A while ago, someone recommended a book to me called Leadership and Self Deception by a group called The Arbinger Institute. I sort of started to read it, was bothered a little bit by the way it was written, so I never finished it. (It's written in that way that's so popular amoung business books right now, where you tell it like a story, and the main character is learning everything you want the reader to learn.)
About a year ago, I did read it, along with a good chunk of the other stuff published by Arbinger.
What I found was a philosophy that had become one of the most impactful of any that I have ever read. It's changed my life, and it's changed the way I post on Hatrack.
I've always despaired at being able to write succinct summaries of their philosophies that would inspire those who ought to read the books to read them. Like the phrase "Self-Deception" in the title of the book would indicate, the people who most need to read the book would probably be the least likely to read it, were I to give an explanation.
Arbinger has published their own summary of their philophies in an online paper titled, "What We Are." written by philosopher C. Terry Warner.
I realize that not everyone is going to be willing to click over and read a 26 page scholarly paper (although I'd strongly encourage everyone to--Warner explains all of this better than I ever could), so I'll do my best to sum up what's being explained.
Often times, the conflicts we have in our lives--whether they're with the people in our families or the people in our work or the people we deal with on places like Hatrack--these conflicts arise out of mutual mishandling of a situation.
Generally, it is really, really obvious to us the way the other person is mishandling the situation. We can see their lact of tact, their meanness, their rudeness, their inconsideration--these are so obvious to us, it's like a mack truck parked behind them.
However, the problem comes because of an innate ability people have to be blind to their own mishandling of situations. This happens because as soon as anyone does something--in fact, it is probably more accurate to say that as someone is doing something, they'll give themselves reasons for doing it.
They'll give themselves intellectual reasons for doing it--it's smart, it makes sense, etc--but they'll also give themselves emotional reasons for doing it. They're angry, or they're frustrated, or they're deeply, deeply hurt.
And these are trickier, because in our society, we've become accustomed to thinking about emotions as being something that other people create in us--you make me mad. You make me sad.
And this gives me an even stronger justification for whatever I'm about to do than the intellectual reasons do. Because the emotions give me an excuse for blaming you for my actions.
Here's the classic example, that's in almost all the Arbinger books.
A new father hears his baby start fussing a little in the other room. It occurs to him that if he got up and rubbed the baby's back a little, the baby would probably fall right back asleep and neither he nor his wife would have to get up with the baby.
But he doesn't get up. And so he starts talking to himself about why he's not getting up. Maybe he has a meeting the next day, early. Maybe his wife had a nap when he got home, and it's "her turn."
But he doesn't stop there. He gets a little annoyed with his wife. Why doesn't she hear the baby? Why isn't she thinking about letting him get some sleep?
He starts getting angry with her, and thinking about what a bad mom she is, and what a bad wife she is.
See what's happening here?
He starts off feeling some sense of what he should do. I don't mean this in a religous sense, or under any specific moral or ethical code. There was just something he felt he should do.
But then he didn't do it. And since he didn't want to start telling himself a story about what a bad person he was, he started telling himself a story about why what he did was the right thing to do.
But it didn't stop there. Because there was still a little bit of doubt in his mind, his mind needed to shift blame elsewhere, and his wife was the natural target. Not only did it create intellectual means to blame her, but emotional ones as well.
Had he simply got up before he'd started feeling the need to justify his actions, the emotions would never have arisen. They weren't caused by any real action of the wife--they were created to justify his own failure to be who he thought he should be.
Even worse, he starts feeling the need to see her as a bad person, as if by raising or lowering her degree of "badness," his own virtue can be raised or lowered accordingly.
Now if you've followed me that far, then come this last step with me, because this was the part that was the biggest eye-opener for me:
At this point in the game, it wouldn't matter if he did get up and help with the baby.
That didn't make sense to me, at first. It seemed to me like the problem was that he didn't do the right thing. If he did do the right thing, how can he possibly be wrong?
Well, like this:
We all know how it would play out if this guy made his wife get up. He'd say something like, "Honey, you know you got that nap when I came home. And I have my big meeting tommorrow. Can't you just go get her?"
His phrasing, which he thinks will clearly show her how much sense it makes for her to get up, while just hinting at how thoughtless he thinks she's being (in other words, which he thinks is defensive) comes across to her as an accusation that she's lazy or uncaring (in other words, it comes across as an attack).
This prompts her to go into a similar self-justifying cycle of why his attack is unjustified as he went into when he didn't think he wanted to get up.
But now, imagine that instead, he decided that, despite all his reasons for thinking she should do it instead of him, that he was the good dad and she was the bad mom, despite all of that he was going to do the "noble" thing and get up with the baby anyway.
He's still got all these feelings. So he's still going to say something like, "No, honey, you just keep sleeping. I'm sure my meeting tommorow won't be a problem." Something designed to seem thoughtful, but still hint at what she's putting him through so she'll appreciate his sacrifice. Of course, rather than seeing his comments as being about him, she'll see what he's saying about her, and still take it as an accusation.
It still invites her to go into her own self-justifying cycle. And it still adds to the conflict.
Even if he doesn't make a comment, he's going to sigh a certain way, so she'll notice. And even if he doesn't sigh, he'll still just remember, let it fester somewhere in the back of his mind, to add fuel to the next fire that flares up between them.
Does it make sense now? The problem isn't which thing he did. It isn't about whether he did right or wrong. The problem was his attitude towards her. The problem was his need to find blame.
Had his attitude towards her been different, there are ways he could have asked her to get up and help with the baby as well as gotten up himself that would have done nothing to add to the conflict, but could even have made their relationship stronger.
In other words, in many, many cases, seeing other people as the problem is the problem.
Often, in making ourselves a victim, we're also victimizing someone else.
Now the obvious rebuttal a person might have is that there are some cases of clear-cut victimhood. Cases of abuse, for instance.
This is talked about at some length in the book Bonds That Make Us Free. And what it explains is how even in those cases, it is often self-deception that traps us in to those problems. It is self-deception that either obligates us to stay in the abuse relationship or that keeps us from being able to let go of it once the relationship is over, to release its power over us.
It gives the example of a woman who kept going back to an abusive husband. She knew he was in trouble, and felt guilt whenever she'd leave him because she was afraid of what might happen to him. She justified leaving him because of what he was doing--his "bad" actions justified the act she sort of felt was "wrong"--leaving him, even though she knew he was in trouble.
The problem was, whenever he'd come back to her apologetic, she'd feel obligated to go back to him.
It wasn't until she was finally able to separate the morality of her own actions from the immorality of his that she felt free to leave him for good without feeling like a bad person.
They're a wonderful set of books.
If you're only going to read one, I suggest The Anatomy of Peace. You can read the first few pages of it online here. It's the one geared towards families and individuals.
Leadership and Self Deception is more of a business book, so I'd reccomend it if you're a manager or work with a lot of other people, although it's a great book for everyone. Anatomy of Peace is actually a "Prequel" to this book in terms of storyline, and a "Sequel" in terms of content, but they can be read completely individually.
There's also an 8 page article on parenting that can be read here.
So, has anyone else read these books? What are your thoughts on them?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I just skimmed the parenting article. The pyramid looks very spot-on. I'm printing it for later in-depth reading, but gotta run off to jazzercize . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I haven't read them, I'm afraid, but the idea that you alone are responsible for your self-assessed motivations is one that's always appealed to me.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I've skimmed the first part of the one on parenting, and I'm interested to read more when I get home. Thanks.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I had a feeling there'd be a post from you, Tom.
"...but the idea that you alone are responsible for your self-assessed motivations is one that's always appealed to me."
I think I heard a Buddhist say once, "you don't have to believe your own thoughts."
Based on that, I don't think it's always necessary to take action before you start self-justifying, so long as you are at least willing to question any given self-justifications that come into your brain. Maybe.
I'd also like to bring up something you mentioned a while back, Tom. I believe you referenced a study on intuition that said the accuracy of intuition was directly related to someone's experience with the situation. This, I think, somewhat plays in with what I was just saying.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I've skimmed Bonds That Make Us Free, and read The Peacegiver, which I guess is the blatantly Christian version of the same ideas.
It makes total sense to me. I think a lot of misery in the world would be avoided by eliminating the automatic blame response.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I just read the Wiki on Terry Warner. He appears to be a Mormon.
"In writings and seminars, Warner argues that individuals are responsible for their own actions, including their own feelings, and therefore have the power to free their relationships with others from negativity."
I would like to add the caveat that, when someone appears to violated the "social contract" in their behavior toward you, it may not be totally realistic to expect you to immediately let go of your emotions around the situation.
I think all this sort of thing is fine in moderation, but I am most certainly not responsible for some of the things that have been done to me in my life, nor is it realistic to call my responses to those things into question.
Given that, this stuff has its uses, but they are limited. IMHO.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from Terry Warner--"Societies in general have substituted moral codes for the moral and spiritual sensitivity of uncorrupted conscience."
ahem. I, being me, must also add that societies also tend to form big religious organizations that claim to have the power to solve all people's problems, if they'll just join the organization. Ahem.
I mean, really. Some skepticism and self-awareness (of such irony) may be in order here.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
As a Mormon, I can assure you that our "sales pitch" is not that our church has the power to solve all your problems. Sure didn't work for Joseph Smith.
Like adherents to any religion, we believe that applying the principles taught and striving to uphold our covenants will make us and, by extension, our society, better.
