Researchers believe that the brain re-educates itself if its views are in conflict with the norm.
The process could explain why we consider being too different as one of the most fundamental social mistakes.
It could also explain why people follow fashion trends or join religious groups and even the rise of extreme political movements like the Nazis and Soviet communism.
“We often change our decisions and judgements to conform with normative group behaviour,” said study leader Dr Vasily Klucharev, from the FC Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging in the Netherlands. “However, the neural mechanisms of social conformity remain unclear.”
Telegraph (Thanks Katherine)
"
maybe by doing that it means we fulfill the need to be accepted
check out the graphic novel by Jonathan Hickman called The Nightly News
Parents and their standards and ideas are the first who started meddling our brain …
People will stop adapting theirself if possible. Preferably.
Reprogramming people is possible .. but the person will never be in there again .. it’s merely a robot they will get .. Forced reprogramming. Not a preferred way to re-eduate the brain. Talking will be a better way to reach the controller of the brain so to speak. But where is the controller located in the brain .. how does it work, how does it
Ofcourse we can review our insights and start adapting to new insights .. learning …
Sometimes people will be forced to adapt seemingly to something which is against their nature .. kill mice e.g. … kill their puppies … it will change something temporarily on the inside .. we are all capable of killing .. but most of prefer not to kill … if possible .. sometimes we will put society insights above this drive .. as it became ours as well .. unfortunately …
It will take something out of us .. pure love .. the preference .. but we will transfer it back into our psyche and will start lving from the nex level … more ruthless but not towards the mice .. merely towards ourself ..
Researchers should have given some examples … to illustrate their hypotheses .. to show that they can see it clearly … that it is really there .. in human society ..
Who were we when we started .. the fresh new brain ..
Re-education is nothing new .. at least not when you see it like this .. a brain indeed learns .. primal brain when we start .. back then it already has its own drive .. which will lead us in life.
There’s nothing to say about those articles .. not from real daily life. We all work those structures they research. We often research this from within ourselves.
It makes me think in terms of natural selection OF natural selection itself – like individuals are favoured if they herd themselves neatly into groups that can then either be ‘kept’ or ‘discarded’ based on behaviour…
Although I’m sure it’s not ‘that’ kind of posting board, I should point out that I realise this isn’t technically the case
I don’t really recognize this, maybe because my brain is somewhat different (I have Asperger’s).
I remember being a kid and wondering why the other kids dressed alike, why they followed each other in hypes or trends. Though I did buy into some of the trends, I only did so when they interested me.
I am the worst person to argue with — if I’m convinced I’m right, try and get me to change my mind. Might as well be talking to a brick wall.
Though I do change my behaviour to emulate that of people I admire, sometimes. I may prefer a style of clothing if somebody I like dresses similarly (though only to some extent — I’d never wear the exact same thing, or wear something ugly just to be like someone else). Or if a band I like has some sort of cool decoration on stage, I may create something similar for my own room, or draw or photograph something in that same style.
But that’s not so much following the norm, or assimilating into a group, as it is emulating ideas that I like. I think. And even that makes me wonder about authenticity.
I’m just weird, I guess.
Miss G when you read your posts back after a period of time do you understand them and remember what you meant? I often struggle to see how the individual points relate as they dont always seem to have a connection to each other and often move quite quickly away from the original subject and each other.
@amanda
I think Miss G uses the technique of ‘flow of consciousness’, it is writing down what you are thinking and in this case -maybe I read to much into it?- I think she is pointing out the results of the Milgrims experiment, where if one has passed a certain barrier it is more easier to cross another one. For example if you would ask someone to administer 220 volt to someone the chance is high that although that person is wearing a white doctorscoat, they will still say no. But when you start by asking to administer 10volts and let it augment to 220volt most people will agree if it is dressed up in the right way. So depending on which barriers you already crossed, you will more easier cross the next.
And on a higher level that usually these kind of things happen because people usually do not think for themselves and think that the person in charge (or the one suspecting to having all the knowledge) will know what (s)he is doing. One does not suspect that if one is asked to do a scientific experiment in a University that something can be wrong, so usually one will choose to follow instruction the best they can. Or if there is a teacher present that also sees smoke coming from under the door and she does nothing, all will be alright, and so on. It is only if you have learned to think for yourself that you might (stressing the might, because the chance is still high that you give more authority/knowledge to the one in charge than to your own way of thinking) have a chance that you can look past the master position and think about what you are actually doing and what consequences your actions might have (even if the master is willing to take full responsibility).
