Saturday, August 25, 2007
Some Things I Learned A Long Time Ago ...
Over the years, it has been my privilege to learn certain things about human nature.
The thing I am about to describe is something I learned in my mid-20's. I identified with this truth, initially, because, in hindsight, I saw it in myself. Everything I have experienced since then has confirmed it. Both in my behavior, and in the behavior of others.
Recently, thanks to several different things happening around me, I have been reminded of these truths.
What is this deep understanding of humankind that I am going on about?
First, there is a "time lag" between something happening, and a cognitive, or reasoned, response to it. In that interval, instinct, genetics, training, etc. ... in other words, the subconscious, responds first to cover this "time lag".
Secondly, it has to do with "inner truth", or "self-image", and accusations or "name-calling".
Think back for a moment to any ... every ... time that you have been accused of being something, or doing something negative. Let's broaden the "search parameters" ... any time you have witnessed someone else accused of being/doing something negative. Think about the reactions that have taken place, whether in your own head and heart, or you have seen in others during the "time lag" that I have described.
I have learned that there are two basic human reactions to this type of incident:
a) anger
b) humor ... sometimes, even, laughter
The "anger" response occurs when one is confronted with an accusation that somehow is part of your "subconscious" "self-image".
What does that mean?
On some level, you believe that the accusation being made is true. It might be an incorrect notion held in the deepest, darkest recesses of your soul. Something that your subconscious hopes is not true, but holds the fear that it might ... but, it is still there. On the other hand, it might be something that, even in your conscious mind, you know without a doubt to be true. ... and anywhere in between ... but you hoped others would not find out about.
The "humor" response is the opposite.
Whatever you are being accused of is in no way, shape or form, part of who you think you are, no matter how deep your head or heart digs. So, the only reasonable emotional response is humor.
Let me cite some instances from my life:
In 2001, I was tasked to attend a 2 week school about Equal Employment Opportunity. It covered a wide range of things. Most of these were tied up around the concept of discrimination. We, also, were taught, in terms of Federal Law, the Big Five: national origin, skin color, gender, religion, ethnic identity. These are the things it is illegal to discriminate against.
So, given what I have just said, is all "discrimination" illegal ... or even "bad"?
Save that answer for a moment. Can you tell the difference between a pencil and a pen? Do you choose one or the other writing implement for whatever reason in different circumstances?
If you answered "yes" to either or both of those questions, then, by definition, you discriminate. So, are you "bad" or a criminal for doing so? ... No. You are capable of "Sesame Street" ... you know ... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong ..."
On the other hand, during this course, an instructor, an African-American, as part of an exercise, got in my face and called me "cracker", "racist", and "bigot".
I laughed. No, that's not true, ... I guffawed in his face like he was the best stand-up comic I had ever heard, before I had a chance to think about what I was doing. I had interrupted his monologue. While I was laughing in his face, he asked me, "How does that make you feel?"
He didn't know what to do. He got out of my face and looked at me like I was a space alien. He just stood there.
My only answer was, "Sergeant (he outranked me), I know that none of those things are true."
He was stumped. Here I was, sitting in his class, fulfilling all the prerequisites for being the most blatant redneck present ... and when accused of it, I laughed. I couldn't help it.
He had to make his point elsewhere.
As for the "anger" point ... do I really have to make it? Or do you think you have that one figured out?
The thing I am about to describe is something I learned in my mid-20's. I identified with this truth, initially, because, in hindsight, I saw it in myself. Everything I have experienced since then has confirmed it. Both in my behavior, and in the behavior of others.
Recently, thanks to several different things happening around me, I have been reminded of these truths.
What is this deep understanding of humankind that I am going on about?
First, there is a "time lag" between something happening, and a cognitive, or reasoned, response to it. In that interval, instinct, genetics, training, etc. ... in other words, the subconscious, responds first to cover this "time lag".
Secondly, it has to do with "inner truth", or "self-image", and accusations or "name-calling".
Think back for a moment to any ... every ... time that you have been accused of being something, or doing something negative. Let's broaden the "search parameters" ... any time you have witnessed someone else accused of being/doing something negative. Think about the reactions that have taken place, whether in your own head and heart, or you have seen in others during the "time lag" that I have described.
I have learned that there are two basic human reactions to this type of incident:
a) anger
b) humor ... sometimes, even, laughter
The "anger" response occurs when one is confronted with an accusation that somehow is part of your "subconscious" "self-image".
What does that mean?
On some level, you believe that the accusation being made is true. It might be an incorrect notion held in the deepest, darkest recesses of your soul. Something that your subconscious hopes is not true, but holds the fear that it might ... but, it is still there. On the other hand, it might be something that, even in your conscious mind, you know without a doubt to be true. ... and anywhere in between ... but you hoped others would not find out about.
The "humor" response is the opposite.
Whatever you are being accused of is in no way, shape or form, part of who you think you are, no matter how deep your head or heart digs. So, the only reasonable emotional response is humor.
Let me cite some instances from my life:
In 2001, I was tasked to attend a 2 week school about Equal Employment Opportunity. It covered a wide range of things. Most of these were tied up around the concept of discrimination. We, also, were taught, in terms of Federal Law, the Big Five: national origin, skin color, gender, religion, ethnic identity. These are the things it is illegal to discriminate against.
So, given what I have just said, is all "discrimination" illegal ... or even "bad"?
Save that answer for a moment. Can you tell the difference between a pencil and a pen? Do you choose one or the other writing implement for whatever reason in different circumstances?
If you answered "yes" to either or both of those questions, then, by definition, you discriminate. So, are you "bad" or a criminal for doing so? ... No. You are capable of "Sesame Street" ... you know ... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong ..."
On the other hand, during this course, an instructor, an African-American, as part of an exercise, got in my face and called me "cracker", "racist", and "bigot".
I laughed. No, that's not true, ... I guffawed in his face like he was the best stand-up comic I had ever heard, before I had a chance to think about what I was doing. I had interrupted his monologue. While I was laughing in his face, he asked me, "How does that make you feel?"
He didn't know what to do. He got out of my face and looked at me like I was a space alien. He just stood there.
My only answer was, "Sergeant (he outranked me), I know that none of those things are true."
He was stumped. Here I was, sitting in his class, fulfilling all the prerequisites for being the most blatant redneck present ... and when accused of it, I laughed. I couldn't help it.
He had to make his point elsewhere.
As for the "anger" point ... do I really have to make it? Or do you think you have that one figured out?