One of those ideals is that each individual should be personally in tune with the promptings of the Holy Ghost in making his/her choices, which is in no way contradictory to Warner's quote. So, sorry, no irony apparent to me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
On a related note, I wonder if Warner is a supporter of military action. According to his principles, it sounds like he thinks that we should never engage in war, and that things like September 11 are our fault. Not that he really believes that, I'm just saying that "speak softly, and carry a big stick" is approximately a 50/50 proposition, depending on the circumstance. I believe in that fact on an individual level, as well, to a certain degree. If I am approached by a hungry shark, should I let him take a bite of me, or should I shoot him with my speargun (assuming I carry one)? How about if I am attacked by a serial killer? There are limits to the uses of his philosophy. His philosophy is all well and good if killing violence never comes to your door, but if it does, it's nice to be ready. IMHO.
I believe I read that Utah has a very large percentage of people currently serving in the military. I'm wondering how his exaggerated version of "turn the other cheek" fits in with that, assuming that other Mormons buy into his philosophy. If they don't, never mind.
Edit--to add a missing verb, is.
[ February 23, 2008, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
DM,
I just read the "Leadership and Self-Deception" book--I must agree, it seems like it has a lot of good ideas on there. And, I must say, it helped keep me from calling my boss an a$$hole yesterday...so it must work!
Steven,
Many people claim that the US is not blameless in 9/11. Understood, we didn't fly those planes (well MOST people believe we didnt' fly those planes...), and I am no great fan of "victim as instigator," but part of what angers the people that would stoop to such an act is the US' attitude towards the Middle East. Of course, the othe part of what angers them is poverty, general anger at a wealthy, prosperous, free nation (gee...I sound like George W Bush!), training in madrassas since childhood, etc. It doesn't forgive those people who attacked us, or the countries that support them (like Saudi Arabia and the US, but not Iraq), but it does point a way towards improved relations between the US and other countries throughout the world.
I'm not saying we should stop being a/the superpower--we SHOULD be a superpower, and I'm damned glad we ARE a superpower. But I feel we have to acknowledge that things are far from perfect with our foreign relations, and I doubt that more power (or more cowbells) are going to make it all better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've skimmed Bonds That Make Us Free, and read The Peacegiver, which I guess is the blatantly Christian version of the same ideas.
How is it possible to take this same idea and make it Christian? As I understand it, the idea is actually fundamentally non-Christian.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends on your version of Christianity. Free Will is a powerful concept.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What about Free Willy? Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
What happens if you suddenly find that you're incredibly, physically, uncomfortable being in the presence of killer whales?
Do you have a case of the Free Willies?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How is it possible to take this same idea and make it Christian? As I understand it, the idea is actually fundamentally non-Christian.
Hmm, I wonder if we're even talking about the same idea? The essence of what dogmagik described above seems to me to be about taking responsibility for our own actions and forgiving others, which to me pose no contradiction with Christianity -- do they to you?
The Peacegiver goes further in talking about the role of Christ and his atonement in helping us to change our hearts. (Maybe that's where you'd say that the taking responsibility for ourselves part seems non-Christian?) It was written by someone at Arbinger, but published by LDS publisher Deseret Book. More about the author and his motivations in writing the book here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The essence of what dogmagik described above seems to me to be about taking responsibility for our own actions...
Then perhaps I'm misunderstanding his description of these books. There's nothing remotely interesting in the old observation that we should take responsibility for our own actions; the idea that we are responsible for our own thoughts, however, is one that's considerably less common, and one that I'd think is almost antithetical to certain elements of religious belief.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
First of all, it's been a while since I've looked at the books so my description of the ideas discussed is suspect.
I think you are right, though, that thoughts more than actions are the focus. I guess I don't necssarily make the distinction because I don't see how responsibility for our thoughts is very different from responsibility for our actions; one begets the other. But it is a deeper look at the same concept. And it's certainly a very Christian idea in the sense of (paraphrasing) "the law says do not commit adultery but I say do not lust in your heart."
What are the certain elements of religious belief that you think are opposed to being responsible for our own thoughts? My own belief is that God can influence my thinking if I let him, but that I alone am responsible for the choices that I make -- not only about what I DO but also about what I choose to think and feel. Life has become a more interesting and powerful journey once I really started cluing in to fact that I do have the power to change not only thoughts, but feelings, and to be responsible for both.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The essence of what dogmagik described above seems to me to be about taking responsibility for our own actions...
Then perhaps I'm misunderstanding his description of these books. There's nothing remotely interesting in the old observation that we should take responsibility for our own actions; the idea that we are responsible for our own thoughts, however, is one that's considerably less common, and one that I'd think is almost antithetical to certain elements of religious belief.
Could you elaborate on why you think this is so Tom?
For my part, though some thoughts come from God some are random synapses or reactions to stimulus. We ARE responsible for how we manage our thoughts as well as how we train our brain to act on a general basis.
So in essence we are responsible for what tends to show up in our minds as well as all of what our mind dabbles/toys with.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
*pokes head in, clears throat for deep voice, breaths a mechanical breath*
Sister! So...you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her too.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: *pokes head in, clears throat for deep voice, breaths a mechanical breath*
Sister! So...you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her too.
I was wondering when someone would bring this up. The joke was just hanging right there in plain sight like the proverbial bantha in the proverbial room and no one said anything about it until Iem...
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I knew it was going to take a while, so I had to carve out time for it. Thanks for your patience.
quote:I think I heard a Buddhist say once, "you don't have to believe your own thoughts."
Based on that, I don't think it's always necessary to take action before you start self-justifying, so long as you are at least willing to question any given self-justifications that come into your brain. Maybe.
The Arbinger books talk about this at some length. The idea is this: Once we've started telling ourselves stories about why we're doing the things we're doing, and why we're up to what we're up to, we start carrying those self-deceiving attitudes with us. They become the window through which we see the world. They call this "Being in the box."
Take the father in the example I gave above. The next night, once he's "in the box," he's probably not even going to get the feeling he should get up with the baby. His mind is going to go straight to getting angry with his wife as soon as the baby starts crying.
In fact, he will probably get to the point where he'll start going through his day actively looking for things his wife is doing to prove she's a bad wife or bad mother. He will think he's just discovering "evidence" of what a bad wife and mother she is, but instead, he's just looking for the way everything she does can be twisted and made to look bad.
Consequently, he becomes what Warner once labeled a "missle seeking target," placing himself squarely in the path of any action she might take, ready to take offense to it.
So say the next day, she's tired and she snaps at the kid, it will never occur to him that she's just a normal person who's tired and it would do her and the kid some good if Dad took over for a minute. All he'll see is more proof that she's a bad Mom, and if he does anything he'll do it in a way that makes her feel as guilty as possible.
That's basically what being in the box is--carrying the self-deceptive attitude with you so that you don't need to do a specific action to trigger it.
Arbinger calls the process of letting go of our need for self-deception "getting out of the box."
quote:I would like to add the caveat that, when someone appears to violated the "social contract" in their behavior toward you, it may not be totally realistic to expect you to immediately let go of your emotions around the situation.
You're absolutely right.
The only thing Arbinger would expect someone else to think about relative to your emotions is whether or not they were doing anything--wittingly or unwittingly--that was causing you unneccessary hardship or adding to your struggle.
As far as condemning you for your emotions--well, that's pretty worthless.
Knowing about self-deception is a valuable tool when you use it with yourself. Knowing about self-deception is just a fancy new way to blame people when you use it on others.
quote:quote from Terry Warner--"Societies in general have substituted moral codes for the moral and spiritual sensitivity of uncorrupted conscience."
ahem. I, being me, must also add that societies also tend to form big religious organizations that claim to have the power to solve all people's problems, if they'll just join the organization. Ahem
I'd say you're not really adding anything.
In fact, you've offered a step back from what he's said.
Think about it this way.
Imagine a golf instructor says, "If you just keep your head down, hit the ball flat, and follow through on your swing, you'll be a good golfer."
So someone who does all that thinks of himself as a good golfer, even while his score isn't changing.
This is the equivalent of a religion that says, "If you do X, Y, and Z," you'll make it into heaven." Or, "You'll have a good life."
Warner is suggesting a person who does X, Y, and Z, thinks "Oh, I'm a good person, because I've done the checklist," can still have no idea how to be a genuinely good person.
They might do X, Y, and Z with gritted teeth, but because they want an eternal reward. They might do X, Y, and Z happily but mindlessly, not caring whether or not any good really comes from X, Y, and Z.
What you're saying is that some religions say "Join us and you'll be happy." This is the equivalent of a golf instructor who says that simply by signing up for his class you'll be a better golfer.
I think if Warner was criticizing the former, he would certainly criticize the latter even more severly.
quote:On a related note, I wonder if Warner is a supporter of military action. According to his principles, it sounds like he thinks that we should never engage in war, and that things like September 11 are our fault. Not that he really believes that, I'm just saying that "speak softly, and carry a big stick" is approximately a 50/50 proposition, depending on the circumstance. I believe in that fact on an individual level, as well, to a certain degree. If I am approached by a hungry shark, should I let him take a bite of me, or should I shoot him with my speargun (assuming I carry one)? How about if I am attacked by a serial killer? There are limits to the uses of his philosophy. His philosophy is all well and good if killing violence never comes to your door, but if it does, it's nice to be ready. IMHO.
The book "The Anatomy of Peace" takes place at a camp for troubled teens. But the story doesn't center around the teens, it takes place around the parents.
The camp is run by two men, one a Jew and one a Muslim, and the conflicts in the middle east serve as a backdrop and comparison for the conflicts arising in the families who have brought their children to the camp.
