide marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, opiates to anyone of age who wanted them. The money would come from the huge amounts allocated now to fight drug importation and use. And it would come from the reduction in prison costs and rehabilitation costs and reduction in drug police
.
Since there is no cost there is no profit. The gangs that control, distribute and sell drugs would go out of business. The crime that supports drug habits would stop since it would be unnecessary. There would be no motivation to encourage drug use or to expand a drug market since there would be no drug market.
What would be the consequences? Some people would probably overdose and die. Many of them would eventually in any case, but there might well be an increase. Fewer people would die of contaminated or adulterated drugs since they would be pure. Fewer people would die in gang wars over turf, which is always a war of the marketplace to some degree. Fewer law enforcement people would be killed and fewer employed.
Whether or not drug usage would ultimately stop is not an answerable question. People have always sought substances that provide certain experiences and sensations, and there is no reason to think that easy access would change that. But they would be healthier in the process and not at all likely to descend into crime to support what would be a free product.
Would a drug craze sweep the nation, that is, more than it already has? In fact people already have nearly unfettered access to drugs now. Does anyone doubt that they could obtain any drug they were interested in within the next few hours? Free controlled access would only mean that there would be some ability to limit sales to the very young, but there is no way to prevent sharing of drugs once out of the drug kiosk, and there is no way to prevent inappropriate sharing, just as happens now with alcohol, marijuana, and ... wait. That happens now.
The problem would be that we are supporting drug manufacturing organizations in other countries. Of course, we are now. But it is possible that competition for our huge business would drive costs down over time. Perhaps eventually drug manufacture would be no more of a major business that the manufacture of tennis shoes. More money would stay in the US. We would have a little more say about the quality of product.
There really is no way to predict a long-range outcome. But what we see before us now is not very favorable, and seems to be getting worse. What problems do you see with this proposal
What if the government took over the drug business? Suppose that the US government bought directly from the drug manufacturers at their price, and distributed the drugs in the US to whoever wanted them for free and without legal consequences? Drug kiosks could provide marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, opiates to anyone of age who wanted them. The money would come from the huge amounts allocated now to fight drug importation and use. And it would come from the reduction in prison costs and rehabilitation costs and reduction in drug police
.
Since there is no cost there is no profit. The gangs that control, distribute and sell drugs would go out of business. The crime that supports drug habits would stop since it would be unnecessary. There would be no motivation to encourage drug use or to expand a drug market since there would be no drug market.
What would be the consequences? Some people would probably overdose and die. Many of them would eventually in any case, but there might well be an increase. Fewer people would die of contaminated or adulterated drugs since they would be pure. Fewer people would die in gang wars over turf, which is always a war of the marketplace to some degree. Fewer law enforcement people would be killed and fewer employed.
Whether or not drug usage would ultimately stop is not an answerable question. People have always sought substances that provide certain experiences and sensations, and there is no reason to think that easy access would change that. But they would be healthier in the process and not at all likely to descend into crime to support what would be a free product.
Would a drug craze sweep the nation, that is, more than it already has? In fact people already have nearly unfettered access to drugs now. Does anyone doubt that they could obtain any drug they were interested in within the next few hours? Free controlled access would only mean that there would be some ability to limit sales to the very young, but there is no way to prevent sharing of drugs once out of the drug kiosk, and there is no way to prevent inappropriate sharing, just as happens now with alcohol, marijuana, and ... wait. That happens now.
The problem would be that we are supporting drug manufacturing organizations in other countries. Of course, we are now. But it is possible that competition for our huge business would drive costs down over time. Perhaps eventually drug manufacture would be no more of a major business that the manufacture of tennis shoes. More money would stay in the US. We would have a little more say about the quality of product.
There really is no way to predict a long-range outcome. But what we see before us now is not very favorable, and seems to be getting worse. What problems do you see with this proposal
Monday, February 22, 2016
Belonging to groups
Psychologists rarely talk about the importance of "belonging" to a group, or that there is apparently a critical period in us primates that strongly motivates us to start finding a group to belong to. We all know this period because we have been through it and so has every adolescent in the world. As parents we recognize its occurrence when suddenly our children find what others think of them as hugely more important that our opinion or acceptance. We remember the dangers of humiliation even while recognizing the triviality of the issues that lead to acceptance or rejection. We are aware that adolescents will make totally irrational and even dangerous choices in the process of learning to belong.
This age appears to begin in early adolescence and continues through the early adult years, although the most important for later healthy development occurs between 11 and 18. Adolescents form groups and struggle to learn and comply with the rules that govern membership. They watch intently for the signal behaviors, attire, mannerisms, attitudes and values that characterize their group. They know that wearing the "wrong" color or type of clothing can result in humiliation. They find that even talking or spending time with someone in another group can result in ostracism.
Initially the group seems to be fairly large, perhaps all the children they know, but as time passes the size of the key groups, i.e. the group or groups they most want to join, becomes smaller and the boundaries become more specific and clear. Later still the importance of belonging to a small and specific group decreases. The "critical period for belonging" in which skills for belonging must be learned is largely over by the time we are in the middle 20s.