I have always been very interested in groups and I already studied them and tried to understand them when I was very little. (yes I was a very lonely child and used to standing outside of the group)
Most people want to be loved or liked by others (even those who don’t think they deserve it and try to get negative responses out of others to prove their low selfimage) so if joining a group, there are different options. If the choices or ideas formed by this group doesn’t suit you, you can choose to leave the group, or stay in the group. If you stay in the group, you need to either change your actions (not follow the group in the ideas or choices that are against your person) or change your ideas (so that you can fit in the group and follow them). If you do not change one of them, the chances are high that you will get quite depressed because your actions or ideas do not correspond with the thing that you are doing.
I think that if one is forced to stay long enough in a group (for example work (or even school) related) that there is the most chance that you will adapt or that the things that you at first thought uncomprehendible will become ‘normal’ or at least not noticeable. You get used to it, and once you get used to it and no longer ‘fight’ it, the chance is high that you will adapt your thoughts, and after that your actions. I have seen it many times.
When I worked in a psychiatry, I noticed that the working there was really disfunctional and almost no-one noticed it anymore. If I -as a new one- pointed out the disfunctional parts, they said that it was only because I was new and naive and that I would change too. The patient weren’t treated but used as kettle to let the psychiatry run. They noticed I was getting a good result with patients because I actually treated them.
Others who actually had the best interest of the patient at heart and worked there for a while, were quite depressed (burned-out) because they were constantly opposed by the others working there (I think the others opposed them (and me) in part, because they once thought in the same way, and it hurted them more that there was a chance they could have made the same choice -I am not sure, but that is my hypothesis-)
One of my patients was a guy (40 years of age)who was catatonic (lying motionless on his bed) and in who the psychiatry had given up all hope. Strangly enough, after a few months I deemed him ready to go live in ‘sheltered living’ (it is living in a house with several others, and is used in a step before actually living alone). He was very enthusiastic, but then his parents intervened. His parents wanted that he either stayed there or came to live at home, because they got a large sum as long as he was living in the psychiatry, and did not want him to move and my superior sided with the parents and she gave me the task to explain why he should not move while he was in fact ready. I couldn’t, so she did. I saw him deteriorating and the parents got their wish and he was moved to the chronic department. And that was only one thing of the madness that went on there. I went away before I totally crashed or worse got used to that unethical madness.
The reason I give that example is that I can see how if you stay long enough in a group that it can change you (not only for the bad as in my example). I think it will even change you quicker if it is a group that on most parts think alike, because then you feel more connected and don’t want to have the chance of loosing that.
Although of course, people need to change to evolve. I think it is unhealthy if someone never changes, because then they get stuck. I think as long it is a form of equal these and antithese, a true synthesis can get out of it. In that view, it is not always a bad thing to follow others, as long as you don’t lose yourself totally in the process (because in that way, a true synthesis cannot be formed because the antithesis was stronger than the thesis (and in the worst case the antithesis remains).
Ok I have to practice on being more brief:)
on a smaller (not shorter) note. I think that people usually define oneself in comparison to others. If there is a large group (which by numbers become the norm) think differently, I understand that doubt is introduced.
I think one has to be pretty sure of oneself if everyone in the group thinks the solution to a problem is totally different and everyone seems to agree. If it is a belief of ideal then I think it is easier, because then it is just your opinion. But if it really is with f.e. an exercise where there is an objective right or wrong answer, I think that is much harder.
I remember once being in a comparable situation, where the teacher asked a question and wrote all the answers on the black board. The group almost all gave the same answer. I have to admit that I was every time rethinking my solution and everytime seeking logic behind the other answers and only because I did not find it, I remember saying with lots of doubt ‘probably it is totally wrong, but I thought that it was this answer” and explaining all the reasons why I thought it, as to underscore that I wasn’t just being stupid that there was in fact a reasoning behind it.
I think if there would have been too much doubt, I would have probably not have answered and in such allowing the group to influence me in this way. I don’t think I just would give an answer I don’t understand. I would rather ask how it could be that answer, seeing I thought it was something totally different.
I refuse to contribute to this topic just to make a point
Muad’Dib, thanks for sharing that. What goes on in that institute you worked at is far from being an exception, it’s the rule, probably. I personally concluded that what’s called “cognitive dissonance reduction” is the worst enemy of human progress, or rather cognitive dissonance directly. People are horrified when they notice that they fail to conform to majority, when they notice that they made a mistake etc. They’ll go to extreme lengths to get rid of that disturbance in their mind. They’ll become Nazis and they’ll become Jews just to feel “normal” or “right”.
As long as independent thinking isn’t praised enough and as long as people are severely punished for their mistakes this mechanism in the brain will continue to slow us down. People should be taught to strive to be better than current authorities and not to obey them blindly. And making mistakes should be alright, so that people aren’t constantly afraid of trying new things.
One thing that bothers me a lot is many today don’t realize that this cognitive dissonance exists also within the scientific community. People more or less learned to not to trust the media and not to trust politicians etc… but they still fail to realize that today Science isn’t really better either, regarding objectivity and honesty… The public (inc. people in this blog?) wrongly assumes that the thing called “peer-review” really guarantees that what’s passed on as Science today is really the best we can. “Impartial review” my ass… we’re talking about humans here! There are so many flaws with “modern science” and the so called “skeptics community” that it’s actually very disappointing if you can look at it objectively. In short, question Science!
Other than that how does the above cited study really contribute to our understanding of conformity really!? What does it reveal which wasn’t revealed by things like Asch conformity experiments from 1950s!? I don’t get it, 50 years passed by, where is the scientific progress? We got images of a signal now? Oh how fascinating and completely unexpected…
Ah… I’m in a slightly bad mood apparently. sorry…
I got depressed talking about all that again…
Science is just a method for answering questions. Falsifiability, not just believing the first thing that you come across, questioning your own theories — those things you describe are major parts of the scientific method.
I wouldn’t question science as such. Individual scientists, results of studies, etcetera — by all means, question those. But science itself is the best way we have to figure out some answers with reasonable certainty, to take a closer look at our universe and how it functions. And that will always be okay in my book.
Depends on what definition of Science is used, but I get your point and you got mine. What I intended to attract attention to was the questionable quality of mainstream scientific research and if the mainstream scientists are really that scientific(i.e. objective) in their approach to the existence as they’d like you to believe…
Although recently I came across a new definition of Science and the scientific method which made more sense to me than the generally accepted one. But it’s hard to communicate because of various reasons so I won’t even try. What I’m trying to say with that is that maybe you should question Science too though, like what Science really is, what it’s about, its definition… But questioning scientists and their claims should be the priority. This second one is a more a theoretical issue, at least for now.
Indeed, I have done research myself and worked with many researches and then you know the value of it. Almost none of the ‘social’ scientists truly keep to the aquired rules that have to be met to be able to use certain statistical programs (usually they don’t even know it). Further most social scientists report conclusions they cannot conclude from their data. But because it is published, readers take it at face value (see episode “the fact” of Dilbert).
What I think is more important is that people are taught how to asses scientific studies, and in such can know what can be concluded out of it and what not. The problem lies indeed that many people think that what is published must be true (not only scientific, but certainly this to start with). I think it indeed extremely important to learn people how to think for themselves and how to process this data (because thinking alone isn’t enough, they must know what to look for).
I totally understand your point of objective versus subjective (I wrote a paper about it once for a lecture). There is a difference though between thinking objectivity is possible or trying to be as objective as possible. Most ‘mistakes’ will be made if one thinks, one can be objective.
