Peter, a few comments re: your insightful and thought-provoking post:

 Ward:
 >>- What exactly is it that makes a fanatic fanatical? I.e., what is the
> >underlying psychological motivation (perhaps/probably unconscious)?

Peter:
 The chip on the shoulder which by its nature I think is mostly unconscious.

 >>But there are plenty of people who had good childhoods or who haven't had
 >>too many hard knocks in life who still become fanatics.

 No, it is just that their wounds are not so obvious.

--This explains a great deal.

> >And yet even so, I too became pretty fanatical about a natural hygiene
 >>diet when I first got into it. Of course, I didn't hit people over the
>> head with it except for defending myself and yakking a lot about it and
> >going on a few tirades with the person closest to me (my girlfriend). It
 >>certainly didn't cause me to blame others for having caused a benighted
 >>world undermining the whole human race or anything like that.

 The reason that you were able to come to your senses was that your
 background was less traumatic than that of more full-blown fanatics.

 --Note: Converts are usually the most enthusiastic/radical/fanatical

> >It's only when you realize you are being inhumane--particularly to
 >>yourself!--with all the rigid demands for perfection and self-criticizing
 >>that you begin to mellow. Simply to get some psychological breathing room
 >>and enjoy life more rather than oppressing yourself all the time! sweat,
 >>sweat, crack that whip! :-)

> Luckily, that is what age and experience will do to many of us.  For some,
 >though, the wounds run too deep.

--Such a pity that "Youth is wasted on the young." ( ;-)

> >Then with some people, becoming fanatical may have a lot to do with
 >>identity issues, which brings up the question of self-esteem. If you don't
 >>have a strong sense of who you are, then you'll tend to latch onto
 >>something external to define yourself by.

> Fear and lack of self-esteem are at the very core of these issues.

--Amen. We all need something outside ourselves but must be careful what that
somthing is. That's why, I understand, so many intelligent, idealistic youths
are vulnerable to cults.

> >But again, that may not cover everybody. Some people have a pretty good
 >>sense of who they are, and still become fanatical. In fact they may have
>> such an overblown sense of self or their intellectual powers, that many
 >>fanatics become extreme egotists. THEY have the answers, set themselves up
 >>as examples as the ultimate proof their system works, etc., etc., everyone
 >>ELSE should do what THEY do.

 >I disagree.  People with overblown egos are just expressing their lack of
 >self-esteem in a different way.  Just like women sexually abused as
 >children do not always avoid intimacy but act-out their pain through
 >promiscuity.

--And because be what it may, that's all they know. Until they learn
different/better they are doomed to repeat the behavior.

> >On a person-to-person level, they are only civil until you start disagreeing with them.

 >That is always a dead give-a-way.  Disagreeing with them resonates with
 >their pain and makes them feel unfairly attacked. It find it very telling
 >that of the Vietnam vets who were in combat, only the ones who had
 >dysfunctional backgrounds were afflicted with PTSD (post traumatic stress
 >syndrome) when they came home after the war.  They were defenseless to the
 >horror of the war and took it personally because with their previous
 >painful experiences in life, their systems short circuited under the
> compounded overload.

--Studies verify POWs who fared well were those with stable childhoods,
particularly the first, and most indelible, few years of life. Long-time POWs
former Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton and Journalist Terry Anderson are
excellent examples of the latter.

 >>So in the end, ideas win out over people when push comes to shove. (I will
>> state here, too, that I am someone who is very skeptical of the idea of
 >>"universal love," and believe it is more an abstraction than a reality. I
 >>tend to think love is manifested more by actions in the personal sphere of
 >>the direct relationships in which one is involved; and particularly
 >>telling about loving one truly is, is how they behave when dealing with
>> those whom they don't agree at the direct person-to-person level.)

 >Amen.  I find that the people who use the word love a lot or talk about
 >universal love often are the most aggressive and intolerant ones around.
 >The old saying that people usually speak of what they do not have comes to
 >mind. ;-)

--Yes. As depicted by people who talk incessantly about (nonexistent) sexual
conquests.
--

> >Liza, I've also struggled with the idea of intentional evil for a long
 >>time, and as the years go by am more inclined to say, okay, I'm willing to
 >>accept that this can be, and the destrucive behavior of some people is not
 >>just ignorance or warped thinking.

> Evil, is, naturally, very often intentional.  That is the nature of the beast.

--Are you familiar with the movie/book "The Bad Seed?"

> >How did people get that way to begin with?

 >Is this a trick question? ;-)  All torturers were once themselves tortured
> making cruelty their main way of expressing their hurt.  Do I believe they
 >should be held accountable for their behavior? Of course, for without
 >accountability and acceptance of responsibility true change and healing can
 >never take place.  Why do some people with seemingly horrendous backgrounds
 >seem to come out wholesome?  Because something along the way was not that
 >bad.  Maybe their mother was not beaten while they were in the womb, maybe
 >they were initially wanted into this world, maybe they had a aunt who was
 >kind and took care of them for a couple of months.  I do not think that
 >there are many mysteries as to why people become who they are.  The more
 >difficult question is how do we get (them) well?

--We cannot give up on "them" because, in effect, "they" are "we," and we
cannot give up on ourselves for there, as Sir Winston (or somebody) said:
"There but for the grace of God...."

 >>For example, your example of the greedy head of a corporation knowingly
 >>and calculatingly doing what they do. (Let's say, for instance, the
 >>tobacco companies spiking their cigs with extra nicotine to addict more
 >> and more users). It's hard to believe they started out that way as little
 >>kids. What would be interesting and helpful is knowing the etiology of it all.

--Naive as it might sound, it's my contention that when all is said and done
even the greediest amongst us has someone: spouse/friend/relative he/she
loves. If these greed mongers can be reached on that level and made to realize
that all the wealth in the world will not protect him/her/them from disease
and unfulfillment, and that care of self, which indirectly means care of the
environment, will benefit loved one AND the human race AND the planet, as
well, then we will begin to make progress.

 >Show me an "evil" or "cruel" person with a happy childhood and I will join
 >the fundamentalist movement of your choice. ;-)

--As Dr. Ken Magid so wisely put it in his book by the same name: "The
critical first 2 years of life imprint the child as an adult. If bonding and
attachment does not occur, mistrust and deep-seated rage takes place and they
become 'Children Without A Conscience."

> Ward, thanks for the many great points you made.  Great thread!

Ditto to you both.
gc