The story is told of the bitter and bloody conflicts between the crusaders and the muslims over the holy land.
Naturally, the two sides in this conflict saw themselves as being in the right. Each saw the other as an invader.
Both likely saw themselves as being forced into war by the actions of another.
However, what can be different, and what has been different, is the way each side of the conflict views the people of the other side.
The Muslims commited crimes in their fights for the holy hand, including the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, the last Jewish tribe in Medina.
In 1099, when Christians invaded Jerusalem, they slaughtered most of both the Muslims and the Jews in the city within two days, and forced preists to reveal the location of holy sites and artifacts so they could be destroyed.
Contrast both of these examples with Saladin, who, when he took Jerusalem in 1187, put his men under orders not to kill Christians, not to plunder their possesions, and even put guards at Christian holy sites. While many historians make much of the ransoms he demanded for the freedom of the city's inhabitants, his own men felt the amounts were absurdly low.
Saldin's status as a man of virtue can be (and is) contested, but even among Christians he was respected enought that Dante included him among the virtuous pagan souls in Limbo.
The lesson Arbinger wants to teach from that is this: Sometimes war is neccessary. But it is both more ethical and more effective to fight those wars with a heart at peace than with heart at war.
"Heart at Peace" is another way of saying "Out of the Box." It means you're not expecting anyone else to live their lives in a way that meets your needs, or wanting them to be who you'd like them to be. You're letting them have value as they are, and who they are.
"Heart at War," is another way of saying "In the Box." It means you're seeing other people as means to an end, and your relationship with them is purely in terms of whether they're helping you or stopping you from getting what you want.
The shark and the serial killer obviously have hearts at war. They're seeing me simply as a means to an end.
When someone else has a heart at war, it often becomes neccessary to wage war against them. It's not the first resort, and it's not exciting, but sometimes it's neccessary.
But before it comes to war, and even after it has, we can still see the humanity of those we struggle with, and see them for who they really are.
There is no need to either demonize them in order to justify the war I have chosen to wage, nor to make them out as victims or martyrs in order to justify wanting to avoid the conflict. Instead I try to see them for who they truly are, good and bad, independent of who it would be convienent for them to be.
quote:I believe I read that Utah has a very large percentage of people currently serving in the military. I'm wondering how his exaggerated version of "turn the other cheek" fits in with that, assuming that other Mormons buy into his philosophy. If they don't, never mind.
Two points.
First, most Mormons have never heard of this guy. Also, his philosophy isn't inherently Mormon. The camp described in Anatomy of Peace is based on a real camp in Arizona that really is run by a Muslim and a Jew and uses Arbinger philosophy in working with youth and their parents.
Second, I'm sorry if what I'm describing seems like an exagerated version "Turn the other cheek." I was hoping that the example I used about the abused woman would show that.
Rather, it stops giving us a reason for being victims, or for allowing others to be victimized.
Let's go back to the example of the mother snapping at her child. Let's say the father sees it, sees her getting sharp and snapping at the child. "Wow," he thinks. "She is such a bad mom. I can't watch this."
And he leaves the room.
See what he did? He allowed her to continue to be sharp with the child. In other words, he allowed her to continue to mistreat the child, because he needed that mistreatment to justify his own thinking. In other words, he needed his child to be a victim in order to support his self-justifying picture of his wife.
It is only out of the box that his child's suffering truly has no value to him, and he is able to step in and try to help both the wife, who is really just tired and human, not evil, and the child, who is altogether innocent.
However, I will not go as far as to say that the Arbinger teachings are contrary to the turn-the-other cheek philosophy.
Because what he does do is take away the idea that the morality of my actions is always directly related to morality of yours. That it is okay for me to be rude to you as long as I think you are rude to me. That it is okay for me to lie to you as long as I think you're telling bigger lies to me.
In other words, I'd say an Arbinger definition of "Turn the other cheek" might be, "The fact that other people are doing things they know are wrong does not give us an excuse for betraying our own sense of morality."
quote:
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: How is it possible to take this same idea and make it Christian? As I understand it, the idea is actually fundamentally non-Christian.
Hmm, I wonder if we're even talking about the same idea? The essence of what dogmagik described above seems to me to be about taking responsibility for our own actions and forgiving others, which to me pose no contradiction with Christianity -- do they to you?
I think what Tom is talking about is the Christian tendency to believe that thoughts and feelings either come from God or from the devil, and that God specifically answers prayers through feelings in our hearts and minds.
That would imply that we should trust those feelings, where this philosophy seems to imply that those feelings could just be our own yearnings manifest.
In religion's defense, I will say that even basic Sunday School Christianity teaches that some thoughts come from God and others from the devil, and that any given religious experience could be Alvin's vision with Tenskwa-Tawa, or it could be Reverend Thrower and the Unmaker.
Mature Christianity, though, delves even greater into thoughts--what is The Screwtape Letters, after all, but a treatise on how our thoughts can lead us astray?
But I think that the point Tom's making is valid--that relgion can be as powerful as anything could be when we're looking for tools to call to our own defense as we self-justify.
And I agree with Tom about the deep distinction between thoughts and actions I think these books make. Like I said in the opening post--the epiphany came for me when I realized that, in the story of the father and the fussy baby, he could even get up and help with the baby and hurt the relationship and hurt his wife just as much as if he'd stayed in bed and made her get up. I think before that, I'd always thought that if he got up, that was that. He did the right thing, so he was in the right.
Atually, in my case, personally, it wasn't so much about doing the right thing as it was about being right.
I felt like if I was right (and I'm always right, right?) then on some level, things changed. It was okay if I was less than civil in the way I debated, or that it made the person I was arguing with not only wrong, but stupid, and that everything else was secondary to getting them to see my point.
Especially because I didn't just want them to see my point was right, I wanted them to see me as right. Or, if not right, then at the very least, smart.
And there is nothing more frustrating than having your peace of mind depend on what others are doing.
That ultimately, as long as my relationship with someone is based on who I want them to be instead of who they are, my relationship with them will always be strained, and my influence on them will always be, on some level, an effort to push their needs under my needs.
As long as I am attempting to make them change for my sake, I am pushing their needs a little bit below my needs. I am denying their humanity and forcing my will on theirs, to however small a degree.
That is not to say we should not protect ourselves or get out of bad situations. Again--it is the effort to try to change others that causes the problems, not our efforts to find solutions independent of them changing.
It is also not to say that we cannot help them, as long as our motives are rooted in what is good for them, not what would make us happy or make our lives better.
I hope this helps clarify, and I'd be interested in any reactions.
[ March 15, 2008, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Disclaimer: the following may be total nonsense.
This is all well and good, but I still think, on some level, there MAY be (read the disclaimer) still the whole "playing the victim" thing going on, simply on a more subtle level. Dunno. Perhaps that's usually only something an individual knows about him or herself.
Also, I'd say that a dose of common sense is also useful with these techniques. There are some negative reviews of his books over on Amazon, among the mostly positive ones. The complaints seem pretty much in line with the questions I've raised here.
It also appears to me that it is much easier to use these techniques on people who you already trust/care about. I'm not sure what that means, except that there MAY (disclaimer again) be a risk, if common sense is not sufficiently applied, of thinking you've somehow accomplished something if you've managed to apply these methods on your friends, family, and co-workers. If you have, great. However, billions of Muslims (if you're a conservative Christian) are still there, living their lives. It might be a bigger challenge to apply these techniques on them.
The disclaimer again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a great thread that has stirred much thought in me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've worked with these materials for about 9 years now, and discussed some of the ideas on Hatrack from time to time, like in discussions about "what are varelse" and a lot of the interior monologues in the Women of Genesis series.
I will say that despite an enthusiasm for these concepts, I was still really crazy for about half of the last decade.
I also had some problems with The Peacegiver but I've decided these had to do with individual takes on what is meaningful. I mean, I've heard Jim Ferrell talk and he's a great guy.
Something I've been thinking about a lot lately is the significance of the "Mormon" belief in spirit life before birth. It was something that President Hinckley stated, in the last year of his life, was key to the understanding of the atonement. As I was thinking about this yesterday, it seemed important to me that what the pre-existence implies is that we all chose to come to earth, and that in nothing are we truly victims.
"In nothing are we victims" is a motto that comes out of the "Mormon" 12 step movement. It's probably not something I should throw out there without someone reading the first 75 pages of the book it occurs in, but since steven was saying Arbinger is just a deeper level of self-victimization, I thought I'd better mention that it's been considered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I will say that despite an enthusiasm for these concepts, I was still really crazy for about half of the last decade.
I think that if you attempt to seek self-understanding through these concepts while being more than slightly mentally imbalanced, you will only become more imbalanced. Accepting responsibility for your actions is one thing -- but understanding that you are also responsible for your motivations is very, very difficult to do if you're also battling mental illness. I think it can produce a certain level of detachment that probably wouldn't be at all healthy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But the trouble was I didn't believe I was mentally ill.
But a lot of my recovery did wind up involving detachment of my symptoms from my cognition - something I recognized in "A Beautiful Mind."
What Arbinger is saying is that you don't have to be a schizophrenic, you can be a garden variety jerk and still look at yourself and say "this isn't real/working."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A lot of this comes down to something I discovered through discussions here on Hatrack:
"Casting blame is only good for one thing, freeing you up from having to solve the problem."
Once you have someone to blame the problem on, you can demand punishment for them and then go on as if there were no problem.
