GuidoWorld

Stacking the Deck

I am known for pointing out to people how difficult the average person makes life. If there is a simple solution they ignore it, if there is something they enjoy they almost never get around to doing it.

Many of the most popular movies involve people living an entire life of pain and loneliness only to have their desperate existence changed for a brief moment. Maybe it’s a person who finds love after forty years of painful isolation, or at the moment before expiring meets a childhood friend they have been estranged from their entire lives. Sometimes its rather bizarre like the guy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind in which his brief meeting with aliens is supposed to make up for his incredibly dreary life.

Why don’t me have movies and books which celebrate human life and all its joys? Why do we look at happiness as a rare moment sandwiched between pain and boredom?

Yet, this tendency to view the negatives of life as the norm is quite pervasive. I have been part of numerous discussions in which everyone (but me) states that humans are inherently bad, violent and destructive. They view things such as world peace and harmony as impossible ideals, and humans as deceitful, selfish and petty.

Now I’m not going to try and tell you that people are wonderful and happy, but I think we are far better than that which we give our selves credit. On almost every topic we stack the deck towards the negative. We make the hurdles for the good unrealistically high and lower the bar for the bad.

If a person tells the truth 99 out of 100 times and lies once he is likely to be labeled a liar. A spouse is faithful for twenty years and has a one night stand and they instantly become unfaithful cads. A man can be labeled an angry tyrant even if he only raises his voice in a response to one in every fifty or so conflicts. In almost every case it is almost impossible to be considered a good person and so easy to qualify for being evil.

Yet, in my personal world I find so many more examples of good times and good moments as opposed to bad ones. Each and every day my time is filled with pleasant conversation, general agreement and physical pleasure while conflict, bitter discussion, and pain are relatively rare occurrences.

Now, I know there are plenty of wars in the world, but there is also a lot of peace happening too. Many of us have never experienced war and even those of us who have seen conflict have spent the majority of our time in peace. Even soldiers at war have more peaceful moments than time spent in battle.

I realize that we often focus on the bad because it is important to limit the bad times and their effects on life. Yet, we seem to sabotage ourselves by not recognizing are strengths and merits and instead only pay attention to our faults and frailties.

I think it is easier to build on strengths rather than extinguish weaknesses through vigilance. It’s kind of like someone telling you to clear your mind or to not think about how much your mosquito bite is itching. Such demands usually only have you focus more on the forbidden topic.

The best way to end undesired behavior is through replacement not prohibition. A person addicted to cigarettes will find it easier to stop if they find something else that give them pleasure rather than just try to will away the urge to smoke.

We need to focus on the good in people and in life in order to motivate us and replace our negative stances and attitudes. Just demanding people to be better or pointing out all our ill qualities will do little good.

We should start making the good in people and in life attainable and not always say it’s impossible. While total peace or harmony are unrealistic, so is total war and perpetual conflict. Instead we should focus on all our good qualities and actions while not denying our weaknesses.

World peace is not an ideal any more than war is a negative ideal. They both occur and the existence of one does not negate the existence of the other. Many people claim that world peace is not possible because we will always have conflict. I guess we could say world war is not possible because at every moment there will always be people at peace.

I think it is safe to say that the bulk of human actions is positive and good. In the majority of situations people are nice, kind and agreeable. This is not to say that people could not be better, but it does say that we have plenty to build on and feel good about.

We live in a society in which only the bad is newsworthy and generally recognized. This creates an environment of fear and negativity. It is important for us to level the playing field and unstack the deck towards the negative. We should expend as much energy in identifying the positive in the world as well as in our own lives. We should recognize and appreciate the good times in order to increase their frequency and raise their impact on our sense of well being.

So often I hear people complain that they have had a bad day because of two or three isolated events. Yet, if you get them to recap their day there are plenty of good times and enjoyable moments that could just as well define their day.

To enjoy life one doesn’t usually have to lower one’s standards but rather just keep one’s expectations realistic, and one’s eyes open to the good aspects of human being and human existence.

Jim Guido

PS Next post I will start doing reveries on lyrics to my songs. These will continue for quite awhile, but will be interspersed with reflections and observations similar to todays post.

