Hi Liza, very interesting response, and "gives one to think." :-)
>Ward, I guess I see human uniqueness and individuality as the most
>overridingly important factor to consider, in every arena. It is the same
>with psychological motivations as it is with diet - there are very very very
>few general "rules" that apply to more than one person, in my opinion.
>In my view, the quest for formulas or categorizations in an attempt to
>describe or understand human behavior are at best not very useful, and at
>worst, lead to the labelling and the cold, detached "pseudo-scientific"
>approaches to mental-health that don't take into account the very specific and
>unique reasons people are the way they are, and furthermore result in the
>dangerous view that there is such a thing as mental "disease' which takes one
>single "form" and is predictable and needs doctors, drugs, strange protocols,
>etc. to "cure" it.
I can appreciate where you're coming from Liza in speaking out against the
tendency to label people, and I certainly agree that we all express our
common humanity in unique ways. But are you sure you aren't going a little
overboard here, and perhaps reacting against something (I'm not sure what)
in saying that there is very little useful to be found in finding
commonalities between human beings and their behavior? (I can't resist
saying with a grin on my face that it sure seems an "extreme" position to
take in pushing it that far.) To me, the whole reason for looking into the
potential commonalities in our behavior, or in fanatical behavior, is to
try to better understand it--actually to perhaps better understand
_ourselves_, as many of us here have been fanatics at one time or another.
I'm not interested in labeling, but in seeing the "patterns that connect."
Without some common basis in a shared human psychology, it seems to me we
human beings would have no real way of empathizing or connecting enough to
be able to understand each other at all in the first place. That human
beings can understand each other (or THINK we do!) and communicate in the
first place seems to me prima facie evidence that we already share enough
in common through language (which is itself based on perception and a
psychological way of experiencing and interacting with the world) that it
is very hard to doubt we do in fact have lots in common. Otherwise we are
left assuming that we are all being incredibly fooled in thinking we ever
say anything meaningful or understandable to each other at all.
It seems to me that human communication and interpersonal understanding is
completely predicated on the assumption (which we have no real choice but
to proceed under) that we share enough commonalities that despite our
uniqueness we can make some sense out of each other's behavior, including
ascribing certain motivations to others given enough feedback to
cross-check. One of the reasons I am interested in fanaticism is not just
to find some labels to stigmatize others with, but because it seems many of
us have fallen into it (including myself at times), and we probably still
do from time to time. On the contrary, I think it is actually very useful
to be able to find some common denominators in the interest of
understanding our own potential for fanaticism. Are you sure you aren't
perhaps playing devil's advocate here a little out of proportion to the
suggestions being made, for a personal reason or some other experience
unrelated to this specific discussion? Maybe this has hit on a pet peeve or
something? (Can't help wondering...) Which brings up the many examples of
human uniqueness that you gave:
>For instance, you could be a short man, who's entire life is driven by the
>fact that you must prove yourself to be powerful in whatever way. I could be a
>woman who grew up as the arrogant little daughter of an oil magnate, and
>believe that I own the world and whatever I say about anything is the way its
>gonna be. You could be a person who's parents are obese and diabetic and smoke
>4 packs a day, and you have vowed to never suffer the same fate. I could be an
>ex heroin addict who's local preacher turned me on to health foods,
[more great examples snipped--I am terrible at thinking up examples and
always amazed at people who can spit them out right and left like you can,
Liza]
One common denominator in all the examples that you gave is the observation
that we are shaped by our experience. That in itself says a lot. For one
thing it implies that there is some sort of psychological
"susceptibility"--or "patterns" to use a more neutral word--we may share
that predispose us to become marked or conditioned by our experience. Of
course, one can posit that each person may have a totally unique
susceptibility, in which case, again, it would mean that our experience in
dealing with other human beings is nigh useless because the lessons we
learn from dealing with any one human being are so unique they don't help
us gain any wisdom that we can apply in dealing with another. I find that
very implausible.
Are you sure you don't think that that is just a little extreme? :-) Don't
we all draw upon experiences that we extract general lessons from about
human behavior? To me there is a "dialectic" (back-and-forth interplay)
between the commonalities of being human and our uniquenesses. It seems to
me that if it weren't for some shared commonalities between us, we wouldn't
have a background or gestalt field against which to be able to appreciate
the ways in which we ARE in fact unique, because the experience(s) of
others would be so totally out of our ken, there would be no shared basis
for comparison.
However, the other thing about the examples that were given (or any
examples that could be given, actually) is that in and of themselves they
don't really explain why some people become fanatics under those life
circumstances and others don't. For every example you named (which I loved
because several of them we probably all know just who you are talking about
:-) ), one could no doubt find lots of other people in those same
circumstances who did not turn out to be fanatics. That means there has to
be something else besides just unique life circumstances involved here,
which I would posit, like as not, are certain psychological
predispositions, the potential for which I would submit are common to the
human psyche we all share.
>See what I mean? To me, anyway, it's not very useful to try to find
>commonalities, since in the end the best way to help people out of their
>particular rut is to really pay attention to THEIR own particular, specific
>reasons for being nutty.
It may be we are talking past each other here due to terminology. When I am
talking commonalities, I'm not talking about some common life circumstances
that fanatics might share, I'm talking about things at a level underneath
that: just general psychological predispositions or "traits"--perhaps even
just very vague emotions or emotional patterns like fear or greed or
egotism, a feeling of extreme us/them separation between self/others, etc.,
within which many unique specific examples can be found. Again, my approach
to this is a "both/and" approach that sees unique behaviors as possible
specific examples or "subsets" of larger general patterns, rather than an
"either/or" one that sees "common" and "unique" as mutually exclusive.
