Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Introverts = oppressed?

I saw this originally posted here, original here, and was a little surprised that it is so popular? The accept-me-as-I-am introvert movement has gotten pretty big, and I think it's great that people are realizing that just because someone appears to be pretty antisocial does not mean that they think less of other people or wish them ill. Unless, they do? Because the below illustration and accompanying text sort of makes it seem like introverts could do without most people. Not only does the illustration include a lot of specious claims and outrageous generalizations, there is also a lot of stereotyping of other types of people.

But here are some of the more bizarre claims of this particular introvert:

  • "introverted people make their own energy and, rather than taking it from others, give it on social contact." They make it? How? By eating? Glucose rich foods? And it's odd, apparently extroverts do not make their own energy? They're essentially parasites?
  • "they tend to see extroverts as obnoxious predators" Ok, yes, non-introverts are not just parasites but predators.
  • "interaction . . . is expensive and they don't want to spend it on something annoying (read: wasteful)" I guess most people are not worth the introvert's time...
  • There's also a list at the end of how exactly to approve of the introvert while not wasting their time. Good to know.



I see this all of the time -- people preaching for tolerance for one group (their group?) while simultaneously putting down another. I think that's what a lot of people assume that I am doing by promoting greater awareness and acceptance of sociopaths, but I don't think sociopaths are better than other people. First of all, there is no legitimate criteria with which anyone could make such a statement (although it seems like most people would disagree with this statement -- I often hear people's assessment that sociopaths are human garbage and should be disposed of). Second of all, how could I possibly determine the worth of a human being whom I will never come to know fully (I don't even know myself fully). I

'm aware that this is apparently a very rare characteristic to have -- not judging people's worth. It's so foreign a concept to some of you that you will not believe me when I say it is true about me. Why? Because you do this, you assume everyone else must too? This assumption to me is a testament of the prevalence among the empath community of an implicit (or explicit?) valuation and hierarchy of the worth of individual humans. Is this why it's so easy to convince the masses that certain people are scum and not worthy of empathy or common decency?)

So everyone hug an introvert (also realize that you are energy sucking predators). 

Monday, November 4, 2013

Good intentions not good enough

The other day I was with a group of my relatives. One of the children is a quirky guy, probably could be diagnosed somewhere on the autism spectrum but his parents seem to worry about stigmatizing him with any sort of label. Another adult relative grabbed him in sort of a roughhousing way and the child screamed bloody murder. We were in a crowded place and everyone turned to look at what could possibly cause such a reaction. There should be nothing unusual about a child who does not like to be grabbed by surprise, but I guess a lot of children like it? So people do it and basically expect all children to like it; if they don't they're often labeled "too sensitive" or some other label that shifts the blame on them for their reaction, rather than it staying on the perpetrator where it belongs. Watching this scene, I couldn't help but think about how much I distrust good intentions (I write about it here, the tendency to self-deceive about good intentions here, and the inherent paternalism or one-size-fits-all hubristic approach of many good-intentioned behaviors here).

I'm not saying that the guy who grabbed the child was "wrong", largely because I don't care about the moral rightness or wrongness of such actions (even if morality plays a part in some decisions, I believe that most things in life have no moral implications at all). What I am saying is that the last thing in the world that my little relative wanted to have happen was to be grabbed in that way. The adult of course apologized, but I've also seen people in similar situations defend their position, as if trying to convince the victim that they should toughen up, or that the treatment is good for them (see above re paternalism and hubris), or often the perpetrators seem to honestly believe that the victim actually does like that treatment, but is just being intentionally difficult as a form of politicking or emotional manipulation. Whatever the reason, the violators in these situations (the persons who impose their own will on another person, ignoring the that person's autonomy and volition) often excuse their own behavior or believe that they are not responsible for the consequences of their own actions because that is not what they intended. And that is the most dangerous thing about them.

I really like this quote from C.S. Lewis from his essay anthology "God in the Dock" (1948):

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

This is a major reason why I am libertarian -- people are bad enough about this without giving them the authority and power of the state to use. 

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Inventing yourself: dangerous liaisons

This is a classic portrayal of a female sociopath, but the general principles apply to everyone who knows they are different in an inhospitable world but refuse to just lay down and die.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Sociopaths in film: Warm Bodies

I watched a movie recently that had some fun parallels to sociopath and empath interrelations and the possibility of a "cure" or change. The movie is Warm Bodies (instant video) and it's really worthwhile to watch for sociopaths and friends of sociopaths.

The zombie character feeds on humans to survive. He's a little conflicted about it, but also says that he doesn't have any feelings or remorse. He doesn't dream and feels very empty. The only time he feels alive is when he is eating brains and can vicariously live through them ("I don't want to hurt you. I just want to feel what you felt, to feel a little better, a little less dead."). The zombies don't live by the human rules, they live by the law of the jungle (from the book "There's no rule book for the world. It's in our heads, our collective human hive-mind. If there are rules, we're the ones making them. We can change them whenever we want.")

The point of the movie is that you don't really know what people are capable of doing, both bad things and good things. There will always be those that insist on their survival at all costs. The zombie version are called "bonies" ("They call these guys Bonies. They don't bother us, much, but they'll eat anything with a heartbeat. I mean, I will too, but at least I'm conflicted about it."). The human version are called... well, human ("This is a corpse affected by the plague.  It is uncaring, unfeeling.  Corpses do not think.  They do not bleed.  They are incapable of remorse." . . . .  "No, you know what is happening, Julie? What's happening is that everyday there's more of them and less of us. They're not curing themselves. We're their food source. They are not becoming vegan."). The more reasonable ones in the movie, both zombie and human, are the ones who try to see the other's viewpoint and learn to work together. As the movie says, working together with your natural mortal enemies is a little scary, but "What wonderful thing didn't start out scary?".

To end with a quote from the book the film was based on "There is no ideal world for you to wait around for. The world is always just what it is now, and it's up to you how you respond to it. . . . No praise, no blame. Just so."

Friday, November 1, 2013

Quote: Rough men and violence

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.