To my French reader, in my mind you are a gorgeous, French model with the most adorable accent. But if you aren't, that is cool, too. As a sometimes chef, I have a great deal of respect for your land.
The other day a friend sent me a quote by the writer, Willa Cather. I don't remember the exact words, I could look it up if I wasn't so lazy, but the idea was that, as writers, all the material we have to work with was given to us by the time we reached the ripe old age of fifteen. I don't dispute Willa Cather's intelligence or writing prowess, both obviously superior to mine, but I don't agree with that claim either.
So what do I believe?
I believe we are constantly evolving creatures. Physically, the process of evolution is much too slow for our insignificant life spans to get any meaning out of, or to even process with any real understanding of the delicate workings. We (the biologists of our race) can approximate and hypothesize, offer examples to the layman, and build a pretty solid case for the physical side of evolution. I believe it is indisputable, when looking at the facts with an open mind. But that is not what this is about, and I don't want hate mail from any creationists. This is about our mental states. Our personalities.
I don't know much about what I am getting ready to talk about, so if anyone does, they can feel free to correct me. I am always open to being educated. Reading a couple of articles doesn't make you an expert, and that is about the extent of my knowledge when it comes to psychology. However, anyone who pays any amount of attention to the day to day habits and functions of their fellow humans has at least an idea of the concepts talked about in a psychology textbook. We may not know the terminology and other esoteric nuggets of the trade, but they are talking about humans and the way we think, and we all know something about that. Unless you have been in a cave by yourself for your entire life, in which case you aren't reading this anyways. And even then, you would have an idea of how your own mind works.
It s my understanding, limited I admit, that there are two major schools of thought in psychology. Or at least there were the last time I bothered to look in an Introduction to Psychology book. Or Psychiatry for Dummies. Something like that. Anyways, I think the opposing views are called something like Behavioral and Environmental. One of them thinks our personality is predetermined, coming to use as a result of breeding. The other one thinks our environment shapes the way we behave. I lean towards the later in my belief.
There are two reasons why I am more inclined to accept the views of the environmentalist school of thought. One is that my experience in my personal life, and the lives of others I have had the opportunity to observe, pushes me in this direction.
The second is that it is too easy to form a racist or exclusionary philosophy from the views of the Behaviorist. It is no great stretch of the mind to go from better problem solving skills, language use, mathematical ability, to plain old bigotry and racial superiority. I have seen it done several times, mainly by people with well-known racial agendas, or who are allied with people who do. And they do what anyone offering examples and statistics to prove their point does, use a limited amount of data, citing only examples they believe prove their point or enhance and strengthen their position. Statistics can be skewed in any direction, and most people take them at face value without looking into them, especially when given by a supposed reputable source. In philosophy this might fall under, "The Fallacy from Authority". Someone is believed to be an expert on everything just because they hold some title or position. Would you take automobile advise from a brain surgeon over that of your mechanic? I have done some reading up on the Creationist movement, because it scares me to think that people with enough money and influence can have our children learning complete horseshit in science class, and one of their leaders falls right into this category. Them man is a lawyer, without any scientific credentials whatsoever, yet spurts out complex biological, geological, and cosmological theories. (All half understood by him) His followers take this bullshit as the gospel. Another way I have heard the weakness of statistics expressed was this: Take the statement, "There are more people killed by hogs in Indiana each year than by sharks." This statement is true as written, but what is being implied may not be true. There are no sharks in Indiana. No one gets killed by sharks in Indiana, so the statement is true. The implication that the ocean's waters are completely safe, carefree swimming holes may not be true. Depends on how much risk you are willing to accept.
So, the racist love the Behavioral theory. They will scrounge around for the one or two examples they can find where a kid was born in a low income area to a minority couple, preferably unmarried, preferably some type of criminal background, preferably on government assistance, and given up for adoption. They look for these qualifications in a child who was then adopted by a rich, preferably white, preferably educated family in Beverly Hills or Manhattan. They are only interested in the kids who failed to become a success with all these great environmental factors in their favor. Then they can turn around and say, "See, it's in their genes. They were destine to fail." They choose to ignore the huge number of children from the same background, in the same situation, who bloom and prosper. They also ignore the huge number of children with alleged "Bad Genes" who go on to college each year without the benefit of being adopted by Mr. Drummand. And they also ignore the huge number of children with "Good Genes" who end up on Skid Row, with a bottle lying next to them or a needle sticking out of their arm.
So, I disagree with Willa. I will concede that our early years and experiences can have some influence on how we view the world, but so does what happened to me yesterday, and the day before that, and ten minutes ago. Our worldview is constantly changing and evolving with the rest of our personality. You hear all the time of people having a life changing experience. Allegedly, the Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gautama, had one that changed not only the way he saw the world, but would shape the worldview of millions of people, over thousands of years, and impact the human race as only few other people have.
The Buddha was an Indian prince who led a sheltered life. He had everything he could ever desire. He spent his life inside acres of the most beautiful gardens and jungles. He was in a walled-in utopia. He knew nothing of the outside world and its suffering. His worldview was that everything was beautiful and everyone was happy.
According to the legend, one night the young prince felt like doing some wandering. He dressed in some servants clothes, and went for a walk that would change the face of the planet. On this walk, the Buddha is supposed to have seen his first suffering. He saw beggars and starving children. He realized that life wasn't as beautiful as he was led to believe. He went back to his palace, said goodbye to his wife and son, and left. He never went back. He spent the rest of his life trying to find a way out of suffering, and help other people to do the same.
I am not saying the Buddha was right, or that you should follow him. That is your decision. I am saying that what we believe today might not be what we believe tomorrow.
Another one I used as a dual challenge is FBI profiling. I have used this when arguing against both people with the Behaviorist view and when trying to challenge the idea of Free Will. If environment has no impact on us, how can the FBI predict, with amazing accuracy, where an unknown person is likely to live, what their hobbies are, what kind of car they drive, what they like to do, what type of breakfast cereal they eat, what line of work they are in, etc? Same argument for free will. The answer to me is that the environment, which also encompasses our living situation, occupation, leisure time, and on and on shapes the person. If you know what type of person you are looking for, you work backwards to develop a theory on what they do and how they live and what type of choices they make. So, if we have Free Will, to me it is a limited version. We are free to choose within the parameters of the choices offered. If the store has only chocolate and vanilla ice cream, it does us no good to choose coffee chocolate chip gelato.
This is getting dangerously close to a whole different, more controversial talk, so I will stop here. I doubt I have answered the question posed to me, as to why I don't agree with Willa Cather, but are any questions ever really answered? The answers usually just bring more questions if you look deep enough into them. There are no guarantees around here, no reassurances.
No comments:
Post a Comment