Blame is a simple solution, and a lazy solution, to almost all problems. The Drug Problem, blame and punish the Pushers. Sports problems, fire the coach. Problems in the Mid-East? Blame it on Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This thread interested me, so I bought and read "The Anatomy of Peace." I really enjoyed it. It isn't spectacular writing but the concepts are very logical and thoughtfully explored. I certainly know that there are people and situations in my life in which I'm often tempted to get "in the box". There is one person in particular in which I know that I'm more likely to find flaws, take offense from, and then seek to make their mistreatment of me clear to everybody else. I know this doesn't help anything and often makes the situation worse, but years after I realized that I still find myself doing it at times. I think that this book does a very good job explaining the seduction of blame and self-justification. It goes on to explain how much it ends up hurting us and it provides solutions as to how to escape that cycle. I know that when I remind myself of somebody's humanity it becomes so much harder to stay angry or bitter. I appreciated the book's exploration of this.
It's rare that I read a book of this type and agree with essentially every idea they present, but that's what happened. Docmagik, thank you for the recommendation and I echo it.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Blame is a simple solution, and a lazy solution, to almost all problems. The Drug Problem, blame and punish the Pushers. Sports problems, fire the coach. Problems in the Mid-East? Blame it on Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq.
Likewise, lots of people jump to blame the American hegemony far too quickly, no?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I know that when I remind myself of somebody's humanity it becomes so much harder to stay angry or bitter."
Hmm. That's very interesting. It almost reminds me of some soft-style martial arts principles, or of some Zen Buddhist stuff, like this story.
--"A Zen Master was travelling home on a moonlit night. As he came to his house, he noticed a thief rushing out holding the master's belongings in his arms. The thief looked at the Zen Master, who then said, "It's all yours." The thief rushed past the Zen Master and ran down the road. The Master sighed, looked up in to the sky, and said, "I wish I could have given him the moon."--
Also, here's one of the reviews for "Bonds that Make Us Free" from amazon--
"I used to love this book, until I saw the long range fruits in my life of applying its principles. Warner is not to blame- I am, because I was the type of person who was afraid of being angry, who thought I was turning the other cheek in order be like Jesus, even though it really was because I didn't know how to stand up for myself effectively, or believe that I was really worth taking care of. A weekling who lies down and takes a beating from a bully he could never beat, is not turning the other cheek.
But this book gave my neuroses the stamp of *righteousness*, so I embraced it and lived it as fully as I could, when I read it 2 yrs ago. A year into this new way of life my husband commited adultery on me AGAIN, in part because I, the person he really wanted to emotionally connect with, would not act like a "real" person. I wouldn't say ouch when I got hurt, I wouldn't stand up and make demands, I would just do as Warner suggested and look for a way that *I* could take responsibility and be sorry.
If you tend to be a jerk, this book might help you, alot. But if you tend to be like me, run away.
And Warner should, at the beginning and on the back cover of his book, encourage readers to know which category they are in! That's a tall order, because it requires us to avail ourselves of the Spiritual help we need in order to see ourselves honestly. But inspite of the difficulty of that task and the fact that fewer ppl would end up reading his book, I think Warner is gravely irresponsible in marketing it as appropriate across the board.
I am becoming a really real person now. And if my husband (same guy) wants to leave me again because I have genuine contempt for him for what he's done, let him. But you know what, he doesn't want to, because we both see now that love and hate come from the same place- deep inside. I choose to live genuinely and in my heart now, and suffer the emotional ups and downs of life, rather than be the never-angry, ever-responsible free-from-desire shell of a woman that I turned myself into with the help of, among other things, this book.
Be wise! "
What do you guys think? Is her criticism valid at all? I'm not saying it is, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Love and contempt come from the same place in the same way that infants and urine do.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Amanacer, I'm glad you found the book helpful. Seriously, thanks for posting that.
Steven, I've read that review before, and that person deeply misunderstood these ideas.
Being out of the box doesn't mean you don't stand up for yourself, and not treating blame like it's a solution doesn't mean not being honest about when other people are harming you in your life.
In Anatomy of Peace, they describe that there are certain kinds of boxes. There are "must be seen as" boxes, "I deserve" boxes, "better than" boxes and "worse than" boxes.
This woman sounds like she had a "Must be seen as conciliatory" box. It shaped the way she viewed the world, and who she thought she had to be.
I can see how it would be very easy for someone in that place to misread "Bonds That Make Us Free" and see it as a book about being conciliatory. In fact, it was that specific review I had in mind when I posted the story in the first post about how the book doesn't just say to roll over and take it.
This woman thought she did have to take it, because of her "must be seen as conciliatory" box. She was seeing the world as being just as "Me vs. Everybody Else" as the people she categorized as "jerks," but she thought that being good meant Everybody Else had to win and being a jerk meant thinking "Me" had to win.
And though I hesitate to judge her, from the sound of her review, she's still in that mindset. She thinks that by realizing that "Me" needs to win sometimes, she's discovered that this book is wrong.
What she's missing is that life isn't "Me vs. Everybody Else." It's "Me and Everybody Else," all people and all in it together on this crazy rock as we whirl around the sun. Peace comes from giving all of those people the chance to win as often as possible.
Ourselves included, of course.
Anyway, the idea that these books teach not to stand up for yourself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the books.
It's not just in cases of abuse, either--about halfway through Anatomy of Peace the viewpoint character's wife gives him an ulitmatum that if he leaves the class the troubled teen center is holding for the parents, she'll leave him. He hasn't abused her, and the book makes clear that he's a fairly sympathetic husband a lot of the time.
She's portrayed as being very much out of the box as she does this.
To say that these books require any specific action of us--staying or leaving, capitulating or competing--is missing the point of the books.
As I said way back in the first post, this book is about how our motives for taking the actions we take are generally more important than the actions themselves are. We can fight wars while our hearts are at peace.
And as the case of this reviewer demonstrates, we can make concessions of peace while our heart is deeply at war.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I am trying to envision a baby emerging from a woman's urethra but it is not going well...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"As I said way back in the first post, this book is about how our motives for taking the actions we take are generally more important than the actions themselves are."
I don't know. It all sounds like a bunch of "I suck, I suck". The truth is, "sucking" describes me no better than "not sucking". I'm definitely ignorant about a lot of things, including other people's motivations, but I don't really think that giving other people the benefit of the doubt as a 100% automatic default is necessarily all that interesting to me.
Or, to put it another way, you step out of one box, you step into another. IMO. Maybe not, though.
I still don't see how this creates understanding between people with vastly different cultural assumptions. I think, or feel, or whatever, that it's best to be *really honest* about how you feel about other people, at least with yourself.
I don't know. I still don't think I'm quite getting this. It sounds to me like the concept is to assume that your negative feelings about others don't matter. I gotta say, sometimes they do. Relationships pass away soon enough anyway, in my life. All kinds of different people come into and out of my life all the time, people of different races/nationalities/subcultures. Maybe in the Utah Mormon world, the roles are more defined, but my life is not that filled with people with a lot of common cultural assumptions. I do live in the rural South, but this is North Carolina. We have lots of black folks, and they are very culturally different. In the larger cities we have lots of people of all different religions, who grew up in different areas of the country. I very much do work in the city, in my case, Greensboro, with a very diverse group of folks. Under circumstances like that, you spend so much time trying to understand the perspectives of the other races and other subcultures you deal with all the time at work and elsewhere that you're not really concerning yourself with whether or not you're in the box. I do think along those lines with my parents and very close friends, but that's mostly it. I'm not sure these concepts are all that valid in situations where people's cultural assumptions are very, very different.
These are just my off-the-cuff thoughts. Forgive me if they are unformed.
I guess what I'm saying is, paying attention to your own personal boxes tends to make you blind to the larger cultural boxes that you are still ignoring. Or, to put it another way, I am pretty sure that the only person who could write this book, and the only people who would feel the need to try to live the concepts, would be people who are in a very culturally/racially/religiously homogenous environment, like Utah Mormons. I mean, maybe.
To say it another way, I think that you can either focus on your groundless personal assumptions, or the groundless assumptions of your culture/religion, but it's hard to do both simultaneously.
It's quite possible that I am full of it, and if I am, sorry. I'm only thinking as I go.
[ March 23, 2008, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
To put it another way, what use is this in dealing with other cultures? Not much, I'd say.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Steven, please clarify your question for me.
Are you saying that me knowing about self deception won't help the broader conflicts between cultures? (For example, that just because I'm "Out of the box" and see people as people, it won't stop the conflict between my culture in general and the other culture in general?)
Or are you saying that me knowing about self deception won't help me when I, personally, am encountering someone from another culture?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, there's self, and then there's self, and there's boxes, and then there's boxes. Don't bring a knife to a swordfight, and don't try to eat soup with a steamshovel. It's an issue of scale, the scale of your personal boxes versus your cultural/religious ones.
What I mean is, focusing on the reality, or lack thereof, of your own preconceptions/boxes, may leave you open to missing the reality, or lack thereof, of the larger boxes/preconceptions of your culture/religion. Maybe. I'm just thinking as I go.
It reminds me of a passage from "Rose Madder", by Stephen King. The main character has a husband who beats her. When she leaves him, he tracks her down some time later. King gives him an internal monologue (I am doing someMAJOR paraphrasing):
The whole liberal/pro-woman agenda just doesn't produce a working society. As long as women know their place, things work. Families work. Roles and rules are clear and simple, and people. including women, know their place and their role.