Last, there is a lot of confusion about the definition of science or scientific method. I think that the logical/scientific thinking definded as ‘trying to figure out something on the basis of trial and error, and testing whether it was coincidence or that one found a true correlation -causal relation is far more difficult to prove-’ very useful and I use it myself in my daily life. The problem I think that you (and I) are against is the losing oneself in science as religion ‘numbers is all we need, publish empty studies that don’t say anything and let us above all be objective’ (ok very simple definition, but to get the feeling) and as such science as another form of grip on reality, while in this extreme seems to function as a barrier against fear (or something necessary at least) (hence the link with religion). While it is of course not science as a whole that works like that (luckely:)
I saw the same mistake being made with the anti-psychiatry movement of the 70s. They noticed that something was wrong with the Psychiatry, but they thought that the problem was located in the medical part, while in fact it wasn’t that. It was in the way the patient was approached, namely in an ‘objective’ way and it was this objective attitude that reduced the patient to a mere object that they thought unethical. The movement thought that is was because of the physians and the medical/scientific situation that caused this -although of course lots of psychiatrist do use this approach-, while in fact even psychologist can use this approach. So they fought against the wrong enemy because they did not see what truly caused this unethical attitude.
“…It was in the way the patient was approached, namely in an ‘objective’ way and it was this objective attitude that reduced the patient to a mere object that they thought unethical…”
Well… nice wordplay, but you seem to have used the word “objective” more like “materialistic” in that sentence. In a 100% spiritual reality being objective would mean being 100% spiritual; the spirits would become the object (and you might need to tweak the definition of object a little). So if the Psychiatry missed the point back then, it was more probably because they couldn’t see the whole picture, possibly due to some cultural influences of their time. Anyway I’m Just trying to defend the word “objective”…
I think we need to hold on to that one.
Other than that the documentary series called “Century of the Self”, by Adam Curtis, is really interesting if you haven’t yet seen it. He also had a few more psychology related documentaries I guess, but I haven’t see the others and can’t directly recommend them. But “Century of the Self” partly analyzes also the anti-psychiatry movement of the 70s you’re talking about and provokes interesting thoughts. The other documentaries by Curtis should also be interesting.
I understand that it sounds a bit strange:) It is because I am trying to explain my view of a psychoanalytic theory without too much using their vocabulary, where I fail miserably in:)
What -in my view- was missed during that anti-psychiatry movement was that what was wrong wasn’t per se medical, but the master position. Master position is knowing it all and in the context of psychiatry, saying what is wrong with the patient without taking the patient (or subject of the patient) into account and because of that reducing the patient to an ‘object’/ or annihilating the subject (because the person behind the patient doesn’t matter=> this was the unethical part).
But usually someone takes the master position because they want to ignore the fact that they have faults or lacks and so on (or sometimes to take away the fear). As you can sense, this position isn’t maintainable for long and then one switches into the ‘university’ discours/position, where one no longer IS a master, but refers to a master (for example, “it is not I that thinks that way, but Lacan wrote it that way”), which is a safer way of conversing because your own person is no longer at stake. (remember I am not saying it is WRONG to take these positions, sometimes it is necessary, but that it can have ‘wrong’ effects, when it is not done consciously)
My problem with this movement was that they only saw one part of the coin, namely the ‘objective/medical/…’ side. I compare it to Kantian way of thinking. Thinking it is possible to contain your emotions and drives (to be objective, as I call it now) and as such renouncing the ‘lack’ one has (or better the drives one has). if this is how one views it, this will effect the rest. “We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are”
But one could also accept that there is a ‘lack’ (or drives) but that one can fill them. This is what is going on now -in my view-. You can see it in the adds ‘have fun now’ ‘enjoy all to the fullest’ ‘buy all you ever wanted’ and so on. I think this contains the same ‘mistake’, thinking that the void/longing/lack one can feel, can be filled. In therapists, I compare it to Utilitarists, which doesn’t seem so unethical, because they have “the best interest” of the patient in sight. But usually their kind of therapy contains forming the patient into their spitting image because in their view it is obvious that the path the patient is following is ‘bad’ and so therapy consist out of bringing the patient to their path. Usually this isn’t seen as unethical because of the good intentions, although of course the patient is in fact again reduced to an object (I mean that the subject/person is ignored)
So both side of the coins are working with an illusion (one that there is no lack, the other that the lack can be filled), which let them both forget the main goal. Let people find their own path in life.
sigh I am again making it too long.
