Social (mis)communication

[SteveA]

I wanted to comment on what appears to be a very common trait in society.

Much of the time when people "talk", they're just speaking to their own preconceptions of others, such as stereotypical political, science, social or religious views, astrological influences, age, race, gender etc. etc. etc.

It's a simple way to begin a conversation . It's also rather easy to see this in others when they misperceive you but much more difficult to see past this to the next reflection and see how it can go both ways, with each person talking to their own virtual puppet of "what the other is about".

This can be fine for an entertaining discussion "talking about the weather". You can pick most any random stranger, drop a few keywords to trigger a stereotypical reaction ... and away the conversation goes, play by play as people put on the correct team jersey and unload their baggage in a manner unrelated to anything but their own programmed responses. Yes, very much like watching a game of sports.

This creates a little virtual socially constructed "world" that relates to nothing outside it except collective social opinions. Participants are free to treat anything outside this as unimportant and social evolution appears to reign supreme ... as long as reality outside that doesn't interrupt anything.

If this is not a problem, then there's no need to do anything about it and people are simply having fun crying wolf or complaining etc. If this is a problem then is it one that actually warrants change and if so, is there actually enough desire to stop with the games and:

1) Realize what the issue is first for oneself. Do this clearly and with enough foresight to hopefully not spend lots of time undoing things later or finding it was simply a symptom.

2) Can someone else truly offer anything? If something is couched in a context of importance that isn't warranted then this places unnecessary stress on others.

3) Does the other person recognize ones own perspective of the situation as valid? If not, what are the discrepancies? (It could be the other person is simply "playing games" and doesn't consider the subject of importance or alternately they do not believe in the same cause and effect rules as you do and see the causes and solutions differently)

4) Can both/all parties actually talk to each other or do they get stuck referencing their own stereotypes or are unable to get past their own blocks on some subject?

If something is a "real" conversation that is expected to alter anything useful, then everyone involved should have a rather clear idea of what their own interest is in the situation and how it relates to others involved.

Without being able to do this seriously, most all conversations are just "talking about the weather" and people shouldn't expect anything significant to arise from it.

I just wanted to "offload" a few thoughts that might serve to help show a clearer perspective of what I'm inclined to believe is a rather common source of social ills and misperceptions. Oftentimes people will similarly trust their own judgement, yet not be willing to extend that same level of trust to others.

On the other hand, I could be that my post is simply just another example of 'crying wolf', when there is none. Though it could be worth looking to see if this is a problematic issue and if so, what the more fundamental causes of this and what would it take to help resolve it? Those might be questions that can take a bit of deep consideration to resolve.

[SteveA]

As a quick additional thought - any form of "gain" or "loss" is in some ways just imagined as things are truly just as they are. Expectations of them being or becoming "different" require some belief of how things could have been "otherwise", but otherwise is something that truly never exists.

It could be misplaced to expect anything other than what is, or at least a recognition that changes are subjective and not necessarily real beyond the belief in their possibility, could help.

Anyway, there's no need to comment. I just felt like adding a few considerations.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The weather in Bermuda is not so great lately.

[SteveA]

The weather in Bermuda is not so great lately.

Yes, thank you for a good example of talking to ones inner puppet, Austin.

A lot of good poetry is similar in that it's very non-specific and lets the reader construct their own interpretation of it.

Politics and poetry ... hmmm, there could be quite an interesting correlation there regarding various forms of rhetoric. Many wars are started with vague slogans etc.

I recognize most people are fearful of expressing themselves clearly and sadly there may be legitimate reasons in a society to repress expressing oneself with honesty or openness. That's a condition that would make social "discussion" unable to remedy much, even if desired, because the information would be distorted and people would be simply, similar to my above comments, chasing their own shadows.

