I have a friend who directly asked me about my opinion on a touchy subject and I reasonably outlined why I had developed the views that I have. He actually agreed with me that I had valid points and he understood but due to fear of being ostracized and possibly losing his job he would have to continue supporting people and causes I have differences with.
He doesn't know and doesn't really want to get too deep into examining anything. At least he's not hostile though I think it may at some level be that I am regarded as being "different" so I can get a pass on some subjects.
It really is unfortunate as he's a good person and on a lot of levels sees through BS but he's going to "go along to get along" and not make waves. I guess that's pretty common though.
I don't have a clue which words to use that would express how much I agree with what you said here. I'm absolutely planning on using "emotionally sunburned ".
"To me, the government is there to run things quietly and out of my way. "
Well said, Athena. That is all I long for — competent and efficient governing. It would be my dream come true, and that's what we should demand. Instead, we have this constant bad theater that's not remotely grounded in reality or truth. The only way politicians get power is to divide and conquer, and they will say anything to that end. Not all of them, but far too many. It doesn't have to be this way, and it isn't everywhere on earth. So, I have a modicum of hope left...
This issue has puzzled me for a long while, and I found the most satisfying answer in the book about psychological defense mechanisms "Why do that?" by Joseph Burgo PHD, in the chapter about splitting and I quote this passage from page 57 that kept popping into my mind as I read this article:
"As the neurologist Robert Burton has noted, ambiguity or confusion is so difficult for many of us to bear that we instead retreat from it into a feeling of certainty , believing we know something without any doubts, even when we actually don’t and often can’t know.
Strictly codified forms of morality, rigid belief systems and dogmatic narrow-mindedness all protect us from the pain of uncertainty.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Whether it actually is a question of intelligence (as opposed to psychological maturity or emotional capacity) most of us have a hard time doing what Fitzgerald described. Instead, we tend to reject one of those opposing ideas and take refuge in the other. This process is especially visible in the political arena, where many people have absolute, simplistic and immutable beliefs about how to address thorny social problems.
Facing complexity, feeling uncertain about what to do, seeing and sympathizing with opposing perspectives – it’s a highly uncomfortable place to be. Those of us who have trouble with such discomfort often resort to black-and-white thinking instead. Rather than feeling uncertain or ambivalent, struggling with areas of gray, we reduce that complexity to either/or .
We may define one idea or point of view as bad (black) and reject it, aligning ourselves with the good (white) perspective. Feelings of anger and self-righteousness often accompany this process, bolstering our conviction that we are in the right and the other side in the wrong. Ambiguity and compromise are out of the question because they plunge us back into the painful realm of ambivalence.
****Black-and-white thinking reflects the psychological defense mechanism known as splitting . ****
When we feel unable to tolerate the tension and confusion aroused by complexity, we “resolve” that complexity by splitting it into two simplified and opposing parts, usually aligning ourselves with one of them and rejecting the other. As a result, we may feel a sort of comfort in believing we know something with absolute certainty; at the same time, we’ve over-simplified a complex issue, robbing it of its richness and vitality."
Worthwhile to keep in mind that defense mechanisms are predominantly unconscious, and they were set in place as a way to ward off unbearable psychological pain, usually in early development. It's important to keep this in mind to realize it's neither something people are aware they're doing nor is it something they can just shake off even if they could suddenly realize it - which is why those sorts of debates often feel so frustrating and solipsistic. The sort of assumptions backing these black-and-white perceptions are extremely deep-rooted and they serve a clear purpose in propping precarious intrapsychic structures.
People *need* to hold on to these ideas so adamantly because otherwise their sense of sanity is violently shaken, which triggers fight-or-flight mode along with other psychological defenses, eroding all possibility of having a reasonable debate.
Fear can be certainly be one observable aspect - but the driving force behind the phenomena of splitting seems to be toxic shame, from what I've been gathering.
When it's activated by anything that contradicts a core belief, it triggers a fight-or-flight response. Fear or Anger are typical aftermaths of the process.
People who identify with their beliefs literally feel their lives are threatened when something or someone attacks those beliefs. No wonder people have trouble getting along.
cognitive dissonance and overcompensation. facts, empiricism, statistical analysis fall to the wayside. everything is open to interpretation. it is truly amazing what some choose to believe to remain in their tribe and be comfortable in their own skin.
Indeed - and it seems as though many people have no choice but to do surrender to the mind hive in order to get a sense of identity, which they lack autonomously.
"emotionally sunburned" = awesome! Total LOL. And indeed, humans are not, by and large, logical animals. We make emotional decisions, then use "reason" to justify them.