Personal Best

Some years ago it became the in thing to make “affirmations” and to say “yes to life”. I have to admit I found this whole movement kind of artificial and irritating. The most ardent followers of this affirmative perspective looked at all competition as a negative, and effort, especially in sports, as being a sign of petty self interest.

Sports and games played when such a philosophy was present were a total farce, where the strongest proponents intentionally played poorly and ridiculed those who gave their all or took the event seriously. Though I totally agreed that winning was not the most important thing I disagreed with the idea that you do something without giving a solid effort. I’ve always enjoyed doing my best and challenging myself to improve and maintain physical and mental skills and abilities. I like to work up a good sweat and I enjoy trying to have my team and opponents improve their talent level.

It is pretty normal for people to miss the sweet spot in life and instead swing from one end of the pendulum to the other. So, on one end you have the people who treat every competition as a battle for life and death in which winning is the only thing. At the other end you have the people who feel all competition is vain and combative and destructive to the psyche of all who do not win.

I personally feel I’ve always had a relatively healthy view of sports and competitions. I’ve always enjoyed team sports and I’ve always enjoyed trying to have my team execute and perform better. If I was on a team that lost frequently I would set goals that showed improvement, such as losing by a specified number of points, or by successfully executing one of our plays more often than the previous game.

I love basketball and enjoy playing team games and one-on-one match-ups. If I play someone who is more talented than myself I will set attainable goals such as stopping a pet move they have, or make the score a little closer each game. When better than my opponent I will try to expand my game so that I just don’t take advantage of their weaknesses and continue to rout them. If they are open to it, I will give them pointers that will help them stop me or make my scoring on them more challenging.

From about third grade through the majority of high school I had one friend who I played thousands of one-on-one basketball games against. Throughout the years we continued to push each other to be better, and we always enjoyed our competitions. I recall winning more than I lost against Jake, but I have a stronger memory of how often we complemented and helped each other. Sometimes we played timing the game with a baking timer, trying to duplicate the excitement of an actual game. Yet, usually we played long games up to a hundred by ones. I would guess that well over 90% of our games were decided by five points or less.

About ten years ago we got together and played a little basketball for old times sake. Within minutes we were back to trying hard and pushing ourselves. It was like putting on  old comfortable clothes. During breaks we reminisced of old times and talked of how much fun we had. No matter how hard we played we always were smiling and complimenting each other, and I fondly remember Jake’s smile as well as his turn around jump shot.

Jake was my favorite opponent because he understood that competition was not about defeating an adversary, but rather a means of bringing out the best in all who are performing. Of course we enjoyed winning more than losing, but we also understood that their were many ways of winning and being successful.

I feel that the people who hate on competition are just as blind as those who make winning on the scoreboard the only consideration. What sports and every competition afford is the opportunity to improve oneself, to become more familiar and in control of your body and mind. Giving one’s best effort can make one into a better person.

My son had a very healthy competitive experience in high school. He was a member of the cross country team who were coached by three kind and caring individuals who challenged all the kids to do their best while praising and recognizing their improvements. Rather than focusing on who had the best time, they had the kids focus on their own personal best times. The coaches also encouraged the runners to encourage each other and to recognize the improvements each individual made in terms of personal running times and training habits. It wasn’t about trying to be the best runner, but rather looking forward and working towards making another personal best. This method proved to be not only enjoyable but highly successful, as all the kids made remarkable gains and the boys team took second in the state.

Those who rail against all competition seem to only focus on the worst aspects of overly competitive individuals. The miss all the potential mental and physical health benefits of pushing oneself to improve. After all doesn’t almost all self-development take some form of effort and personal challenge. Why would you want to deny others the good feelings that come from growth and development, and why would you want to focus only on the negative aspect of human ambition?

In the next post, entitled Stacking the Deck, I will address the last question a little more fully.

Jim Guido

Brute and Psychological Force

The typical view is that modern industrial societies are patriarchal in nature and manner. Male domination, in these societies, is enforced and maintained through aggressive and violent brute force.