Thank you for the example, Austin, and yes, for the sake of the discussion on this thread, yes, I'm being sarcastic when I say that, though I do appreciate you "bumping" the thread back up on the list

(Seriously, I'm having some fun, but truly I do think this subject is actually quite important and might even be close to THE most significant problem in politics today. I don't believe people are saying how they feel but instead repeating phrases and concepts they've been taught are appropriate or "socially correct" and people begin to actually believe these statements are true over time as well, yet it's not very difficult to show many conflicts in common and conventional beliefs, yet people implicitly know what they're suppose to say they belief instead and it's obvious because of how actively people will avoid discussion on specific subjects - it's not simply ignorance but active avoidance.

For example, people know they're not suppose to discuss the subject of this thread and avoid it because it's 'wrong' to discuss stereotypes - the conventional stereotype is to avoid seeing ones own stereotyped reactions to subjects and consider it a fault in someone else to have mentioned it, yet simultaneously people will claim to have problems they need help with, yet they're unwilling to make the sacrifices to actually change anything. Quite a perplexing state of affairs ... I might just be midunderstanding something as I seriously can't believe the average Joe could be this ignorant, or maybe the media and collective generalizations are where the "problem" (IMO, though maybe it is no problem) arises.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, there is a lot of "on the surface" talk.

Next time, ask the clerk "Where did the universe come from"? Maybe that will get them going, some of them anyway.


"Have a nice day".

"Do I have to?"


"Can I help you?"

"No, I am beyond help."


Weather report for tonight: dark, then lightening near dawn.

[SteveA]

Yes, there is a lot of "on the surface" talk.

Ok, thank you. That's my general assumption. The reason why I this subject sticks with me is just that I tend to see the sad trait that oftentimes an "on the surface" subject becomes political and people want to enforce their "view of the weather" (considering the political realm of debate over the climate this appears to almost literally be true as well)

Nest time, ask the clerk "Where did the universe come from"? Maybe that will get them going, some of them anyway.


"Have a nice day".

"Do I have to?"


"Can I help you?"

"No, I am beyond help."


Weather report for tonight: dark, then lightening near dawn.

Ok, I'll be looking forward to that prediction being accurate, Austin. Thanks.

[leskey]

I'd really enjoy being more open on this forum, Steve, but in the name of 'moderation' must limit myself, lest judgment (the intention of engendering guilt) by others be the result.

Strange, huh: biases, prejudices and bigotries different from our own are often judged to be threatening, thereby propagating and perpetuating emotional responses/behaviours...all in the name of 'freedom' (in this case, of speech).

By necessity, we must address a topic from our own perspective, ie we must access our own knowledge and experience, complete with the aforementioned biases, etc., all of which combine to become the motives that are often interpreted as threatening.

The social expectation of conformity and the rights of the individual are mutually exclusive - lol! That's the weakness of Western societies - one that is being expertly utilized to destroy us.

I wish I could remember where I read it...I think Bev made a post quoting a researcher who contends that early man had a group mind. Western society has evolved to hold that individuality is our absolute birthright.

In the past information changed very slowly, however today information is not just dynamically metamorphic, but its accrual is accelerating at an exponential rate. The mind of the average individual has access to more information than several generations of whole societies in the past. This is how I understand the Mayan contention that 'time' would speed up at the end of the current era: time is the dynamics of information, which is change.

Now I'm wanding off the track...nice chatting with ya!

[austintorn@aol.com]

“There’s Mars and Venus!” she exclaimed, pointing.
“Mars is the fourth planet from the sun
and Venus is the second.”

“What a pair they are, he answered,
“for Mars represents war and Venus represents love.”

“And here we are on the Earth, the third planet,
situated right between
those two opposites of love and war.”

“Here on Earth we live in a perfect state of balance,
although it is a rather delicate thing.
We’re a blend of war and peace,
passion and reason,
sobriety and drunkenness,
adventurousness and foolishness,
violence and forgiveness.
That is our life!
Oh, it is such a tenuous state of awareness!”

“We must walk the tightrope,
balancing there between
the foolish and the reckless.
It’s the point between up and down,
the point between night and day,
like that of half light dusk or dawn.”

“Indeed, the greatest blunder in this life
is to fear that you might make one.”

“I love it! Your passion is so reasonable
in this state of awareness.”