I agree and don't know why (for the Lolz) Great article! As always you never fail to surpise. I remember once asking about your political view and imagined something alongs this article but still it is brillhant. Do you have any articles on criticle thinking? I would love to read something on the subject written by you. Thanks again, Athena; have a nice week!
i learned awhile ago that many people who say "i do my own research..." mean they only look at news (and memes!) of their side of the spectrum. my literal-taking ass didn't know that at first. i only thought, 'oh! she said "i do my own research," she must like researching! i will send her an article to add to her research! 😄'
classic mistake, i'm sure, ended in flames. but probably dodged many bullets.
idk, i'm kind of glad i don't have the capability to emotionally attach to one side or the other. it seems exhausting.
I figured that there's something fishy going on behind the scenes when somebody can't hear a contradictory argument. I wasn't yet able to pin down to what are possible reasons. Emotions summarize it well but what in particular?
For example, weak self-confidence quite sticks out. But I think there are other characteristics and mentioned political discussions might prove the point. Any guess what is behind the "feel good tribalism"? Laziness?
In regard to politics I tend to agree with Chomsky's view:
“authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.”
The problem is how to dismantle it and how to not dismantle the whole house with it, but keep functioning. Who are the candidates for replacement and in case of reform, how well planned and slow is the reform?
Also first experence of authority are parents, so... With this in mind dismantling in practise might be harder than it seems.
I believe parents can easily justify their authority, generally speaking. I'd leave them out of the discussion.
As for the political part of the system, I was referring to, the process of dismantling is not clear. One thing that is certain is that it is a long, slow, tedious process.
The idea is a self regulating system, where power is in hands of the people. Such system is a highly responsible system. A requirement for that is freedom, it is not an outcome but a necessary necessity.
Now I believe that since such freedom is not at hand (and shouldn't be at the state!), the reform can come when people are individually behaving responsibly. Then the system wouldn't be necessary to regulate us anymore.
In reality this is as far as to be called an utopia. So let's pay our taxes but there's also nothing to prevent us to behave responsible. Turns out there is some freedom payoff after all. As long as we pay taxes.
I have a friend who directly asked me about my opinion on a touchy subject and I reasonably outlined why I had developed the views that I have. He actually agreed with me that I had valid points and he understood but due to fear of being ostracized and possibly losing his job he would have to continue supporting people and causes I have differences with.
He doesn't know and doesn't really want to get too deep into examining anything. At least he's not hostile though I think it may at some level be that I am regarded as being "different" so I can get a pass on some subjects.
It is very unfortunate that he feels more pressured by the crowd than he feels strongly about his own principles
It really is unfortunate as he's a good person and on a lot of levels sees through BS but he's going to "go along to get along" and not make waves. I guess that's pretty common though.
Brilliant article. We live in a time of paranoid tribialism where feelings have become facts and foundational reality is missing. Thank you Athena.
I am glad you liked it, Stacy
I don't have a clue which words to use that would express how much I agree with what you said here. I'm absolutely planning on using "emotionally sunburned ".
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Paula
"To me, the government is there to run things quietly and out of my way. "
Well said, Athena. That is all I long for — competent and efficient governing. It would be my dream come true, and that's what we should demand. Instead, we have this constant bad theater that's not remotely grounded in reality or truth. The only way politicians get power is to divide and conquer, and they will say anything to that end. Not all of them, but far too many. It doesn't have to be this way, and it isn't everywhere on earth. So, I have a modicum of hope left...
Hope is a good thing to keep
This issue has puzzled me for a long while, and I found the most satisfying answer in the book about psychological defense mechanisms "Why do that?" by Joseph Burgo PHD, in the chapter about splitting and I quote this passage from page 57 that kept popping into my mind as I read this article:
"As the neurologist Robert Burton has noted, ambiguity or confusion is so difficult for many of us to bear that we instead retreat from it into a feeling of certainty , believing we know something without any doubts, even when we actually don’t and often can’t know.
Strictly codified forms of morality, rigid belief systems and dogmatic narrow-mindedness all protect us from the pain of uncertainty.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Whether it actually is a question of intelligence (as opposed to psychological maturity or emotional capacity) most of us have a hard time doing what Fitzgerald described. Instead, we tend to reject one of those opposing ideas and take refuge in the other. This process is especially visible in the political arena, where many people have absolute, simplistic and immutable beliefs about how to address thorny social problems.
Facing complexity, feeling uncertain about what to do, seeing and sympathizing with opposing perspectives – it’s a highly uncomfortable place to be. Those of us who have trouble with such discomfort often resort to black-and-white thinking instead. Rather than feeling uncertain or ambivalent, struggling with areas of gray, we reduce that complexity to either/or .
We may define one idea or point of view as bad (black) and reject it, aligning ourselves with the good (white) perspective. Feelings of anger and self-righteousness often accompany this process, bolstering our conviction that we are in the right and the other side in the wrong. Ambiguity and compromise are out of the question because they plunge us back into the painful realm of ambivalence.