I will look up ‘century of the self’, thanks:-)
I think I understand what you mean. One way to look at it is that there are too many things which are recognized as “mental disorders”. Everything that doesn’t seem “normal” is labeled with a certain type of diagnosis, it’s a society thing I guess… Sometimes people just need to be mentally different in order to adapt to the unique conditions in their own lives and also to achieve extraordinary things maybe. There is no denying that there are problems with both the society AND the individual, but both are also tightly connected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEIYpnlxbw
That video was also a part of the second episode of Century of the Self, I think you’ll like the whole series.
“…one switches into the ‘university’ discours/position, where one no longer IS a master, but refers to a master (for example, “it is not I that thinks that way, but Lacan wrote it that way”), which is a safer way of conversing because your own person is no longer at stake…”
And that’s what Milgram’s Agency/agentic shift/agentic state Theory was all about as far as I know.
Yes you could choose to take Milgram as an example, although of course it has a broader application than only a direct ‘master’.
To go further on mental disorders. I think that it is indeed not good to work with ‘labeling’. (and indeed the things they start to label???)
I mean, I don’t believe that you help your patient with labelling. Ok the patient asks constantly ‘what do I have? What is my illness?’ and so on. And indeed, if you say “you have A” they feel relieved because what they have and feel has a name. But I think that there are more chances that by giving the name that you are blocking your patient. Because in such (s)he can identify with the label and become even more ‘the label’ than before and then it becomes more difficult to move on.
What I have also seen often is that from that moment on they use their label as a way to shift all responsibility. “I can’t help myself, I am not responsible, I have A”. You see this a lot with “Borderline patients” where the message is given that they can never change and truly that is bullshit. If you give the label and say they can never change and they truly believe it ok then it will become true in its consequences.
So to conclude, I never got the whole labelling thing. I think people are ‘easier’ helped if you leave that aside and help the patient face whatever they want to face or change.
When I tried to teach this, I heard students often say “but if the patient asks a name, you must give that, or (s)he will go away” while I often answer “you can say where the problems seem to be centered and if that is also the goal of the patient that we will work on that together and that I don’t see where a name can give any assistance rather than that you motivate the patient to look it up and pass it on to friends and relatives and as such identifies with A or being “a nutter” (depending what A is)”
And I think that
“Sometimes people just need to be mentally different in order to adapt to the unique conditions in their own lives and also to achieve extraordinary things maybe.”
this is also true, but usually with more positive labels. More the “you are not strange, you are special” explanation. So in other words that people say “you are crazy”, without truly labelling an illness, more saying ‘you don’t follow the norm’. So that by thinking different, you have a chance to change things, because you see other possibilities.
People usually say “you are crazy” or “you are abnormal” to me, and in fact I rarely follow the norm, so for most people I am crazy. So I hope in your reasoning I can achieve extraordinary things, because I truly want to change the world, but like I already said, maybe I am just having a midlifecrisis:-)
>”…Because in such (s)he can identify with the label and become even more ‘the label’ than before and then it becomes more difficult to move on. … What I have also seen often is that from that moment on they use their label as a way to shift all responsibility.”
Totally agree. I’ve seen a few examples like that from people who’re told that they have ADHD. That one seems to be a pretty useless/meaningless label to me, most of the time even if not in all cases.
But this isn’t only about psychiatry actually. Even with more ‘physical’ diagnoses. I think the medical establishment is generally too sure too often. Many misdiagnoses are noticed mainly by luck and not because the doc wasn’t certain that he diagnosed correctly and decided to re-check. Plus, this whole ‘label becoming reality’ thing becomes even more important with things like Cancer, HIV/AIDS and scary stuff like that. A strong nocebo effect can easily turn a healthy misdiagnosed person into someone who seems to have a deadly sickness, or at least live like (s)he does which is terrible enough. Here are a few striking examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6W369qmnw
And there are many more astonishing stories available online when it comes to HIV/AIDS, it’s a unique label in many ways.
>”…People usually say “you are crazy” or “you are abnormal” to me, and in fact I rarely follow the norm, so for most people I am crazy…”
Heh, I can relate to that… I hope we both will achieve extraordinary things and change the world then.
And I’m pretty sure that this has nothing to do with a midlife crisis, not in my case at least. I don’t think I even lived a quarter yet. 