Adolescents will accept a physical beating to join a group. Some will commit suicide if they are not accepted. They will frequently try to join a variety of groups, some of which are potentially or actively harmful, in order to be a member somewhere. It's as if they feel they do not have an identity without belonging to something, and they identify to each other with their various memberships. In early adolescence they have fairly simple groups, such as the geeks, the "soshes", the athletes, the dopers, the brains, etc. Later they develop more complex groups, such as fraternities, military groups, groups oriented around educational goals, church or religious groups. Even later are various "adult" groups, such as Rotary or political groups.
Those who are not successful in being accepted during this phase of their life seem frequently to be permanently marked by their failure. They tend to think of themselves as "loners" and live more isolated lives. They are rarely (if ever) comfortable with belonging and are always prepared to be rejected. Some accept their alienation and become comfortable with it. Others seem to carry a burden of resentment and bitterness which can result at striking out at other groups.
There seems to be an ancient part of our brain that demands we learn how to belong to our tribe. It tells us that exclusion or rejection from the group can result in death. The fear of humiliation (i.e. rejection by your identified group) is one of the most powerful motivations for humans.
Recently on television I watched an episode of"Blue Bloods". In this particular show the adolescent daughter is driving her friends (her social group) when the police stop them and find a package of cocaine in the car, in an amount that would result in a felony conviction with permanent life changes for all of them. No one admits to the ownership of the drugs, so they are all charged. None of them will expose the one of their group who actually owned the cocaine, because that would be "snitching", which is cause for ejection from the group and humiliation.
They are actually prepared to accept a felony conviction rather than "snitching", even though they know whose drugs they were. The person who owned the drugs will allow all of them to go to jail rather than take the blame, but they don't really consider that. He is in their group. That is where their loyalty lies. The adolescent daughter will have to give up her plans to have professional career or be accepted in a prestigious college; her life goals will be destroyed.
In the episode she never came to terms with the importance of putting her own life ahead of the momentary membership in a temporary (but important to her) group. Instead this issue is bypassed cleverly. The daughter then goes to her mother and says "I don't ever want to disappoint you", and thus re-establishes her primary loyalty to the family group.
It's hard to find any literature, movie or play of any kind that does not have a central concern about group membership and the conflicts between how people belong or move in and out of groups. It's surprising to me how little awareness we bring to this central issue. It has also occurred to me that the reason I notice it so keenly is due to my own failure to become an accepted group member during my adolescence. I can look from the outside at how all these groups function more readily because I do not experience myself as actually in them.
This age appears to begin in early adolescence and continues through the early adult years, although the most important for later healthy development occurs between 11 and 18. Adolescents form groups and struggle to learn and comply with the rules that govern membership. They watch intently for the signal behaviors, attire, mannerisms, attitudes and values that characterize their group. They know that wearing the "wrong" color or type of clothing can result in humiliation. They find that even talking or spending time with someone in another group can result in ostracism.
Initially the group seems to be fairly large, perhaps all the children they know, but as time passes the size of the key groups, i.e. the group or groups they most want to join, becomes smaller and the boundaries become more specific and clear. Later still the importance of belonging to a small and specific group decreases. The "critical period for belonging" in which skills for belonging must be learned is largely over by the time we are in the middle 20s.
Adolescents will accept a physical beating to join a group. Some will commit suicide if they are not accepted. They will frequently try to join a variety of groups, some of which are potentially or actively harmful, in order to be a member somewhere. It's as if they feel they do not have an identity without belonging to something, and they identify to each other with their various memberships. In early adolescence they have fairly simple groups, such as the geeks, the "soshes", the athletes, the dopers, the brains, etc. Later they develop more complex groups, such as fraternities, military groups, groups oriented around educational goals, church or religious groups. Even later are various "adult" groups, such as Rotary or political groups.
Those who are not successful in being accepted during this phase of their life seem frequently to be permanently marked by their failure. They tend to think of themselves as "loners" and live more isolated lives. They are rarely (if ever) comfortable with belonging and are always prepared to be rejected. Some accept their alienation and become comfortable with it. Others seem to carry a burden of resentment and bitterness which can result at striking out at other groups.
There seems to be an ancient part of our brain that demands we learn how to belong to our tribe. It tells us that exclusion or rejection from the group can result in death. The fear of humiliation (i.e. rejection by your identified group) is one of the most powerful motivations for humans.
Recently on television I watched an episode of"Blue Bloods". In this particular show the adolescent daughter is driving her friends (her social group) when the police stop them and find a package of cocaine in the car, in an amount that would result in a felony conviction with permanent life changes for all of them. No one admits to the ownership of the drugs, so they are all charged. None of them will expose the one of their group who actually owned the cocaine, because that would be "snitching", which is cause for ejection from the group and humiliation.