><< Another thing that happened with me is that like a lot of fanatics ....I
>got into an us/them mentality probably due to something of a superiority
>complex about what I had discovered that separated me from other people to
>some degree.>>
>This is something I've seen a lot of in the alternative health movement. My
>guess would be that the people who get stuck in this probably have some sort
>of superiority complex to begin with, and it just shows more when there's an
>"excuse" for it like diet, or some other "inside" information.
Uh-oh, better watch out here, Liza! You have just agreed there seems to be
a common denominator here among quite a few folks. (Fer shame! :-) )
>You've raised another critical issue here, in my opinion. A big issue (and
>another one which I'm passionate about). Its the issue of the social-class
>difference between people who are "in" movements and people who are not.
Oops, another commonality acknowledged, but we'll forgive ya! ;-) But to
continue...
><< One thing that has really struck me that is a key to how fanatics behave
> with other people--and may also have a lot to do with WHY they become
>fanatical in the first place--is that they often are more enthused about ideas
>than people.>>
>This is great! Yes, I agree
Oops, yet another commonality (but I digress :-) )...
>- in fact, I used to know a funny saying by
>someone that made fun of this, something like "I love humanity, its people I
>can't stand." I forget who said it. Yeah - that problem seems rampant in
>movements, all movements. Its one more manifestation of people being inept in
>the key way that would make them be an influential leader - which is - making
>friends and having close relationships.
One observation here. It seems we may agree that fanatics share certain
commonalities in BEHAVIOR, though perhaps your objection is to the idea
they may share common psychological MOTIVATIONS. However, again, we may be
miscommunicating due to terminology here. The examples of motivations that
you gave above focused on what I would call the "proximate" (immediate,
direct) instigating cause of their behavior--unique life circumstances.
That's not what I'm talking about when using the word motivation. Again,
perhaps the word "psychological traits" or "predispositions" would be
better. As I mentioned above, if a person doesn't have a certain
"susceptibility(ies)" (i.e., psychological traits or predispositions), then
they could experience the same life circumstances that precipitate
fanatical behavior in someone else in a similar situation but that doesn't
affect them the same way. This strongly suggests there are indeed
underlying psychological traits that matter very much.
Is it really so far-fetched to assume people may share an emphasis on
certain psychological traits if behavior is similar? Again, I don't doubt
that the personal life circumstances we each experience may be considerably
different and serve as "triggers" of sorts. But what intrigues me is if
there may be common psychological patterns that underlie the different
manifestations that enable the triggers to affect the person to become a
fanatic in the first place. I'm certainly not trying to equate unique
situations, just looking for common threads that may run through them
despite the uniqueness of each one.
>I talk a lot about saying "yes" to life and passion in my workshops on
>addictions and eating disorders. Some people have been forced to make early
>decisions to give up struggling for life, and spend their lives hanging out
>waiting to go. Lots of people with heavy addictions function (heroically,
>considering) under this burden.
>What you are calling "psychologically unsettling" I just call "scared." In my
>opinion, most problems are just fear when it comes down to it.
"Most" problems??? :-) Ahem, Liza, being kinda categorical here, ain't we?
Now really, you've got to quit that! :*) But see, this is just the kind of
thing I'm getting at that can offer interesting insights: broad general
patterns that don't take away from the uniquess of people but rather allow
us to see the patterns that connect us. If we assume that everybody is
unique enough that we can't learn any lessons from one person's experience
that can give us useful insights or understandings that might apply to
others as well, then we are saying there is little hope for understanding
any common or collective humanity between us. I am not interested in using
labels or insights into psychological patterns to allow us to brand others
or separate ourselves from them, but rather in how we can see ourselves in
others and vice versa.
The assumption I actually think just about all of us implicitly go by is
that we share a certain core human psychology. AND it can be individualized
and manifest itself in many different ways. And the better we can
understand our common humanity and common psychology, the more it can help
us to understand the value in the different ways people are unique. Also
(and this is how I personally approach this), if I share a core psychology
or core subset of psychology with other human beings, then if there is
something in them that looks so unique I can't fathom it, maybe I need to
think again and look within myself a little deeper to find our common
humanity. To me this can only help deepen connectedness with others.
In general, there are few things I haven't been able to locate some feeling
or experience or intimation of in myself that corresponds with even the
most unusual behavior out there--running the gamut from wretched to
sublime. I mean, doesn't anybody who has meditated or who periodically
takes time out of life to look within or contemplate themselves and others
have thoughts, ideas, feelings, experiences, etc., pop up inside that if
acted out could lead to the full range of human behavior including murder
and all the rest on the one hand, to inspiration and altruism on the other?
Seriously. Isn't this one reason we like to listen, for example, to the
news or go to movies (the modern form of storytelling)--to awaken within
ourselves experience that might better connect us to what it means to be
human? To me there would be no point in all of this, if not for that.
><< Maybe these musings will .... lead to an "aha" moment. That's what I'm
>looking for here.>>
>I hope I've helped a little in this direction. We could do it better in
>person, for sure. I'm not that good at writing yet, and especially not on the
>internet.
Are you kidding, Liza? Sure ya are! You have great style and a great
crap-detector for keeping people honest online. It's like a breath of fresh
air. Whether we agree or not on all this, I'm certainly thinking a lot more
here about raking my own assumptions over the coals and will be looking a
lot harder at generalizations and testing them against a range of possible
examples before drawing any tentative conclusions.
--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
|
