How often has a friend said, “I just don’t understand him.” Sometimes the buddy promises one thing and does another. Perhaps he repeats mistakes time and again. Maybe he picks foolish friends or has crazy ideas.
With all life’s opportunities, a workable understanding of beings who share our basic physical appearance, language, and desire for happiness should be a cinch.
But we don’t manage that, do we?
Indeed, we go off the track in lots of ways.
Assuming we prefer to get better at perceiving the peopled planet as it is, here are some “outside the box” ideas for you to mull over.
——-
Each of us claims personal insight, a slippery skill because we have blind spots. No one manages to figure out how to recognize himself as others evaluate him, at least not to the same extent.
Beginning with an incomplete grasp of our makeup, our part in relationships will not be fathomable in all aspects. Therefore, our best attempts to interpret acquaintances’ words and deeds can be off the mark.
Put into other words, imprecisions of our self-understanding hamstring our appreciation of human nature. Our species possesses ingenuity, intelligence, and intuition, but these qualities are placed within the messiness of each person’s awareness.
No one has lived any life but his own. Thus, our experience is the model from which we try to discern the lives of others.
All of us make an uncountable number of choices. As Mark Twain said, “It is a difference of opinion that makes horse races.” Boy, we have differences of opinion, wheelbarrows full.
Unthinkingly, we put our ideas and choices into a “This Makes Sense Library” lodged in our brain. The next fellow does too. Everyone owns one such compilation of bright and not-so-bright ideas, and none of the libraries are identical.
No one takes offense if contrasting decisions, preferences, or alleged knowledge involve ice cream flavors. Nor do we give such minor considerations much thought.
Not so for differences that pertain to where to live, who we love, the value and proper use of money, opposing political affiliations, or our favored deity. These dissimilarities might be troubling.
Our evaluations often assume we are logical folks. Seen through our eyes, it soon becomes apparent that when the other fellow differs too much from our point of view, he is the cause and might be a problem.
Generally, women and men are born with a need to think well of themselves or, at least, rank themselves above the bottom of any list. For example, a person chosen for the baseball team after everyone else may soothe himself by remembering contrasting talents that are superior to those picked earlier.
Such beliefs make life livable and not a permanent state of chagrin. There are limits to our self-persuasion, but few are without the capacity to boost their status a bit, at least in their mind.
Those souls walking on two feet also do an excellent job of rationalizing their behavior. To think you are a bloody mess — subject to the whims of emotions or actions you come to regret — creates greater unhappiness than most of us can endure.
Moreover, we overrate our rationality. We think our hold on reason renders us more clear-thinking than we are.
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, likens man to a Rider who sits on the back of an Elephant. The person on top believes he is in charge of navigating this two-creature team.
The little dude represents our analytical or rational side, while the colossal pachyderm plays the role of our powerful emotional component.
Chip and Dan Heath describe the relationship between these two:
Perched atop the Elephant, the Rider holds the reins and seems to be the leader. But the Rider’s control is precarious because the Rider is so small relative to the Elephant. Anytime the six-ton Elephant and the Rider disagree about which direction to go, the Rider is going to lose. He’s completely overmatched.
Despite the data supporting the description of these contending parts of man, few of us think we (the logical Rider) are at the mercy of the Elephant.
When faced with strong emotions about politics or religion, the data support the almost instantaneous flight of our analytic capacity. Feelings triumph with speed, while our rational side makes up reasons for our decisions almost as fast.
At the end of this match between rationality and irrationality, irrationality wins, but rationality thinks he has won and might not consider his emotional side a profound influence.
By the way, I realize you believe you are the exception to this formulation. Sigh…
All of the above leaves us in the following situation.
If we cannot bridge our divergence from the other, we become more likely to call him mixed up, stupid, or evil. Our self-evaluation, however, remains more or less intact. Unless we suffer from a compromising psychiatric condition, any questioning of our part in the world of “us and them” is minimized.
By this, I mean we find our internal mental condition more functional than someone else’s. Our self-protectiveness finds a way to comfort us whenever it can, except when the alarm bells ring and signal danger is ahead.
If our counterpart is seen as alarming, we tend to classify him as bad in his entirety.
The more troubling the differences we perceive between ourselves and the other guy, the harder to fathom why he thinks and acts as he does.
Condemning him is easier than understanding him.
Thus, we achieve reassurance if we think he and those like him are the sources of much misery.
Holding tight to this impression is simpler (though not easy) than reconsidering the possibility of our role as a contributor to the difficulty.
For all the evidence of kindness, courage, sacrifice, creative genius, inspiration, and medical advancement, few would doubt that we can also be our own worst enemies. You need only think of war, genocide, deceit, betrayal, religious persecution, slavery, and our susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
On balance, humans are well-rationalized, which is better for us. Reality offers perpetual discomfort if one is always looking at oneself, giving microscopic attention to our every thought, and wondering whether they could or should be otherwise.
On the other hand, if we desire fewer wars, an absence of discrimination, reduced political friction, a liveable climate, and well-functioning democracies, it might be helpful to get past some of our self-delusions.
The pain of seeing ourselves would be part of the cost.
I’m not suggesting the people who we find challenging are correct in their judgments and behavior or that they are pure and we are not. Still, we have encountered the only “enemy” we can take on daily every time we face the mirror.