They are actually prepared to accept a felony conviction rather than "snitching", even though they know whose drugs they were. The person who owned the drugs will allow all of them to go to jail rather than take the blame, but they don't really consider that. He is in their group. That is where their loyalty lies. The adolescent daughter will have to give up her plans to have professional career or be accepted in a prestigious college; her life goals will be destroyed.
In the episode she never came to terms with the importance of putting her own life ahead of the momentary membership in a temporary (but important to her) group. Instead this issue is bypassed cleverly. The daughter then goes to her mother and says "I don't ever want to disappoint you", and thus re-establishes her primary loyalty to the family group.
It's hard to find any literature, movie or play of any kind that does not have a central concern about group membership and the conflicts between how people belong or move in and out of groups. It's surprising to me how little awareness we bring to this central issue. It has also occurred to me that the reason I notice it so keenly is due to my own failure to become an accepted group member during my adolescence. I can look from the outside at how all these groups function more readily because I do not experience myself as actually in them.
Friday, February 12, 2016
My Super-Powers!
Super-powers are not limited to comic strip characters. We all probably have them, but don't recognize what a gift they are.
At my advanced age (which I probably ought to write in Roman numerals for appropriateness) I have found I have 2 such powers, and they are mighty powers that contribute greatly to my comfort and happiness.
The first is Ignore-ance. This is the power to simply not attend or recognize undesirable objects, people or thoughts. Actually I haven't found any thoughts I want to Ignore. Yet. So when someone gives me unpleasant and/or unwanted advice or directions, I simply use my superpower to negate their very existence. I was doing ok before the unwanted events, and I will probably continue to do ok. Ignore-ance can be blissful, especially in comparison to the effect really unpleasant news can have on you.
For instance, I never watch the local news any more. It's all bad, crude, mean-spirited, stupid and violent. I don't need it. If it comes on, I use my superpower. My life is doing just fine without knowing some idiot in a slum put his mother in a woodchipper. I don't need that news.
And that leads me to my second super-power, that of Indifference. This is the power of not caring at all, not giving a damn. Refusing to sob when I see a hurt puppy. Refusing to go sleepless until all the trees in the rainforest are replanted and healthy. Refusing to get excited over anything politicians say. (They don't mean it anyway). I am now considering which charities I want to use my superpower on. Actually, I'm trying to think if there are any I don't want to use it on.
You can see that Ignore-ance and Indifference are great powers, and when combined even more so. I can think of some family members (or former family members) that I will mentally obliterate as if they had never existed. I hope to be able to not know about entire countries and maybe even continents. I hope to live as if they don't exist. Yeah, yeah, I know. Some of them, the stupider ones, might even invade us. Ho hum. After they have been destroyed they will fall under my superpowers even more readily.
Give some thought to what superpowers you might already have! Don't be wasting your time thinking about the impossible. If you could fly the government would make you tattoo numbers on your butt for easier recognition. Not a good thought. And it's cold up there. No, stick to the things you could actually have. It's even better if others don't know you have them. Then they can be, like, secret weapons!
So. good luck to you. And don't be a pain or you will cease to exist, at least in my world.
At my advanced age (which I probably ought to write in Roman numerals for appropriateness) I have found I have 2 such powers, and they are mighty powers that contribute greatly to my comfort and happiness.
The first is Ignore-ance. This is the power to simply not attend or recognize undesirable objects, people or thoughts. Actually I haven't found any thoughts I want to Ignore. Yet. So when someone gives me unpleasant and/or unwanted advice or directions, I simply use my superpower to negate their very existence. I was doing ok before the unwanted events, and I will probably continue to do ok. Ignore-ance can be blissful, especially in comparison to the effect really unpleasant news can have on you.
For instance, I never watch the local news any more. It's all bad, crude, mean-spirited, stupid and violent. I don't need it. If it comes on, I use my superpower. My life is doing just fine without knowing some idiot in a slum put his mother in a woodchipper. I don't need that news.
And that leads me to my second super-power, that of Indifference. This is the power of not caring at all, not giving a damn. Refusing to sob when I see a hurt puppy. Refusing to go sleepless until all the trees in the rainforest are replanted and healthy. Refusing to get excited over anything politicians say. (They don't mean it anyway). I am now considering which charities I want to use my superpower on. Actually, I'm trying to think if there are any I don't want to use it on.
You can see that Ignore-ance and Indifference are great powers, and when combined even more so. I can think of some family members (or former family members) that I will mentally obliterate as if they had never existed. I hope to be able to not know about entire countries and maybe even continents. I hope to live as if they don't exist. Yeah, yeah, I know. Some of them, the stupider ones, might even invade us. Ho hum. After they have been destroyed they will fall under my superpowers even more readily.
Give some thought to what superpowers you might already have! Don't be wasting your time thinking about the impossible. If you could fly the government would make you tattoo numbers on your butt for easier recognition. Not a good thought. And it's cold up there. No, stick to the things you could actually have. It's even better if others don't know you have them. Then they can be, like, secret weapons!
So. good luck to you. And don't be a pain or you will cease to exist, at least in my world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