What it seems that Warner wants is a perfect little Utopia, and he thinks this is the way to build it. Mormons in Utah. Utopia. Utopia probably seems pretty reachable to Mormons in Utah. Everybody's white, everybody's Mormon, everybody listens to the same sermon together 4 times a year...everybody's on the same page, more or less. The kinds of problems and conflicts you have are not culture versus culture, or race versus race. They're Mom versus Dad, or sister versus brother, or sister versus sister. Warner's tools definitely have at least some value in that context. However...
"Or are you saying that me knowing about self deception won't help me when I, personally, am encountering someone from another culture?"
I think that we all have automatic assumptions pretty much as soon as we meet someone who seems different from us and/or outside our experience, whether by their clothes or accent or whatever. I'm pointing out that Warner's techniques don't equip you for these situations. The answer to your question is "yes", very much so. Warner's techniques don't prepare you for seeing the potential inaccuracies in your cultural/religious assumptions. Or that's my hypothesis.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I don't know if I'm communicating this as clearly as I wish I could, because to me, it seems like the reverse would be the case.
If I was living in a homogenous society, all of our pre-conceptions and ideas would all be the same, so we could cling to them tenaciously and still get along, for the most part, because we would all agree that X was always bad and Y was always good, so as long as none of us did X and all of us did Y, we could all agree on who was good and who was bad.
None of this stuff would matter, and we'd be able to reach an agreement because all of our "rules" for the game would be the same.
A part of what Arbinger is saying, and why this applies across cultures, is that it's the game that's the problem. This idea that we have to decide who the good guy is in any situation and who the bad guy is so that we can decide who gets to have their way.
The husband in the story you describe is very much in the box. He's decided that what keeps him from getting what he wants is women behaving in ways he doesn't like. If women would act how he wanted, life would be happy.
That's the very defition of the box, of having a heart at war. The idea that if other people would conform to my rules, things would go well. If other people saw things my way, agreed with me, or did what I need them to do, my life would be happy.
As Dan_raven put well, the simplest way to think of this is as "Blame." When we're in the box, when we're self-deceiving, we're finding ways to blame the people around us.
And as we walk around emitting these "blame" rays at people, by how we talk to them and how we treat them, and how we, through both subtle and not-so-subtle means, try to get them to change to meet our needs, all they pick up on is blame.
And when they sense you blaming them, their automatic response is going to be self-justification. In other words, self-deception. They're going to start telling themselves all the reasons why what they're doing is okay, and that they're good people. And to further prove their case, they're going to tell themselves all the reasons why what you're doing is not okay, and why you're not a good person.
Of course, when you get that sense from them (which is basically just them blaming you back), you're also going to reply with defensiveness and blame. And the cycle goes on and on and on.
You're spot-on right when you say that "sucking" describes you no better than "not sucking." Another way to sum up this whole philosophy might be to say, "What sucks is trying to decide who sucks."
Or maybe: "If we all spent a lot less time trying to figure out who sucks the most and a lot more time trying to understand each other well enough to find solutions, we'd find a lot more solutions."
quote:I think, or feel, or whatever, that it's best to be *really honest* about how you feel about other people, at least with yourself.
I'll say that this philosophy takes that a step further and says what you need to be *really honest* about is why you feel that.
What I mean by the title of this thread, is that sometimes we take our feelings as if they were an intuition, an insight into the world around us. More often than not, they're more an expression of who we are than they are an expression of who the people around us are.
What this does not mean, though, is that, upon realizing we're having a self-justifying feeling, that the scoreboard shifts and we fall back over to the "losing" side, and the other person is now the "good" guy, or the moral "winner."
It just means that we're still to attached to the scoreboard.
In reality, that's a scoreboard that counts for virually nothing.
Dan_raven said that "Blame" is a way to deal with problems that avoids having to actually solve the problem.
Let's see how many problems blame can solve:
Problem 1: Me and my friend are being attacked by a bear.
Proposed solution: Blame. I stand and argue about how we came to be in the same place as a bear.
Result: My friend and/or I are eaten.
Problem 2: My wife and I don't have the money to pay the rent this month.
Proposed solution: Blame. We either blame each other and fight, or get along and blame the landlord for charging too much rent, or blame the bank for how much overdraft fees they charge.
Result: We still don't have the rent money, and we get served with an eviction notice.
You get the picture. Even though we use blame in nearly every situation, it almost never solves the problem.
In fact, I would say there is only one problem blame tries to deal with: What people think.
The people can vary. It's always ourselves who we're trying to persuade with our blame, but it may also be friends or co-workers, or other people. It might be God, or whoever we imagine God to be.
But all blame does is try to affect what somebody thinks of us.
It comes down to this fundamental truth:
Most of the time, we're more concerned about how we think we should be seen than about what results we're getting.
What getting out of the box does is take away that safety net, the one that comes from thinking that just because you can think of reasons why what you're doing is good, that you're doing the right thing.
quote:Warner's techniques don't prepare you for seeing the potential inaccuracies in your cultural/religious assumptions. Or that's my hypothesis.
The way I see it, Arbinger isn't really teaching techniques. If he was, then there would always be the problem of people saying, "I'm using the techniques, therefore, everything is going to be fine."
What he's saying, at it's core, is to let go of your ideas about what you think makes you good, and worry more about whether your attempts to do good are actually getting results.
And that means dealing with all of your religious and cultural assumptions in exactly the same way.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Oh, and Steven, thanks for being willing to share your thoughts. I really enjoy talking about this stuff, and this is giving me a great chance to do it that I don't get very often.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
So the scoreboard you mentioned is, in a way, some kind of "pig list" to borrow a term? Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Sort of.
Because the part of Steven's post that I forgot to mention is the idea that being out of the box means acting naive and always assuming the best in people.
You can still have an honest assesment of "These are the people that are going to betray me when I deal with them" or "These are the people who I will never, ever let anywhere near my children."
What we're going to try to avoid doing is thinking that because they're on that list and I'm not, that I somehow deserve more than them, or that I don't have to use the same moral compass when I deal with them because they no longer deserve it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"A part of what Arbinger is saying, and why this applies across cultures, is that it's the game that's the problem. This idea that we have to decide who the good guy is in any situation and who the bad guy is so that we can decide who gets to have their way."
How might this apply in the area of the penal justice system? That was just the first thought that crossed my mind, when I read that passage.
EDIT--Also, how would it apply in the area of government, particularly governing different races/cultures that live alongside each other?
Also, I'd have to say you can pretty much assume that these ideas are going to spread *much* more slowly outside of Mormonism than inside. Out here, we're too busy competing with other cultures/religions to think about the other guy's humanity (except as a way to understand him better, so as to defeat him:)). Maybe. The most ignorant bunch of fundamentalists here in NC is still more worldly, in some ways, that most Utah Mormons. We encounter a lot more people of other races here, in most areas of the state, and in most cases, more people of other religions.
I don't know. I kind of hope somebody else is going to jump in here.
I can't help but get the feeling, from the lack of participation right now on this thread, that most of the white folks on Hatrack just don't work with very many black people or people of other nationalities or religions. I know there are exceptions, but...why are we the only 2 people posting about this? It's quiet in here. TOO quiet. Seriously though. I feel like I'm waiting for some other shoe to drop.
Edit: I started this before Earendil posted.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I can honestly say I haven't had much experience dealing with people of other religions/cultures. Wow, a bunch of self-justifying reasons for that just flooded my head...do I feel guilty that I don't have much experience because ultimately I'm the kind of person who people watches incessantly and I'm not living up to my innate love of being around all sorts of crazy different folks?
I think my cerebellum just fused.
"Sometimes how you see a problem IS the problem." I don't remember where that quote came from, but the idea seems along or around the area of this idea that's being discussed.
Right now, there's yet another thread on God, and the same issues are being brought up again, and the same differences in thinking are banging up against each other like a crowded Niihama train. Why am I mentioning this? Because I think threads like these also relate to this idea being discussed. I'm not sure how yet...but I figured I'd point and say "something can be garnered from this!".
We have seen these discussions before, where is the breakdown occurring? Is there a breakdown at all? Would you call it that?
EDIT: And why do my posts always stop a thread dead in it's tracks?
[ March 23, 2008, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Earendil18 ]
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:And why do my posts always stop a thread dead in it's tracks?
Confirmation bias? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am trying to envision a baby emerging from a woman's urethra but it is not going well...
That was actually part of my point. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "A part of what Arbinger is saying, and why this applies across cultures, is that it's the game that's the problem. This idea that we have to decide who the good guy is in any situation and who the bad guy is so that we can decide who gets to have their way."
How might this apply in the area of the penal justice system? That was just the first thought that crossed my mind, when I read that passage.
EDIT--Also, how would it apply in the area of government, particularly governing different races/cultures that live alongside each other?
I find this an interesting line of question. Does anyone want to comment?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I still find it interesting.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Something I've heard front and center in every Arbinger presentation is that treating a person as real does not mean always treating them softly or kindly. Treating them as unreal does not always appear harsh or distant.
The person who treats everyone kindly and everyone harshly is playing an actor.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Well, there's self, and then there's self, and there's boxes, and then there's boxes. Don't bring a knife to a swordfight
I started screaming when I read this. It's a terrifying collection of words.
I don't know why.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Originally posted by steven: [qb] "A part of what Arbinger is saying, and why this applies across cultures, is that it's the game that's the problem. This idea that we have to decide who the good guy is in any situation and who the bad guy is so that we can decide who gets to have their way."
How might this apply in the area of the penal justice system? That was just the first thought that crossed my mind, when I read that passage.