Indeed also medical labels can have severe consequences depending on what the label represent. If we are enlarging the scope, I may add that because of this (and the need for identification that lies within each person) each kind of label can have severe consequences. That is why if you don’t want someone to act as you represent them in your mind, the first step is to stop judging them in this way. Because of this judgment (label) they have less room to change or act any differently (or at least if they add value to what you think of them).
A maybe trivial example (and this one of many similar examples): I once met someone who by the description of others was a liar and a thief. These were not just gossips, apparently he in fact almost always lied and stole a lot in the past. He was because of this reputation treated accordingly. I on the other hand choose to treat him as equal and as if the past never happened (and as such gave him the oppurtinity to cast of that label and start anew or identify him with something else). I remember that we walked together to my home while talking (I only met him two or three times) and it was late at night, and I noticed that he was cold. So I ask if he wanted to borrow my coat. He looked totally puzzled and said something like “What? You trust me with that?” and I just smiled and said “I am certain that I can trust you to bring this coat back. So take the coat, because it is too cold”. He did bring back the coat, and there are so many examples. Some people changed completely, and he is now one of my best friends and I know he is someone I can always count on in times of need and vice versa.
The problem is that people don’t notice in what way they need to be able to identify with something, to be someone. The sad part is when those identifyers are with so negative symbols.
I could go on for sometime, so I better stop:)
I hope too that I can still change something in the world. I am already doing it ‘in small’ but I would like to reach more people… I am thinking about maybe starting an organization that might have the possibility to grow and reach other countries too.. Still in the development stage though. (Depending how old I will become, I am also not in my midlifecrisis, but it feels the same:) I like the thought that we both will achieve extraordinary things:) see how much a thought can change you:) )
I’d claim that behind that eagerness to label people socially-like in the example you gave- may lie many different reasons. Maybe your friend did indeed lie/steal a lot in that case but such a label is not always necessarily based entirely on reality. I feel people use labels as some sort of group defense mechanism sometimes; it’s about power, authority, conformity and so on… One situation why people would get defensive like that is for example when in a group of at least 3-4 people one of them appears to be stronger than the others in certain aspects, and this disturbs the rest (envy?). Then the others will look for opportunities to invent insulting labels to weaken that person’s position, so that they can feel better with themselves. Like maybe the frequency of your friend’s lies weren’t statistically significant in comparison to his other firends’ but if they were disturbed by your friend for some other reason they wouldn’t hesitate to exaggerate the statistics.
That’s just an impression I got through my own experience, can’t guarantee it’s tangibility or a significant frequency of behavior like this within the population.
But anyway, yes, I agree, well said…
I know that is usually the reason why I don’t like groups, they always try to diminish ones value, to take you to the level of the ‘lowest’ . ok this sound bad, but I want to describe the process you were pointing out, namely that people tend to get scared of what they don’t understand/know or feel themselves smaller when someone is better than them in something and try to make it right by diminishing that person. I never understood that process till someone tried to explain it thorough. It is something I don’t do and as such had a hard time understanding (yes I went to study psychology in an effort to understand people) I try to treat people as equals, I don’t think that even if you are better in something than someone else that you have the right to treat that person as below you. In my life, I encountered many times that they tried to put me down, while I tried to keep them equal (more in the thought of “don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow. Don’t walk behind me, I may not lead, just walk beside me and be my friend” (ok each time I say that, I laugh at the other version which end with “just leave me alone”)) What I did not understand -explained that friend, who just did it to me, and was willing to explain, when she saw I was serious about my question- was that some people have the feeling if they see that someone is better in something that means that they are below that person and as a result try to get out of that position. Their attempts to get out of that position seem to me like ‘putting me down’ because I consider them equal, while for them it is getting out of that inferior position. In that way they try to show to the other and to themselves that they are not that bad either. So in their view it is not putting you down, but getting equal (or ok sometimes also a bit higher -she admitted-)
So I think it is another way of viewing things.
But indeed I always thought groups are quite constricting, but strangly enough, I have been in groups that I was afraid that would be the result and noticed that it was strangly not the case.