****Black-and-white thinking reflects the psychological defense mechanism known as splitting . ****
When we feel unable to tolerate the tension and confusion aroused by complexity, we “resolve” that complexity by splitting it into two simplified and opposing parts, usually aligning ourselves with one of them and rejecting the other. As a result, we may feel a sort of comfort in believing we know something with absolute certainty; at the same time, we’ve over-simplified a complex issue, robbing it of its richness and vitality."
Worthwhile to keep in mind that defense mechanisms are predominantly unconscious, and they were set in place as a way to ward off unbearable psychological pain, usually in early development. It's important to keep this in mind to realize it's neither something people are aware they're doing nor is it something they can just shake off even if they could suddenly realize it - which is why those sorts of debates often feel so frustrating and solipsistic. The sort of assumptions backing these black-and-white perceptions are extremely deep-rooted and they serve a clear purpose in propping precarious intrapsychic structures.
People *need* to hold on to these ideas so adamantly because otherwise their sense of sanity is violently shaken, which triggers fight-or-flight mode along with other psychological defenses, eroding all possibility of having a reasonable debate.
Yes, I have seen this to be the case. Nebulous and unclear things seem to generate a lot of fear for many people
Fear can be certainly be one observable aspect - but the driving force behind the phenomena of splitting seems to be toxic shame, from what I've been gathering.
When it's activated by anything that contradicts a core belief, it triggers a fight-or-flight response. Fear or Anger are typical aftermaths of the process.
People who identify with their beliefs literally feel their lives are threatened when something or someone attacks those beliefs. No wonder people have trouble getting along.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-toxic-shame
cognitive dissonance and overcompensation. facts, empiricism, statistical analysis fall to the wayside. everything is open to interpretation. it is truly amazing what some choose to believe to remain in their tribe and be comfortable in their own skin.
Indeed - and it seems as though many people have no choice but to do surrender to the mind hive in order to get a sense of identity, which they lack autonomously.
"emotionally sunburned" = awesome! Total LOL. And indeed, humans are not, by and large, logical animals. We make emotional decisions, then use "reason" to justify them.
I have no idea what is this site is about. But the interface is so clean.
It is a nice site, I agree
Dear Athena, just want to tell you I enjoy your train of thought. I came across more nonsense. This is ridiculous https://youtu.be/36LmQX6d7k0
that was bad
I agree and don't know why (for the Lolz) Great article! As always you never fail to surpise. I remember once asking about your political view and imagined something alongs this article but still it is brillhant. Do you have any articles on criticle thinking? I would love to read something on the subject written by you. Thanks again, Athena; have a nice week!
You as well, Luiz
i learned awhile ago that many people who say "i do my own research..." mean they only look at news (and memes!) of their side of the spectrum. my literal-taking ass didn't know that at first. i only thought, 'oh! she said "i do my own research," she must like researching! i will send her an article to add to her research! 😄'
classic mistake, i'm sure, ended in flames. but probably dodged many bullets.
idk, i'm kind of glad i don't have the capability to emotionally attach to one side or the other. it seems exhausting.
great write! 🍂
I figured that there's something fishy going on behind the scenes when somebody can't hear a contradictory argument. I wasn't yet able to pin down to what are possible reasons. Emotions summarize it well but what in particular?
For example, weak self-confidence quite sticks out. But I think there are other characteristics and mentioned political discussions might prove the point. Any guess what is behind the "feel good tribalism"? Laziness?
In regard to politics I tend to agree with Chomsky's view:
“authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.”
As I posted I thought of an idea. I might just as well get myself a rubber duck. Fear of other's ill intentioned motives.
The problem is how to dismantle it and how to not dismantle the whole house with it, but keep functioning. Who are the candidates for replacement and in case of reform, how well planned and slow is the reform?
Also first experence of authority are parents, so... With this in mind dismantling in practise might be harder than it seems.
I believe parents can easily justify their authority, generally speaking. I'd leave them out of the discussion.
As for the political part of the system, I was referring to, the process of dismantling is not clear. One thing that is certain is that it is a long, slow, tedious process.
The idea is a self regulating system, where power is in hands of the people. Such system is a highly responsible system. A requirement for that is freedom, it is not an outcome but a necessary necessity.
Now I believe that since such freedom is not at hand (and shouldn't be at the state!), the reform can come when people are individually behaving responsibly. Then the system wouldn't be necessary to regulate us anymore.
In reality this is as far as to be called an utopia. So let's pay our taxes but there's also nothing to prevent us to behave responsible. Turns out there is some freedom payoff after all. As long as we pay taxes.
I mean by it, that responding to authority is deeply ingrained because of parental authority in our earliest life.