“And your reasoning is so passionate!”

“That reminds me of a poetic joke I heard,
from the poet Byron,
though I’ve extended it slightly”
she said, “but, as you know,
there is some truth behind all jokes.
This is sort of how it goes:”

Let us have wine, lovers, song, and laughter;
Water, chastity, prayer the day after.
Such, we’ll alternate the rest of our days—
On the average, we’ll make Hereafter!

“It’s funny, but true—a real golden mean.”

“By our nature we’re all a mixture
of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’.”

“Yes, there is a beast within us,
but it helps us to survive.
It is the reason that we dance and dream,
the reason that we feel and live with zest.
It makes us push and try and climb.
Without this beast within us, life would be so boring.”

“We’d be perfect angels.”

“But—we wouldn’t be us.”

“So—all’s right with the world—just the way it is.”

[SteveA]

I'd really enjoy being more open on this forum, Steve, but in the name of 'moderation' must limit myself, lest judgment (the intention of engendering guilt) by others be the result.

Strange, huh: biases, prejudices and bigotries different from our own are often judged to be threatening, thereby propagating and perpetuating emotional responses/behaviours...all in the name of 'freedom' (in this case, of speech).

By necessity, we must address a topic from our own perspective, ie we must access our own knowledge and experience, complete with the aforementioned biases, etc., all of which combine to become the motives that are often interpreted as threatening.

The social expectation of conformity and the rights of the individual are mutually exclusive - lol! That's the weakness of Western societies - one that is being expertly utilized to destroy us.

I wish I could remember where I read it...I think Bev made a post quoting a researcher who contends that early man had a group mind. Western society has evolved to hold that individuality is our absolute birthright.

In the past information changed very slowly, however today information is not just dynamically metamorphic, but its accrual is accelerating at an exponential rate. The mind of the average individual has access to more information than several generations of whole societies in the past. This is how I understand the Mayan contention that 'time' would speed up at the end of the current era: time is the dynamics of information, which is change.

Now I'm wanding off the track...nice chatting with ya!

I believe the ideal in Western culture is that the cohesive "social force" is suppose to be a common appreciation of individual freedom. There really is not a group desire to do anything. The "collective" doesn't have a desire or emotions etc. It's the individuals. I think people misrepresent the "American Dream" when they put it in terms of white picket fences, or wealth etc. That's simply a natural consequence of people having greater self determination in their environment.

The force degrading things in the West is the continually centralizing social structure that limits diversity. In a sense, creating a central government was the first mistake for the U.S. . It was pretty much predicted from the beginning which direction things would tumble. It was intended to be republic in which the diversity could exist in terms of independent states with the federal government intended largely as just arbitration over disputes between State entities as well as a focal point for any defense, if necessary, but the balance appears to continually shift toward centralized as well as unresponsive control because there's little feedback in the system.

I think it would be great to replace with the idea of government altogether with just a better means for people to communicate and coordinate voluntarily. From there it's easy for people to determine whatever form of defense they feel is necessary as well as being able to remove their support from an institution that appears burdening and move it elsewhere ... maybe we just need to copy nature a bit and have a better system for social evolution.

I recognize that freedom, in itself, is not directly valuable and that most people desire various social structures exist as these have collective benefits. So individual freedom is simply a basis upon which social structures are built. As long as people are relatively free to associate (which is also equivalent to the ability to disassociate with other elements) and have a good "visibility" of opportunities, I don't think there are major problems unless a culture is simply self destructive, in which case things usually break down and people split up and come back and learn how to work together later ... that seems a common theme and likely the way nature tends to "cure cancer".

Hmmm ... looks like I've wandered off track too, Lesley Well, thank you for stimulating some more ramblings ... I do enjoy rambling LOL

Until later ...

[racecar]

If I don't ask I might not know...why do some insist on miss pelling L-E-S-K-E-Y ? Is it because the L and K are so close on the keyboard? Is it because she edits the rare typo? What? It's miss communication, again...LesKey not LesLey.