It won’t be easy for you or me to do this.
“We have met the enemy, and they are us,” as Walt Kelly added to the fund of written wisdom in his Pogo comic strip in 1970.
Sorry, but the store where you can purchase this kind of self-awareness charges enormous prices and offers no free lunch.
Nonetheless, I wish I had the address.
==========
The top cartoon is called “A Misunderstanding.” It was the work of Samuel D. Ehrhart and came from Puck Magazine on February 20, 1901. The second image of “A Little Misunderstanding in Gdansk” was photographed by Artur Andrezej. Finally comes “Face Off” by Aaron. All are sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
“Put into other words, imprecisions of our self-understanding hamstring our appreciation of human nature.”
BINGO!!!!
You have provided the shortest and most affirmative response I have ever received. Thanks, Laura!
Didn’t mean to “Cliff Note” your lovely post Doc! Love seeing your blog!
I was in no way offended, Laura. Many thanks for your additional praise, all the same.
I figured as much but just wanted to be sure. Can never tell with the “written” word. I’m a big emoji user. 🙂
Love the library metaphor. The message here feels very appropriate right now with another election coming up and denominations splitting or about to split due to people on each side knowing they are right. This piece is a reminder to me to make sure my “library” does not get stuck in certainty.
Thank you, Lois. One way to vet new information is to question every opinion you ever hear before you put it in the library. After a while, it becomes automatic.
Yes. Good reminder. Pretend the library isn’t open until I’ve done that. I always SNOPE suspicious stuff on Facebook and it’s scary how many things are untrue.
Some of the suspicious stuff comes from inside us. One example would be assuming correlation is causation. I fear we are asking rather much of the human condition to rise above its genetic inheritance and instincts. I’d like to be wrong. Keep hoping I am, Lois.
We do love our self delusions don’t we Dr. Stein? We really do face the enemy everyday in the mirror. Ha, ha, it’s sad how the solution is right in front of us, just so hard to follow. Thanks for the reminder and the prescription . . . now to follow it!
As you say, Brian, it is the solution that is most available. The X Files used to remind us to “trust no one.” I wouldn’t go that far, however. Thank you for commenting.
Ha, ha, okay, I love the deep academic references, but I must say the day-to-day pop culture references like X Files . . . now that has to bring out a laugh. I love it. Yup, I agree with you. Ha, ha, thank you.
I realize such references make me an antique, but then, I am an antique! However, just between us, I never met Socrates. My loss!
Like Brian, this struck me as oh-so-powerful and true…and yet difficult to accept: “Still, we have encountered the only “enemy” we can take on daily every time we face the mirror.” Thank you, Dr. Stein.
Thank you, Vickie. I suppose I might have suggested challenging what we take for granted, reading a top class newspaper for thoroughness and honesty, and questioning our historical beliefs. In a world where most ignore even unbiased news and feel no obligation to vote, all I just said is wishful thought. Thus, we are left to do our part and seek out those who also challenge themselves — and find a better world by making it so.
Yes…I see your point — thinking about the “news” we consume and doing our part, heeding a call to action. Thank you for that. ❤
Lots to think about, Dr. Stein. We are such a complex species. >As you so rightly say: “Condemning [the other guy] is easier than understanding him.” Try as I may to avoid this danger, there are times when I give up on trying to understand behavior that’s so contradictory to my own firmly held beliefs. >Then there’s the observation: “The pain of seeing ourselves would be part of the cost [of our self-delusions].” It’s a painful process, indeed.
Thank you, Rosaliene. I think even to begin is to do better than we have. Epictetus said, “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” I share some of your frustration at the state of things but gradually have come to concede that I can do only a small part of what is necessary.
What an elegant way to point out and describe our inherent flaws in self-awareness. As I get older, I realize that my desired interface with the world has moved from being smart to being gentle. I find the latter helps me with my internal peace too. Brilliant post, Dr. Stein!
I am sure your gentleness is well known among those who know you face to face, Wynne. It surely is evident in your writing. As to the world, gentleness and consideration for others is a little more challenging. I imagine, however, your influence on the side of the angels does its own subtle repair work. Perhaps you can train those who lag behind.
… we achieve reassurance if we think he and those like him are the sources of much misery.” <– OOF, this! we'd rather "clear the chess board" than sit down and attempt to "play" with certain other someones. and yes, i'm aware that this is me thinking inside my tiny brain that "i know more, better" … OOF, again! (me, trying NOT to overthink this blog post). <3
Thank you, LInnie. Sometimes we are right to “clear the board! Sometimes, we do “know more,” as well. That said, it took me a long time to improve in both these areas.
One thing that helped enormously was taking courses at the U. of Chicago’s Basic Program. https://graham.uchicago.edu/programs-courses/basic-program
The instructors, for the most part, try to create an approximation of a Socratic Dialogue as their method of teaching. We also learned to begin any new book by trying to understand what the author is attempting to say and, only then, to question it. In doing this, we are expected not to immediately judge what is being said.
By the way, you can take these courses online, though they aren’t inexpensive. Many thanks for your comments!
i had to look up the definition of “socratic dialogue”– but yes, i understand. thank you for the information!