I dunno, I think being punished for doing something illegal and being punished for offending a particular individual's self-assesty morality thing is disconnected enough. If you know what I'm sayin'.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I dunno, I think being punished for doing something illegal and being punished for offending a particular individual's self-assesty morality thing is disconnected enough. If you know what I'm sayin'."
No, I don't. I don't know what you mean by "self-assesty". Can you explain a little further?
Edit: I figured out what he meant, I think. See post below.
[ March 27, 2008, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I dunno, I think being punished for doing something illegal and being punished for offending a particular individual's self-assesty morality thing is disconnected enough."
Is it? Somebody has to make the laws, somebody has to interpret them. Not all of us are comfortable with having our morality dictated to us all the time. Maybe a law is unjust, or just needs to be changed a little. Or maybe I'm full of crap. I'm just not sure I see any real clear divide between the personal and the public. I think it's a continuum. Of course, I could be full of it.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Yeah, I was thinking about that. But if were forced to say something about it I'd say I think most laws are there to prevent one person from harming one or more other persons. It's not placing blame, it's prevention. You punish to uphold the law.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
" You punish to uphold the law."
How is the law not simply another "box"? And if it is, then you would punish (imprison) for the purpose of protecting the populace, not because breaking the law is somehow, in some absolute sense, "wrong". IMHO. Perhaps. Dunno. Your thoughts?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this.
The key to answering your question lies in remembering that "the box" is not about actions. You are never, ever, ever safe to say, "I performed X action, therefore I am out of the box."
I am also never, ever safe to say, "Wow, he performed X action. He is so in the box."
Therefore, there would very rarely be a time where this philosophy and law would come into conflict.
In fact, where this philosophy orignated, in the business world, the essence of this philosophy was usually summed up like this:
"Too often, people are more focused on how they seem to others than they are on getting results. Often, they will take greater lengths to make themselves look good than they will to actually solve the problem. In fact, often they will simply let problems go unattended, as long as they have someone to blame it on or some other way to still look good when the problem reaches a climax."
If you want evidence of this, simply watch any reality TV show. My favorite for this was Kitchen Nightmares. It was show that was on Fox for a while, with the same people who did Hell's Kitchen (the orignal show is still airing on BBC America).
The plot of it was that Gordon Ramsey would visit these failing restaurants and turn them around in a few days.
The astonishing thing, to me, were the number of problems that were obvious to everyone, but that absolultely no one was doing anything about. Everything from rancid food to overly complicated menus were justified away, either by saying "That's not my job," or by people convincing themselves that every single person who came into the restaurant was wrong.
In other words, self-deception.
And it perpetuated itself. Because the kitchen staff didn't see the rancid food as a problem that needed to be solved, but rather as their proof that the kitchen manager was as incompetent as they all wanted to prove he was, they all went right ahead and served the food to the customers, feeling no blame--or responsibility--whatsoever.
What Arbinger teaches businesses is to get away from thinking about clearly deliniated lines of blame, but instead to focus on the end results.
Had the kitchen staff in the restaurant either thrown out the bad food or simply refused to serve it, that would not have been an "I suck, I suck" mindset. That would have been an out-of-the-box, results-oriented mindset that might have gone a long way towards saving the restaurant.
By taking the emphasis off "Blame," it's actually putting the emphasis back on responsability. Personal responsability.
The law of the land is about results. Let's say you drive drunk and you hit somebody. If you're in the box you might blame it on your girlfriend who called you up and said mean things, "making" you go to the bar. Or you might blame it on your genetics, your pre-disposition to alcholism.
To the law, none of that stuff nees to matter. It's about your actual result--an actual result that society has come together and agreed we're going to take certain actions on.
Let me explain it another way:
Being out of the box does not mean, "Take no action." It doesn't mean it for society--we can be out of the box and still take action against criminals. It doesn't mean it for individuals either--the out-of-the-box father is still either going to get out of bed and help with the baby or ask her to get up because he's got a meeting in the morning.
Does that make sense? If your spouse hits you, you can leave. If your boss is a jerk, you can leave your job. If you're in love with someone you can ask them out.
Just do it.
The part that's unneccessary is all the extra effort we go to to justify what we do.
Like having to figure out all the reasons why the guy who hit you is actually the most evil man in the world. He's willing to hit you. That's reason enough to leave him, isn't it? If you start to get into how he's so evil, and that's why you had to split, than does that mean you have to go back to him if he starts working at a homeless shelter?
Same thing with the mean boss--if you're not digging him, go. Or talk to his supervisor. Or tough it out. The problem isn't what action you decide to take--the problem is when you stop seeing him for who is really is and start interpreting everything he does in the worst possible way, even getting to the point where you think comments you overhear him making to other people were secretly snide remarks directed at you. Chances are much better he's not thinking nearly as much about you as you think he is--like all of us, he's mostly worried about himself.
The problem isn't the action--the problem is the other part. The part where we wish the person who hit us would just love us instead. That we wish the boss who treats us like crap would just understand what good workers we were. That I think I can only be happy if the girl I love would just see how amazingly attractive short guys are.
What Arbinger teaches is that our efforts to try to make others change for our sake does not solve the problem, but actually drives them further into their own boxes, as they justify their own reasons for being the way they are and feel more and more threatened by you.
It says the only way to really help someone change to is to:
A - Sincerely feel that you want to help them change for their sake, not your own.
B - Have them come to believe that.
While A can sometimes happen, B doesn't always. And that means we can't always change other people, no matter how out of the box we are.
But the key point is that B can never, ever happen without A, and A doesn't happen as often as we deceive ourselves into thinking it does.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
You know it's interesting--I'm finishing up a course on contract law, and it seems to me that there are remarkable applications of these priniciples in contract law.
Contract law is the law dealing with any kinds of agreements where two people agree to do things for each other, usually regarless of whether it's written down or not.
Usually, it ends up in court when one or another fails to keep their end of the deal.
What I found fascinating is how little value the court places on who was in the right and who was in the wrong. And by little value, I mean the court won't make someone give you money just because you were right and they were wrong.
All the court is interested in is solving the problem.
For example, let's say that I had agreed to sell you 1,000 bags of Skittles for favors at your wedding reception for 50 cents each.
That sounds kind of silly, but they're actually vital to the whole thing. Your relationship has in many ways involved Skittles--when you met, by coincidence, you were both eating Skittles, and when you proposed you did it by hand lettering "Will you marry me" onto a bunch of skittles and carefully arranging them into a candy dish. You've repeatedly emphasizes to me that it is absolutely, positively, vital the skittles be there.
The day before the wedding, I tell you I can't do it. I tell you I'm going out of town for an emergency (actually a comic book convention), and you're going to have to find some other way to get your Skittles.
You and your friends are forced to run around frantically to try to find Skittles, and you find that Costco is having a sale on Skittles for 23 cents a bag. You have to go to two different Costcos to get them all, but you have enough for the wedding.
But you're still furious. You want me to understand how bad what I did is, so you decide to drag me through court to teach me a lesson.
You go to court, and you win. Court finds me in breach. Your award?
One dollar in nominal damages.
Normally, the court would give you the difference between what we agreed to pay and what you ended up paying. But in this case, since you got them a whole lot cheaper, there's no harm there. Even if you factor in the gas, you still spent less than you would have if you'd have had to pay me the full amount.
The court will recognize I was wrong and you were right, but all they're going to do about it is give you one dollar in nominal damages.
So what if you hadn't bought the skittles? What if you just decided that you were too busy, and you would just sue me?
Well, you've probably heard of having to "mitigate your damages." This means that the court actually requires you to go out and try to solve your problem before you bother the court with the case.
So you don't buy skittles, and you sue me, but I show the court that during that week Costco had Skittles on sale for 23 cents, and you could have mitigated your damages for less than the contract price.
Once again, you still win, but you still only get one dollar in nominal damages.
So let's say you decide to nip this in the bud when you make the contract. You decide to add a clause to the contract that says, "If docmagik breaches this contract, he will be obligated to provide my bride and I with 1,000 bags of Skittles a year for the rest of our lives."
You feel this would go a long way towards ruining the specialness of your wedding, by providing the two of you with your candy of choice to contribute to your marital bliss.
While you would still win if you sued me, the court would strike out the clause that required the extra "punishment" for failing to keep my oblilgation. You would still only get one dollar in nominal damages.
I find all of this to be very much in line with arbinger principles.
1. Being able to blame someone does not give you any special "bonus" damages--you only get to consider the actual measurable harm they did to you.
2. Having someone wrong you does not take away your own responsibilities. You can't use someone else's mistakes as an excuse not to still try to do what's best for yourself.
3. There is no justification for punishing someone beyond the scope of their error.
Since Arbringer principles are done in regards to relationships, and contract law could also be called relationship law, I found these parralels fascinating.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now I want skittles, and it's all your fault.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: In fact, where this philosophy orignated, in the business world, the essence of this philosophy was usually summed up like this:
"Too often, people are more focused on how they seem to others than they are on getting results. Often, they will take greater lengths to make themselves look good than they will to actually solve the problem. In fact, often they will simply let problems go unattended, as long as they have someone to blame it on or some other way to still look good when the problem reaches a climax."
Wait. I think that being results-oriented and worrying about what other people think is the same thing.
For instance, what if I have a daughter who refuses to participate in church activities? I might worry about what others will think of me, as a parent. They might look at the actions of my child, and judge me to be less righteous because of my child's choices.