In our examination into male female tendencies through gender symbols we have called into question much of this stereotype of male aggression. While granting the validity of phallic symbols such as guns, missiles and knives we have balanced this with other valid phallic images. These images focusing on penetration, probing, expansion and emission included the microscope, hypodermic needle, telescope, drill, hoe, train, pen, paintbrush and many other tools, artistic, implements and technological instruments which have been used to foster and improve the quality of life.

So, is male brute force the only or even main instrument of social power, or are there other less overtly masculine means used by modern societies to enforce control over its populaces?

Modern psychology has identified many alternative methods that an individual may employ to establishing and maintain control over another. Many of these methods can be used by governments and political leaders socially and not just be used in one-on-one situations. These general strategies of psychological manipulation include guilt, shame, fear, exclusion, intimidation, innuendo, class designation and exile.

Though various forms of psychological intimidation and warfare have existed throughout history, they probably have never served such a central role as they do in modern democracies. In general modern democracies are premised on the idea that citizens have general rights and that they elect the leaders who serve their interests. Such an ideology makes it difficult for a political group to govern through brute force. Instead they must foster control through more subtle and psychological means. This is the realm of public perception management and political spin. This is the realm of getting people to willingly give up their rights and privileges in exchange for protection and inclusion within the group.

These indirect means of power and control are not only done by governments upon its citizenry, but filters down to interpersonal interactions among individuals and communities. The same strategies are also used in international affairs. Therefore, the psychological methods of power and control are used in interpersonal, domestic and international levels.

While brute force and the threat of brute force is still a major tool used by the
US and a few other nations in international affairs most other nations use less aggressive means of exerting their power. Most nations and governing bodies standardly use strategies of power and control which deal more with psychological matters such as guilt, shame and exclusion.

Let’s take a moment to discuss the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is more internal and geared towards the individualistic nature of democratic societies. While shame is more a form of public humiliation and exile. This distinction between cultures that emphasize guilt and ones which employ shame was first introduced by ER Dodds but grew in popularity in many fields including psychology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology.

In short modern societies often employ both shame and guilt with despotic and socialistic societies leaning towards shame and democratic or theistic societies centering on guilt. In both cases power and control are fostered by either a person feeling personally at fault and unworthy (poor self-esteem) or socially humiliated and devalued.

In international affairs nations use the principle of exclusion through leaving or removing nations from groups such as NATO, OPEC or the UN. This would also involve being sanctioned or punished by some international organization, or in being labeled a terrorist state by some international body. Nations will often use indirect pressure to exert power or influence over another nation, such as embargoes or economic sanctions whereby the target nation of the act suffers economic or political harm.

Inside of nations tools such as strikes, demonstrations and marches often serve to wield power and influence. In a capitalistic/democratic nation the threat of the ballot box or in refusing to consume or patronize a business can give grassroots or religious organizations great leverage and power.

What the bulk of this post suggests is that power in modern societies even those which are patriarchal or despotic often employs techniques of power which are not typically masculine in nature. Not only is power diffused of brute force, but many of the mechanisms employed could be considered feminine in nature.

Though both men and women employ direct and indirect means of power, the more blatant aggressive and violent forms are considered masculine and the more indirect, verbal and vague forms are considered feminine. For more on the feminine aspects of power I’d suggest you read my posts on female womb/vaginal sexual images and their meanings. In short the female images focus on protection, gestation and accumulation which is exemplified in images such as the purse, nest, home, bank vault, coal mine, vases, pots, vessels and secret passage ways.

Likewise in modern psychology the indirect means of getting power are considered feminine in nature. This is the realm of passive aggressiveness, and though once again this strategy is employed by both men and women it is considered more feminine in nature.

With this in mind one could make a strong case that the bulk of day-to-day power plays in modern society use feminine rather than masculine techniques. While men have been labeled brutes and violent tyrants women have been cast as gossips and social predators. The realm of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and verbal insinuation is the realm of modern politics in the US. Fact is seldom focused on and instead we are always forced to consider perception and presentation. What is said, is often secondary to how it was said or even who is reputed to have said it.

In a society which openly acknowledges the importance of spin and spends great energy in parsing their words to arrive at a desired affect, it is hard not to recognize a classically feminine energy. The desire to destroy the reputation of your opponent by smear and rumor and to have them suffer the pain of being excluded from the group is not the technique used by brute force or tyrants.