Indeed labelling when it is not the case (although it usually has a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to it, I noticed) is quite sad. I once tutored someone in maths, because she would like to continu her studies. Her secondary school was in sales, which is in belgium a very low degree. Surprisingly she was brilliant (even better than my classmates were when I tried to explain the same things and they were in a mathematical direction(?) ). I say surprisingly because she never saw any real maths except adding and substracting (what you need for sales). But she understood everything so quickly, she was really talented in maths. Then one day she came to my home with tears in her eyes, saying that she will stop the tutoring, because her parents said she was stupid and that college was ridiculous for someone like her and that she must go working, because she was ‘just a girl’ what was she thinking. I became so mad… but my hands were tight, the sad part was that she believed it, so I could not change her mind on the subject… the next time I encountered her (six months later) she even acted like an empty stupid girl…. it was so sad to see… parents can even be the cruelest (and that is something I see in my practice too) and usually have the largest effect.
What is real in ones mind, will become real in their consequences.
>”…explained that friend, who just did it to me…”
So she put you down and then you asked why she did that and she was able to honestly explain her behavior? That’s interesting… Her perspective is also interesting, but to be honest it sounds ridiculous to me; destructive and counter-productive. I guess it’s the result of insecurities people have about themselves, or some form of laziness.
When I come across people who are better than me in something that I care about, then I just try to learn from them instead of trying to make those people disappear. I think it’s a more fruitful approach for common progress. Even if I were to always remain the weakest, it would still benefit me more than it otherwise would have, probably. But all this is pretty much subjective I guess; depends on a person’s priorities in life. I personally wouldn’t sacrifice human progress for money or women or whatever, and I think I got good enough reasons for “sacrificing” that kind of sacrifice.
>”I always thought groups are quite constricting, but strangly enough, I have been in groups that I was afraid that would be the result and noticed that it was strangly not the case.”
Why do you think that is? Were the group members behaving differently than how you imagined they would or was their behavior having different results than what you expected? Or why?
[...] phillis placed an observative post today on Derren Brown Blog » Blog Archive » Mental process which explains …Here’s a quick excerptIt makes me think in terms of natural selection OF natural selection itself – like individuals are favoured if they herd themselves neatly into groups that can then either be ‘kept’ or ‘discarded’ based on behaviour… … [...]
Well actually it did not go that fluently. She did it several times and the first time I just let her have that feeling (because I learned if you just ‘ignore’ it that competitive/diminishing behavior goes away) but because it did not go away and I began feeling bad because it did not stop, I began commenting it. The first few times she said that she did not know what I was talking about, but each time it happened I commented and then let it pass. It was only when we were talking about a lot of things and that I mentioned that I didn’t understand why people did that to me, that she tried to explain it. Which was then safe because it wasn’t at first linked to her, but when she was explaining she said that she could see that this was the reason why she did it also. But that she couldn’t admit that before because then she felt she had to feel infirior again and she couldn’t handle that. So I told it a bit in a shorter version:) If it is ‘the truth’ I don’t know, but it is at least her truth at that time:) And I could see her explanation being applicable to other experiences I had with others, but that doesn’t make it less countre-productive nor less destructive.
I have to admit that because of that behavior, I always learned that second place is always preferable or even when I did something good blaming it on luck in the hope that I could avoid that behavior (which usually works). But I read something once, and it truly touched me and from that moment I thought “fuck it” because by doing that I give into that madness and that doesn’t help myself nor them in the long run.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were all meant to shine, as children do. It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
Further I also like it better when I meet someone who I can learn something from. Then again I am someone who rather looks stupid for a minute by asking questions than remaining stupid all my life.
I think the difference in group is when you come into a group full of individuals and loners, because then they all are suspicious of groups and they are so busy respecting the other for who (s)he is as long as the others do the same. I like those groups:) It is funny if someone joins who truly is a groupperson, but it seems that even such behavior can be past on (that is why I said that it is not only bad things that one can learn from others:)
Although I of course can’t assess if this is something constant, because I still rather meet with people one-on-one or in really small groups (max of 4 persons)
Hmm. That was pretty cool, thanks.
I guess it’s worth tolerating(ignoring?) that despise of other people so that one can freely “shine”. In time the others will also realize what they’ve really been doing and try to take a similar path, if things don’t go too wrong. I can see it working…