Maybe I will choose to exert pressure on the child--maybe I'll tell her that if she doesn't start showing up every week at youth group, I won't give her her allowance. Maybe I guilt-trip her. Somehow, I pressure her to go, even though her heart is not in it.
So, viola, she is there, and the right result is achieved. But the process sucks . For those of your Mormons out there, this kind of compelling-others-to-do-right is not the Plan *I* chose. I don't want to choose it here on Earth, either.
I find this Arbinger theory interesting, as I found The Peacemaker interesting and uplifting and difficult (difficult because I am sometimes a hard-hearted person).
I'm not in the business world (I'm a homeschooling SAHM of 5) so I can't compare business/interpersonal conflict resolution to family/church interpersonal conflict resolution.
I think it is Process vs. Results. I dislike the school of thought that says "So long as I do X, Y and Z, I am 'righteous' and have done good."
What we see and judge others on are Results. What we experience and usually judge ourselves on is Process.
That it, is is wrong to apply our will to another and force them to do anything, even if that thing is a nominally "good" thing--it's wrong to pressure someone to attend church, for example.
My personal example of this was when my husband didn't feel like coming to church, sometimes people would pressure me, to pressure him, to come.
Though of course I would have preferred he accompany me to church, I did not want to push him into having "correct results", even if that would have gotten people at church to lay off both of us for awhile.
So what am I missing? What am I not understanding?
Also--
I worry about people using this philosophy as a way to pressure others into permitting abuses. I'm sure you have a good answer for that; assauge my concerns, please.
And, if we cannot trust our thoughts, then can we trust our thoughts, that tell us we cannot trust our thoughts?
Does this mean I need to take off my tinfoil hat and start listening to the silver in my molars again?
<------ tinfoil hat
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It depends on which "other people" you are worrying about. For a person who believes in God, that is the only person to worry about, further, knowing who God is is key to whether we "worry" about things in the right way. That is to say, God-fearing.
If one doesn't believe in God, it is a matter of ideals and values, I supposed, and that's where the Covey programs try to unite people without getting into their very personal beliefs.
It's deeper than behavior and deeper than words. If it could be expressed clearly in a few words, what would there be to discuss? I mean, you can take the words "one day at a time" and yield "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" rather than the method of sobriety that it is used as more popularly in our culture. You can take the law of the old testament and turn it one way or the other. You can take the law of the new testament and turn it one way or the other. There is no safety in any particular position, but only in whether you have your eye single to the glory of God (or whatever).
P.S. We think of fear as a bad thing, but it's only bad to the extent it's false. We have no reason to fear other mortals, but fear of God is just a clear and accurate assessement of his majesty and glory, and it is not fear but love.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Wow, what great issues.
Let me see how well I can address them--
Your first concern is with the suggestion that Arbinger is results focused. You feel (correctly, I think), that being too results focused can lead people to a get-results-no-matter-the-cost mindset which you say (again, correctly, I think) can be completely counter productive.
Where I think I see it a bit differently is on the idea that they system is proccess-vs-results. That the important thing is more about how you do it than what it is you get done.
What Arbinger says to me is that it even goes a bit deeper than that--it's not about how I do it as much as its about who I am when I'm doing it. More specifically, it's more about how I feel about the other person when I'm doing it.
In other words, whether I'm trying to get my daughter to go to church or whether I'm paitiently waiting for her to decide to do it on her own--which strategy I'm using isn't nearly as important as how I feel about my daughter when I'm doing it.
I can be patienly waiting for my daughter to change to her mind, but if in my heart, I'm seeing my daughter as the problem and blaming her or seeing her in any distorted way, my "patient" waiting will come across to her as being as hostile as if I were pressuring her. My tactics are different, but the goal is the same, and she's going to pick up on that and resist it.
So it's not the thing we're after, and it's not how we go about getting it--it's who we are as we go about it and how we're seeing the other person.
So this is how that applies in the business world and in our home lives and what this has to do with results:
It's about taking responsibility.
Both in the hypothetical with the daughter that you described and the business situation I hypothesized, the people are seeing the problem as being out there. It's that person who is the problem, that person who needs to change for things to happen.
But such blame keeps people from asking the better question.
"Regarless of how we got to this place, is there anything I'm doing that's keeping us here? Is there anything new I could contribute that could help us move past it?"
Taking responsibility means thinking more about what you can do than what others can do. It means thinking more about how you can prevent that situation in the future than about how you weren't the one who caused it.
In a business situation, this means sincerely thinking about how to solve problems or overcome challenges before (or even instead of) thinking about who caused it or whose "fault" it was.
In a home life, while it can mean the same as the business world, it also means sincerely thinking about whether we've given others a reason to resist us--whether we're witholding the love or respect or kindness that they need in order to open their hearts back up to us again. Or perhaps, for the first time ever.
Heck, that's even true in the business world. I remember reading a customer service paper that said, "Trust and respect require reciprocity, and your company needs to be the one to initiate it."
Where trying to force another encourages them to use force back, love invites them to return love. The same way cycles of collusion draw people apart as their mutual mistrust wedges them further and further apart, cycles of love draw people together, as each new loving day makes the other feel open to love and trust back.
Notice I do not say "each new loving act." Because again, loving acts can be done for selfish reasons. I can make breakfast in bed for my wife for Mother's Day from a place of sincere love and respect, or I can do it from a place where I'm doing it in spite of how I'm feeling about her.
The former will invite her to return love, and the latter will invite her to resist me, return the contempt I'm actually feeling for her.
Of course, that's all I'm doing is inviting.
She's perfectly free to respond with love and patience to the meal I serve with a bit of contempt, perhaps feeling a little bad for me and the box I'm in, the desperate need I have to prove I'm better than her through acts like this.
And she's capable of responding to my genuine display of sincere love with contempt or ingratitude.
All I'm actually doing is inviting her to respond differently, not forcing her.
But since I'm doing the act out of love for her and not out of a need to have her see me a certain way, I won't feel the same anger and resentment. Those feelings would come from hurt over what she was doing to me. Since I didn't do it for me, I might feel sadness or regret, but not anger or resentment.
If I'm genuinely inviting someone to church for their sake, and not because thier going to church will make things better for me (because people will lay off me, or our family will look better or the people at church will lay off)--if I'm honestly and truly doing it for them, then I won't get the same sense of frustration and anger if they say no as I would if I was doing it for myself. That's not to say it won't create feelings in me, but resistance to genuine concern and caring creates very different feelings in us than resistance to our own agenda.
We can usually tell who we're doing something for by how we emotionally react to their desires being different from ours.
When we're engaged in self-deception--when we're doing things for selfish reasons that we're trying to convince ourselves are noble and selfless--there are three signs of this:
1. We accuse others.
2. We excuse ourselves.
3. We portray ourselves as victims.
This leads to your second worry: Will actual victims remain in their victimhood based on these teachings?
I'm actually going to quote Terry Warner on this one. This is from Bonds That Make Us Free. (I know it's kind of long, but the real point of the quote is in the first paragraph. If you don't want to read the whole thing, just read the first paragraph and then skip to the end of the quote.)
quote:There is a very big difference between portraying oneself as a victim . . . and actually being a victim. To the extent that we are actually being victimized, we bear no responsibility for the bad things that are happening to us, such as being mugged on the street or falling ill or being discriminated against because of our gender, race, or religion. But we are responsible when we present ourselves as victims in order to excuse or justify ourselves. There are indeed real victims, but acting and feeling victimized does not make a person a real victim.
One way we can make ourselves out to be victims is by failing in some aspect of life; our failure "proves" how badly we have been treated. We have all known someone like Heather, who "just knew" no man would want her. She was attractive enough, and fairly often men would make overtures. But she would interpret everything they did (even their innocent actions) as some form of rejection, until finally they would give up. Those who knew her best reported that finding evidence of rejection seemed to be her primary interest. "Yeah, see, he didn't call back," Heather might say. A roommate, trying to be helpful, would explain, "But he did; he left a voice-mail message with his number." "No, if he was really interested, he would have kept trying till he got me." Heather's tone in such reactions would be triumphant, as she once again successfully defended her theory of why her life didn't work. These losses in love established her as a Great Martyr, and in her mind this excused her from treating men considerately, as fellow human beings.
A businessman who coaches tennis in the summer says that after watching tournaments for many years, he came to an intriguing conclusion: Except in a very few matches, usually with world-class performers, there is a point in every match (and in some cases it's right at the beginning) when the loser decides he's going to lose. And after that, everything he does will be aimed at providing an explanation of why he will have lost. He may throw himself at every ball (so he will be able to say he's done his best against a superior opponent). He may dispute calls (so he will be able to say he's been robbed). He may swear at himself and throw his racket (so he can say it was apparent all along he wasn't in top form). His energies go not into winning but into producing an explanation, an excuse, a justification for losing.
It is no different for those who amplify their victimhood in everyday life. Their particular way of going against conscience and evading responsibility is to look for reasons why someone or something else is to blame for their loss. Their key concern is not with winning, enjoyment, or getting a job done but with being prepared with an excuse when they lose, so it will be clear that they have been unfairly deprived of what was rightfully theirs. Failing to win, succeed, or become important is acceptable to them as long as they collect evidence that they deserve to have won, succeed, or become important—and they would have done so if they had not been unlucky or treated unfairly.
Often such people go to extreme lengths. Some put themselves at a severe disadvantage, falling behind in the economic or social struggles of life, or making shocking sacrifices, in the way they suppose a genuine victim might be forced to do. There are people who make fools of themselves in public, lose a job, or even take their lives just to prove they are victims—just to prove that someone else (possibly the whole human race or even God) has treated them unfairly.