Again many studies have shown that while males across the globe have a tendency from birth to be attracted to objects and activities, females have a tendency to be focused on relationships and language. I would argue that modern societies have become less focussed on structural change and more focused on words and relationships. Most wealthy modern societies have become more conservative in nature, and such conservatism puts a limit on the type and style of change encouraged and allowed. Such conservatism also makes the management of public perception all the more important and that means the use of language and images becomes more a tool of power and control.

Jim Guido

Dominance and Control

In our previous posts regarding aggression and violence we’ve posed the probability that the male tendency towards brute force and domination has been overemphasized. While comparing apes to humans we saw that apes have one dominant male per group which vigilantly keeps all other males at bay. The other males do not seem to be very aggressive and only are affected by the dominant male’s attitude when he is physically nearby. Likewise we noted that most men do not use violence or the threat of violence very often, with the majority of men only having a few physical confrontations through the majority of their adult life.

This is not to deny or devalue the fact that an unacceptable percentage of men engage in physical intimidation and force in their domestic home life. Often times domestic violence is used to control and intimidate and it is reflective of the basest animal instincts in man (fight or flight response).  Psychologically the resorting to violence is a sign of desperation, and indicative of a fear that one is inferior and incompetent.

At times in society we do find leaders who in fact are little more than bullies. These dictators control through violence and the threat of violence. Everything about them is built around maintaining an environment of fear.  They are like the great apes and seek out and destroy all challengers until they themselves are finally defeated.

While some leaders are physically imposing  and skilled warriors, the majority of leaders  are seldom big, strong or skilled fighters. In most cases leaders in larger and more complex societies are not physically intimidating. A quick look at the history of conquerors and kings will show that the most outstanding and successful leaders were relatively small and physically less endowed. Admitted some made up for their lack of physical intimidation by being completely insane and scary, yet the vast majority of national leaders have been relatively average in strength and size. Cesare, Napoleon, Pepin, Hitler, Castro, Washington, Victoria and Stalin are not physically intimidating individuals. Yet, they were great leaders and emperors.

The leaders of the Roman and Greek empires were often more skilled in verbal abilities than physical ones. Though they used others to enforce and protect their power, they themselves did not arise to their position of dominance and control through sheer physical prowess.  They attained power through inspiring others to follow their lead and to support their ambitions to be a leader. The desire and ability to lead is more about social dominance rather than physical intimidation. Such leaders often surround themselves with military power. What they lack personally in physical power they make up in military might.  Yet, we should not minimize the importance of the fact that their ability to rule and stay in power has more to do with their verbal skills and intellectual strategy than with physical strength.

So, if we look at the true leaders who seek and maintain their power through dominance and control we find they themselves are not the strongest and most gifted warriors. Their skills lie not so much in the typically male realm of brute force, but in the realm of interpersonal relationships and verbal abilities.

What is ironic about this is that these skills are more feminine rather than masculine in nature.  Gender studies of infants from around the globe generally show the following. Male infants have a tendency to focus on objects rather than people. The vast majority of male infants will look at mobiles while in the crib, and focus on spacial relationships at a young age. Male infants are quicker to engage in large motor activities and prefer active play and interacting with their environment than interacting with others.

Female infants, on the other hand, are more likely to focus on the human face than on the mobiles. Female infants prefer social interaction rather than manipulating objects. While male infants brain waves show a preference for spatial expansion, female infants usually develop strong and early verbal skills and abilities. While boys develop hand and eye coordination through physical play girls are forming verbal relationships with  peers and adults. While the boy’s interactions with their peers is often dominated by physical play and tasks, the girl’s interactions are verbally dominated and relationship oriented.

So, with this in mind it is fascinating that the men who achieve power and dominance in larger complex societies are often very verbally gifted. Rather than achieving their aims of power and control through brute force they do it through relationship building and verbal influence.

In the next couple of posts we will look at the interplay of male and female styles of achieving power and control and how they play out in modern society. We will also try to investigate and expand upon  the non-violent forms of gaining influence and impacting society which tend towards harmony and equality rather than control.

Jim Guido