THE THINKER: Attribution

In his book, The Social Animal, Eliot Aronson discusses the human tendency to stereotype and how it relates to the phenomenon of Attribution:

            When an event occurs, there is a tendency among individuals to try to attribute a

            cause to that event.  Specifically, if a person performs an action, observers will

            make inferences about what caused that behaviour.  Such casual inferences are

            called attributions (230-231).

Aronson explains that the brain’s need to categorize in order to function effectively can at times devolve to an unintentional use of stereotyping that can be negative and abusive.  With regards to behaviour, perception is further skewed by the human need to functionally interpret what they see other people do.  Therefore, when an individual observes a person perform a certain action the observer “will make inferences about what caused the behaviour”(Aronson, 231).  The human mind infers and adds to the observable raw data an attribution that, in turn, both creates and/or affirms a stereotype.

Consider the optics and the potential inferences for the following common observations:

1. A young man standing outside a house party, occasionally looking up at the house and smoking a cigarette                                     
2. A young man standing outside a house party, occasionally looking up at the house

In option (a) the observer might simply infer that the young man is having a cigarette break.  In option (b) the observer might infer that the young man is waiting for a ride home or, perhaps, was never a guest at the house party at all; the observer may even surmise a negative event having led to his withdrawal or expulsion from the party.  The same scenario can be taken inside the establishment and replayed.  A young man or woman standing alone smoking a cigarette and viewing a party or dance floor full of participants will create a different inference than a young man or woman standing alone viewing the same scene while not smoking a cigarette. 

Consider another scenario that would be likely in any visit to the downtown of a large metropolitan:

1. A man is pacing back and forth on a sidewalk talking loudly with no one else around
2. A man is pacing back and forth on a sidewalk talking loudly with no one else around and a Bluetooth headset is seen wrapped around his ear.

In option (a) the inference might stereotype the subject as an individual who suffers from a form of mental instability.  In option (b) any inference of mental instability would be dispelled upon observing the mobile phone headset in the speaker’s ear.

A further consideration to the above phenomenon is the way our own fear of being negatively perceived regulates and influences our behaviour.  For example, a non-smoker standing on the sidelines of a party may take out his cell phone and begin working over it in order to create a different optic for observers to perceive.  In the old days, an individual may have closely examined an otherwise uninteresting plant, taken a walk in the garden or, perhaps, even asked someone for a cigarette.  Consequently, why we do the things we do is often linked to how we view the things we view.

Aronson, Elliot.  The Social Animal. 4^th Edition.  New York: W.H. Freeman &

            Company, 1984.

THE THINKER: Humility, Empathy & the Golden Rule

Golden Rule: The rule or principle of treating others as one wants to be treated (Matt.vii12). From Webster’s Dictionary.

The concept of The Golden Rule is familiar to most and, in varying degrees, a part of the philosophies of many religions and cultures.  In the New Testament’s book of Mathew, Jesus highlights its significance by recognizing it as one of the two most important of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”(Matt 22:39).  In the book of Luke, Jesus re-emphasizes the ancient Judaic rule when he says, “and as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”(6:31).   Religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism all admonish this ideal of personal perspective. Yet, even though as an intellectual philosophy The Golden Rule seems simple enough as a habitual behaviour it often alludes.

After World War II, researchers studying the psychology of individuals who aided escaping Jews found that the ability to empathize was a common denominator in the reasoning of persons being interviewed.  It can be argued then that The Golden Rule may extend into action when an individual is able to shift perspective and literally put themselves in to another person’s shoes. The great Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky examined this in his epic investigation of human behaviour The Brothers Karamazov.  In the section of the book headed From the Discourses and Sermons of Father Zossima, the writer extols the virtue of both the philosophy and its impetus for action by examining the necessary mindset of those who would be a judge of one’s fellow creatures: “Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of anyone. For no one can judge a criminal until he recognizes that he is just such a criminal as the man standing before him…”  In this way, Dostoyevsky highlights the humility that must accompany an intellectual understanding of empathy.  Essentially, once the individual can accept a lower opinion of themselves in order to match the perceived position of the other, they can then shift perspective and act from the other’s position. 




“I’ve decided not to talk to perverts anymore….so I’ve even given up inner dialogue.”



THE THINKER: Be Careful What You Wish For

Regarding a self-righteous human desire for a just universe and all around fair play, the great American author Mark Twain once said:  “Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”




                 Present Life                        

            

Afterlife





THE THINKER: Revenge

Some call it a paradox

Some call it contradiction

Some even call it development

Whatever your viewpoint, when looking at the King James bible as a whole, it is always interesting to juxtapose the Old Testament philosophy of  “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:23) with the New Testament response of turn the other cheek(Matt 5:39). As a principle, both can be hard to reconcile. 

Of the latter, Martin Luther King Jr said:  "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

Regarding the sentiments of the former, the author William Painter economically remarked, “Vengeance is sweet.”

A further noteworthy observation on the way Christians rationalize the inherent contradiction between the two is depicted elegantly in a scene from Metro Goldwyn Mayer’s 1966 film Khartoum:

           On the eve of battle the great British Major-General Charles George Gordon (aka

           Gordon of Khartoum) is confronted by his non-Christian servant Khaleel.

                   “This Jesus Christ” starts the servant adamantly.  “Sometimes master I do

           not  understand this great man.  For as I remember, you told me once most clearly

          that he announced, ‘When a man is struck upon one cheek, he must turn the

          other.’”

                    The servant looks at Gordon and then quickly continues his inquiry.

        “Do you?” 

        Before the General can answer, Khaleel suddenly leaps back and in a mock demonstration slaps his own right cheek and then pretending to shake it off proceeds to angrily strike forward with a left jab, followed by a right hook, until

           the invisible offender inevitably crumples to the floor.

                    At this point, the servant straightens himself before the great English

          General, looks him directly in the eye and protests, “You don’t!”

                     A slightly amused Gordon shifts forward in his chair, then very calmly

           and patiently replies:  “I must inform you Khaleel, as delicately as possible, that I

           am not Jesus Christ.”

                       

However we philosophize, rationalize or justify, there is no denying a certain satisfaction in seeing another “receive their just dessert.”  And, at the risk of overusing another threadbare expression, I myself admit to a certain enjoyment in seeing the tables turned!

                                                                 "Urinal's Revenge"

Introduction

According to Webster’s online dictionary the definition of the word “scratch” includes the following:

•  to rub and tear or mark the surface of with something sharp or jagged
• to scrape or rub lightly (as to relieve itching) b : to act on (a desire) —used with itch <scratch the itch to travel>
• scrape together : collect with difficulty or by effort <scratch out a living>
• to make a thin grating sound b : to produce a rhythmic scratching sound by moving a phonograph record back and forth under a phonograph needle

All of the above explanations, in differing degrees, reflect the title that I have chosen for this project.  I will, in essence, scratch at the surface of many topics while reserving the right to, at times, tear more deeply, scrape more sharply and so collect with much more difficulty and effort upon certain areas that will leave a much wider mark. I may even produce a full sound, from time to time, and actually play the record out without simply dragging the needle back and forth to create the above mentioned “thin grating” noise.

For the most part, however, I will justify my “scratch” with the admission that I am one of those fellows with a lot of eclectic interests and otherwise useless information that does not fit into everyday encounters or conversations.  I expect that any followers of this journal will reflect a small percentage of individuals who are not exactly avant garde while, at the same time, not exactly mainstream either.  This record then is for misfits like us: Inquisitive, harmless and, I suppose, a little bit boring as well.