Losing out in the affairs of life is not the only way to display oneself as a victim. Victimhood can be just as readily displayed by those we think of as successful or powerful. The successful may view themselves as victims when they perceive others as trying to take advantage of them and then redouble their efforts to succeed. Hitler may be the most extreme instance of this. He called his autobiography Mein Kampf-—"my struggle." He had originally planned the title to center on the idea of "a reckoning" or "a settling of accounts," but then put this idea into the subtitle instead. He wanted to convey in the title something about the wrongs he had suffered and the vengeance he was taking. He stands as an extreme example of people whose preoccupation with their own victimhood leads them to seek power so they "won't have to suffer abuses anymore" and so they can "give them (their abusers) what they deserve."
The point is that this philosophy does not teach that it is wrong to be a victim. Sincerely horrible things happen to people.
The problem comes when people use their victimhood, whether real or imagined, as an excuse for acting contrary to what they know is right.
This doesn't mean its easy. It's hard enough for a person who is simply caught up in a collusion of mistrust and disrespect with another to get past that and start seeing the other person as a person again.
It's even harder for the person who suffered abuse in childhood to let go of that as an excuse for not being tender with a current spouse. It takes courage and genuine love for a person in that situation to reach out be loving for the other person's sake, when their circumstances have made it so hard to see past their own pain. But when they come to see their spouse as a person, they realize witholding their tenderness would, to some degree, continue the uncaring attitude that led to their own pain.
For a rape victim, it might mean taking the stand in a trial and reliving the whole experience. While painful for the victim, she is seeing past her own pain to the pain of the other people the man might abuse--she is, in that moment, seeing them as people and acting out of concern for them, despite her own personal suffering.
Again, from Terry Warner:
quote:Please do not misunderstand: I offer here no excuse for poor performance or low expectations. Letting one's colleagues or students or teachers or family down is no more caring than it is honest. I am not speaking of lowering our aims but of raising them.
*****
Your last question is whether, if we can't trust our thoughts, we can trust our thoughts about not trusting our own thoughts.
Of course not.
The mere fact that our thought patterns are getting this complicated might mean we're engagin in ever more elaborate self-deception. After all, if you think about the times when relationships are at their best, when things are flowing, these are generally not the times when we were quadruple-analyzing our thoughts. They were the times when things were just flowing.
The days full of peace of harmony in our relationships and in our households are most often the days we're putting the least effort into them. We're not quadruple checking our actions towards others because we're just enjoying being around them.
Again, from Terry Warner:
quote:One summer our family drove to our friend Bob Amott's cabin on the Snake River in Idaho for our vacation. On the way we sang together for what seemed like hours: "Barges" and "Mrs. O'Leary" and the Jell-O commercial and a couple of dozen other rounds, faster and louder and more creatively with every mile that passed. Nobody got tired. What stopped our singing was someone's saying, "Anybody remember the time when . . . ?" Invariably Matthew's recollections were the funniest because he could remember every detail of everything that had ever happened to him and could mimic all the people in the story. The windows were down because the station wagon wasn't air-conditioned, and all the children had their feet out to feel the breeze around their ankles and through their toes. I could tell that Susan had freed her mind of the lists of doings that preoccupied her at home, and I thought, "This is exactly how it's supposed to be."
What does it take to achieve such emotional intimacy? The fundamental ingredient is an awakening of each individual to the others and a willing effort to respond without any personal agenda in exactly the way that seems most right, considerate, and helpful. Susan had opened herself to a lively gratitude for the closeness we were all feeling for one another—even though, to her embarrassment, we had left the flowerbed by our front stairs still unplanted. I had tossed overboard my worries about the work deadline I would not meet, as if they were baggage too heavy for the trip. Andrea was not thinking about Cassie's having broken her water-color box that very morning; diffident and cautious though she was, she accepted and appreciated her rambunctious little sister without any reservation. And when Tim leaned his head on Emily's shoulder and later draped his legs across her lap—invasions of her space that had thrown her into a tizzy on other occasions—she did not find him the least bit annoying, but instead became his older and wiser sponsor and read him stories when the others slept. No one expressed appreciation out loud—indeed, I may have been the only one thinking how happy and perfect was this day—but for each of us the others mattered more than defending our individual rights and ensuring our personal comfort. The profound sense of connection we felt one to another that summer's day would not have been possible except for the capacity in each of us to sense one another's inward yearnings, fears, and love.
There's none of the anxiety when we're out of the box that there is when we're in the box. Out of the box, we're simply recognizing the needs and feelings of others and responding to them as we understand them, not trying to work out in our minds the way to get them to fill our needs. The former is easy and less stressful and generally never meets resistance--the latter is headache inducing and, ultimately, generally unattainable.
But don't despair! This isn't to say that worrying about our thoughts about our thoughts is wrong.
What is wrong is if we're not questioning our thoughts. It's perpetually believing that we could be wrong, even in our doubts about our doubts about our doubts, that we leave ourselves open to, at some point, seeing truth.
As long as we're actively open to the idea that there might be a better way to handle the problem, or that our perceptions of the other person might be wrong we are infinitely closer to opening ourselves up to that person than if we decide we already knew the solution and what the other person is thinking and feeling.
Anyways, this post has become insanely long. What are your thoughts on all of this?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I like it. I'm trying to recollect various situations where this victim mentality has popped up in myself and others.
quote:The problem comes when people use their victimhood, whether real or imagined, as an excuse for acting contrary to what they know is right.
That's really the only part where my head exploded. Trying to reconcile this with my homosexuality, the evidence we have so far, societies views, personal views, personal choice, nature vs nature, whether I'm being a victim, or if I am genuine or "ok" despite it not being "right" or "the norm".
Who decides what's right? To some it's God, to others it's society/socially driven, to some personal choice, to other biology...
I just keep thinking of that line from Days of Future Past
Cold hearted orb that rules the night Removes the colors from our sight Red is grey, and yellow, white, but we decide which is right...and which is an illusion?"
So again, the above is really the only bit where I was like "ehhh??? *splode*"
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Docmagik,
Points one and two ring true to me, based on my life experience. I absolutely agree that we must cultivate true, unstintingly love towards others, mostly because we are not able to hide impatience or contempt so well as we think we do.
I think the leap of faith is hoping, then believing, then finding, that truly loving and accepting another and leaving them to their own choices is the most powerful catalyst for change out there.
These ideas on striving for true charity within ourselves first also correlate well with what I've read about how to treat and prevent codependency.
That is, truly loving others may seem to make us vulnerable, but it also makes us strong and protected, too.
The pity here is how little it's practiced. I gave an example of how I was pressured by results-oriented people at church, to pressure my husband, to have the "right result".
But I suppose that the only way to fight that emphasis on action regardless of inner desire, is to set the example, since this philosophy is inconsistient with using any kind of force or manipulation to change another. Ironic.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh. I forgot to reply to point #3--about meta-thinking.
I have OCD, so I *could* go around in circles about this, but right now it's only an academic thing.
And, I have a safety valve. Being religious, I can decide to question my thoughts until a divine Thought enters and settles the issue, should I be listening well enough to hear that.
But doesn't that idea--an external actor on my thoughts, guiding me to truth--disagree with this philosophy's concept of needing to "own" our thoughts?
For the record, I think this philosophy is as good a secular explanation of the freedom Christ offers as any I've ever heard. I'm just making sure I'm thinking correctly about it. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks docmagik for your reflections, it seems you have a good grasp of these concepts.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: Who decides what's right? To some it's God, to others it's society/socially driven, to some personal choice, to other biology...
Part of what I enjoy about Arbinger is that they don't really get into the debating of what actions are right and what actions are wrong. And their teachers specifically do not give advice on how to handle situations students bring up.
Because ultimately, it's the whole idea that "X is the right thing to do" and "Y is the wrong thing to do" that creates our ability to self-justify and cling to false certainty.
Arbinger is not a rules system--it's more of an awareness system. It's a way to recognize if we're embracing an attitude that's encouraging other people to embrace a certain attitude towards us.
To that extent, it ends up calling into question the morality of our actions, because it asks us to really question, not what someone else is telling us is right or wrong, but the reason we've chosen to do it.
Am I doing it because deep down, I really feel like it's the right thing, or am I doing it because it gives me a certain reward I'm seeking from my community?
So in the end, as much as many religious people turn more towards God as a result of learning these principles, ultimately this takes away their crutch of being able to say, "Oh, I know I'm okay, because I'm doing the checklist of things my Pastor told me God wants me to do."
Some religions (and other organized groups of thought) might consider this dangerous--it's asking people to question whether what they're taught is genuinely true and moral.
There's a Hasidic saying that's something like "Sin is anything you can't do whole-heartedly." I think that comes pretty close to describing the closest Arbinger comes to saying what's right and what's wrong.
Call it conscience, call it whatever, but ultimately what's right and what's wrong comes from deep down inside each of us. The trick is learning whether we're really listening to it or not.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
A website with a short film for the new edition of Leadership and Self-Deception:
And an interactive website with videos that talk about some of these principles. I'm not sure how "live" this site is--it still has some typos and such--but the info is there.
The second link in that last post is no longer working, but if you find anything intriguing here, Arbinger does have a podcast you can subscribe to of "Community Calls" they've done.
If you've never heard of them before, the podcast on "Speaking Arbinger" is a good place to start, but you can see from the topics this reaches into all areas of life.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
<------ tinfoil hat