In a previous post (located here) I wrote about the technique of avoidance employed by religious institutions, and postulated that such avoidance can be thought of in terms familiar to those interested in the science of evolution, albeit with the transmission medium consisting of memes instead of genes. Although I was speaking in general terms, with a note that there were some such conversations in which I had personally participated, I feel I should expand upon this a little more, and include a few more specifics.
I said at the outset of creating this blog, and still have in my very first post, that I am interested in provoking conversation. I have found that it often takes a blatant poke in the eye to get some folks to actually engage with passion and commitment. In fact, the creation of this blog originally stemmed from what I'd thought was an interesting series of exchanges that started with what some might characterize as an offensive cartoon - the cartoon indeed contained the words, "shitting my pants," but that's not a characteristic of the cartoon that most folks would have found the most offensive. One of my earliest blog posts was my effort at continuing that conversation. The thrust of the cartoon was essentially to point out the problem of theodicy, or the theological problem of the existence of evil. Now, I could have easily written a paragraph pointing out the philosophical difficulties posed by theodicy, but that would hardly have garnered any reaction at all (and wouldn't have been nearly as much fun!): today's bumper-sticker and sound-bite attention-spans wouldn't have given it a second's thought - most folks probably wouldn't have bothered to read a whole paragraph; that's just too much work {insert nasal whine}. The reaction to that cartoon by a several people indicated that the subject itself was important, but it took a provocative cartoon for anyone to think seriously about it for more than a few seconds, and to actually react.
Nonetheless, it was inevitable that the conversation would end, but it ended a bit prematurely as there was to be no reply to that last post.
What I encountered was a point beyond which there existed virtually zero interest in pursuing the matter to a point of resolution. I am left wondering why this is the case - if a topic has any importance to someone, what's the point of not finishing out one's arguments? I guess that it's just so much easier to surreptitiously un-friend and ignore someone than to complete a thoughtful exchange or to even think about things that might be unpleasant or disagreeable. Of course there are those that will claim hubris on my part, but I submit that this is just another case of self-preservation (of one's tenuous claims) by avoidance. Exchanges between myself and this person were spirited but always respectful, so the abrupt end took me kind of by surprise, especially since this person is an author with a decided penchant for lengthy passages of florid and very descriptive language whom I thought would take advantage of the opportunity to expound on her beliefs. I chalk it up as a learning experience, but I don't feel what I've learned is anything like the lesson that may have been intended.
Not quite so surprising was a previous case that has similarities. This involved a person whose political leanings are opposite mine and which occurred during the political campaigns of the 2012 election. I would not infrequently post links and comments about what I perceived to be inconsistencies and outright falsehoods coming from the other side (I still enjoy doing this), and I would also occasionally comment on posts that I saw as outrageous or ridiculous. Some of my comments and posts were fairly acerbic and sarcastic in tone, but never more so than I perceived those coming from the other side to be, and these devices were always used in the service of illuminating a valid point. Other folks, including the person in question here, would do the same for (or to) me. Surely, this is both in the nature of, and the very strength behind, a public forum. As part of this, which I thought of as rather a lot of fun, I would keep tabs on these posts and was always interested when someone replied or had something to say. One day, all of these links simply disappeared from the list of recent activity that a particular social media site maintains under my profile. I was a little mystified; I then noticed that this particular individual was no longer in my "friends" list - I assumed she had had enough of social media and deleted her profile, since there was no record to be found when I searched the name. However, what I found was that she was still active on this particular site, but had simultaneously un-friended and blocked me. I was struck by the hypocrisy of this person, as she had once sententiously proclaimed in a public post (which I remember very well) that she had never un-friended someone of the opposite political bent, while she herself had been un-friended more than once by those in the other camp because of their distaste for her political views. While I've tried to word things a little more politely up to this point, I can't help but call this out for what it really is: chickenshit, reactionary, and cowardly. Once again, I leave it up to the reader to judge the level of hubris when I claim that this was done primarily to avoid engagement once the tide had turned against her (which it clearly had, since the political side I favored won the presidential election by a substantial margin).
I'm sure that nearly every reader has at least one similar story: expressing passion or excitement about a topic leads to others disengaging completely. What is it that makes people pull away from interacting with one another? I think there are several candidates.
The reason might simply be that I come across as an asshole, and that I've misperceived the frequency with which others encounter the same phenomenon. While I certainly hope, and definitely believe, that this is not the case, it is a possibility. I console myself with the fact that in no case of which I am aware do I fit the strict definition of such as laid out in Aaron James' fine book, Assholes: A Theory.
Many folks let themselves be driven to a large extent by what amounts to a very poor guide for self-regulation: an obsession with what they imagine are others' perceptions of them. I have found that in some people this is nearly the entirety of what constitutes their self-image. This, taken to the extreme, can be the root of narcissism if all one cares about is that others have a constant positive image of oneself - I have to look good in the eyes of everybody!
If such a person (A) interacts with another (B), and B's behavior obviates the fact that B will never have a completely positive image (or will have a decidedly negative one) of A, then A will usually make decisive, immediate, and sometimes histrionic efforts to affect separation from B, and also to negate any association of him- or herself with B in the minds of C, D, E, etc. This is like cutting away tainted flesh when tending to an infected wound.
Another reason I imagine folks tend to pull away is that they may have an innate, and probably unacknowledged, fear of reaching the limits of their ability to defend a particular position, especially when that position holds meaning that goes beyond rationality or when there is strong emotional attachment either to that position itself or to its consequences. When we are emotionally attached to an idea we tend to cling tenaciously and vigorously defend that idea much more so than when our attachment is derived solely from reason; this can be a good thing if the idea is worth defending, but of course the only way to be sure of this is by means of rational consideration. It may be true that sometimes (perhaps often for select individuals) one has an initial attraction to a particular idea that is reflexively emotional and that later on, when one has a chance to apply reason, one discovers that the idea is in fact worthy of respect. Even if this is true, it clearly does not exonerate the neglect of reason; it just means that instinctual or subconscious reasoning can be accurate but must at some point still be verified by overt, conscious effort. I trust my gut instinct only up to a point.
When folks exert themselves to defend a position that has no firm basis in reason, their exertions are of course just as ramshackle as the original idea itself. A valid complaint lodged by Sam Harris against many of his critics is that they never engage his arguments directly, but instead use sideways attacks against a farrago thrown together using a variety of Harris' ideas and out-of-context statements. It's not always clear whether these thinly veiled straw-men are construed intentionally or are merely the result of poor debating skills, but I think the technique is more common that we might realize.
Whatever the particular reasons behind the two aforementioned folks "un-friending" me on social media, we could as a species certainly do a far better job of communicating and validating the reasons behind our actions. Without a doubt we would be much better off for the effort - lets us hope that we realize this sometime soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment