Curious Jew
Curious Jew had an interesting post about the underlying reason for opposing religious factions attempt to persuade others of their ‘truth’. CJ claims that it is out of love for others that the truth is perpetrated upon those uninterested in hearing. It’s a worthwhile post which should precede reading my comments below. BTW, most of her post are exceptionally well written, especially the literary ones. My response, which was comment number 29, is quoted here:
What you have so eloquently reimagined as love misdirected, is actually a by-product of evolution. Humans have depended upon cooperation and coalitions to survive. Coalitional dynamics require special group thinking. Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained points out that the way we view people is in terms of their associations with a broader, more general social category. John is from the Smythe Clan, Eddie is Asian and Tommy, black. From there we further note- John is from our clan/group while the others are not. There are things I expect to do for John and him for me without personal benefit but for the good of our group. His non-cooperation with our group expectation is akin to defection and would be punished or rebuked. Loyalty to the group is essential.
Eddie and Tommy are not from our group. No matter what these individuals do, we will extrapolate their actions to be characteristics of their group (regardless if true or not). Actions of these individuals would warrant response against their group as a whole. (Racism is starting to make sense, isn't it?).
So within the group we tend to enforce cooperation and compliance so we would expect our neighbor to keep us in line with the group philosophy. This would apply to why different sects of Jews try to enforce their thinking on other Jews. Simply put, we are all Jews and that requires commitment to the group. However there are also elements of out-group thinking. Inevitably when dealing with a large group, smaller subgroups will tend to form whose social dynamics also take on in-group/out-group thinking. Each group thinking that their group consists of finer characters than those of other groups. Each group would value their view of Judaism as more correct than another sub group of Jews. Then out-group dynamics come into play. For example if we hear of a hasid involved in an abominable act, the first thing we say is, "Those hasidim..." we extrapolate an individuals actions as representative of the whole. In that way, there are divisive forces at work.
People believe that others represent the world as they do. If they view an act as morally wrong, they just assume you do as well. (Moral Realism) This is where their attempt to re-educate you comes in because of course they know they are correct, you just need some prodding to realign you. People also have a vested interest in believing their truth to be absolute.
I did, however, enjoy the optimistic, hopeful message of your post. It shows the depth of your good nature and your eagerness to find the good in others or in outwardly negative experiences. If more people were like that or in the very least strove to be that way, the world would be unrecognizable to us today. Unfortunately, the representations you have of others are not necessarily the ones they hold for themselves. There are people with other agendas and other baser drives who don’t have as peaceful a view of the world and are willing kill for their beliefs. But don’t let me stop your enthusiasm and quest for a better world.
Finding the good in things is better than finding the truth.
What you have so eloquently reimagined as love misdirected, is actually a by-product of evolution. Humans have depended upon cooperation and coalitions to survive. Coalitional dynamics require special group thinking. Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained points out that the way we view people is in terms of their associations with a broader, more general social category. John is from the Smythe Clan, Eddie is Asian and Tommy, black. From there we further note- John is from our clan/group while the others are not. There are things I expect to do for John and him for me without personal benefit but for the good of our group. His non-cooperation with our group expectation is akin to defection and would be punished or rebuked. Loyalty to the group is essential.
Eddie and Tommy are not from our group. No matter what these individuals do, we will extrapolate their actions to be characteristics of their group (regardless if true or not). Actions of these individuals would warrant response against their group as a whole. (Racism is starting to make sense, isn't it?).
So within the group we tend to enforce cooperation and compliance so we would expect our neighbor to keep us in line with the group philosophy. This would apply to why different sects of Jews try to enforce their thinking on other Jews. Simply put, we are all Jews and that requires commitment to the group. However there are also elements of out-group thinking. Inevitably when dealing with a large group, smaller subgroups will tend to form whose social dynamics also take on in-group/out-group thinking. Each group thinking that their group consists of finer characters than those of other groups. Each group would value their view of Judaism as more correct than another sub group of Jews. Then out-group dynamics come into play. For example if we hear of a hasid involved in an abominable act, the first thing we say is, "Those hasidim..." we extrapolate an individuals actions as representative of the whole. In that way, there are divisive forces at work.
People believe that others represent the world as they do. If they view an act as morally wrong, they just assume you do as well. (Moral Realism) This is where their attempt to re-educate you comes in because of course they know they are correct, you just need some prodding to realign you. People also have a vested interest in believing their truth to be absolute.
I did, however, enjoy the optimistic, hopeful message of your post. It shows the depth of your good nature and your eagerness to find the good in others or in outwardly negative experiences. If more people were like that or in the very least strove to be that way, the world would be unrecognizable to us today. Unfortunately, the representations you have of others are not necessarily the ones they hold for themselves. There are people with other agendas and other baser drives who don’t have as peaceful a view of the world and are willing kill for their beliefs. But don’t let me stop your enthusiasm and quest for a better world.
Finding the good in things is better than finding the truth.
Labels: group dynamics, mental representations, optimism, truth
posted by smoo @ 11:31 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Interesting comment. I, like Chana, am an idealist who can't quite quit (though I unfortunately have a side who has seen where the idealism ends as well), though I do wonder about your last line of whether it's better to see the good than the truth. I guess it would be a question of defining "better" here. Is it happier? Probably. Is it hopeful? Definitely. Is it wise? I'm not sure. I've always argued that ignorance is not bliss, with the caveat that it is often easier. But easy is not always real, and as much as it hurts sometimes, I prefer not sticking my head in the sand.
Shoshana,
You are quite on point with the need to qualify 'better' especially in a context that pits something (finding the good) against truth.
I should have qualified that statement but I guess it just made sense in my mind when I was writing it. That last sentence was really a commentary on the innate nature of a person, in this case CJ. Optimism (not unrealistic optimism) is a laudable trait and I was emphasizing that aspect. I did not mean to imply that the truth was of less value but maybe of less practicality. What difference does it make to CJ if she found out if coalition dynamics were the root cause of certain human behavior? As a truth to be learned, I consider it very important and should not be overlooked. But CJ was trying to deal with uncomfortable circumstances (pressures to conform) and found herself with hostile and negative feelings towards those who would impose their will upon her. She formulated a way of looking at people's behavior that gave them the benefit of the doubt and that resonated with more positive attitude. When people think like that, human relations are one step closer to being more civil. Should we ignore the evolutionary pressures that leads people to behave as they do, of course not. But how we choose to view others will affect our outlook on life and ultimately our reciprocal behavior towards them.
It might be more difficult to find the good, but then it's also sometimes better than seeing the truth... although, I believe that truth is relative to the person searching for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home