[71] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
hmm
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai-Yuh Hsiao)
Fri Apr 20 01:47:05 2001
Message-Id: <200104200543.BAA05155@eepness-prime.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:43:02 EDT
From: Kai-Yuh Hsiao <khsiao@MIT.EDU>
I'm going to disclaim this from the start by saying that I'm
presenting observations from my personal experience, and that the
points of view I mention are all mine, and arise from my own axioms
and are neither to my knowledge necessarily accepted by anyone else
nor would I particularly care if they were or not.
I mention that simply because while skimming some of the previous
posts I noticed that some people forgot to disclaim anything, which to
me results in the egregious implication that they think a certain way
and honestly believe everyone else should think that way too, or that
most people already _do_ think that way. Which is fine if that's what
they truly believe, but I hope none of those people get too far in
their quests, since the liberty to believe in the doctrines which I
personally prefer is very important to me, and people forcefully
pressing their beliefs on others in the name of "reason" strikes me as
a slightly short-sighted and rather uncomfortable possibility.
I have read Rand. I have taken economics. I empathize with human
suffering. I have thought about the issue. And I will address none
of those here.
What strikes me first and foremost about the ongoing noise in my inbox
is whether the people involved in the discussion have introspected at
all about their own personal motives for engaging in the
conversation. Perhaps some have, but I'm willing to bet that few of
them know all of the roots of their activism, or why they are so
disgusted that others disagree with them.
In my short lifetime of experience dealing with people, I've found
that the human mind is hideously complex, and its reasoning processes
are very difficult to grasp, much less understand.
So when I see people angry over their disagreements with others, or
forcefully expressing their perspectives in an attempt to polarize
people and get people on their side, I have to wonder why, exactly,
they're doing it. It doesn't convince people, that's for sure. It
polarizes them, causes people to dig their heels into their own
defensive arguments, and just makes people generally discontent.
So it certainly doesn't serve its ostensibly intended purpose. But is
that the intended purpose, or are there sometimes more complex
motives? It's theorized that frustration and anger are easily
channeled elsewhere in one's life when they cannot be expressed openly
towards the source. And it's also generally accepted that
insecurities cause people to act funny (that's not the technical
description, of course). Do people consider these possibilities? I
argue they typically don't, but rather these are the sorts of thoughts
that are hidden in most people's minds, thoughts that they would be
very uncomfortable pondering.
Time and time again in my experience I've seen anger and frustration
from other aspects of people's lives channeled into something or
other. People who harbor residual anger towards their parents and the
limitations of their upbringing attacking their work with a vigor
unparalleled in most others. People who spend huge amounts of their
lives trying to cure the ills of the world around them, to appease
their own personal deprivations they feel helpless to affect.
And yes, people who argue heatedly for a personal point of view,
calling other people names and blindly shooting down arguments right
and left, oblivious to a deep-seated anger in their backgrounds
clawing its way to the surface, seeking expression.
And the insecurities. People who think they need something more. A
group to belong to, or people who agree with them or approve of them,
or a feeling of superior intellect, or the knowledge that they might
somehow change the world to be better, or more correct, in an attempt
to scratch that itch within, telling them they're still not good
enough.
Some people think about these things. I would conjecture most people
haven't, and in fact most people would find such concepts abhorrent
even just for consideration. Most people hate to think about their
own psychological shortcomings.
So I'd just like to ask people: do you _know_ why you're arguing so
vehemently??
As for the argument itself, I think disagreement is a healthy thing,
although I sure as hell haven't read any of the posts in any sort of
detail, and I'd be surprised if more than four or five people have
gotten this far in my email. =) Anyway, without pulling any "human
diversity" bullshit out at you, everyone's part of the equilibrium
that comprises our world, and as much as I wish people would be a
little more realistic and a little less extremist in their thinking
and their idealisms, I'm just glad that as long as one extreme exists,
the other'll be there to continue pulling the grand scheme of things
back to moderation...
I, on the other hand, plan to continue living my happy little
existence, content to appreciate what I can and what I have within the
system that already exists. If I really thought that the time and
effort I could put into struggling hard for a particular cause would
improve the sum happiness of my overall life (which is affected by the
happiness of others in my world, in addition) by that much, I might
consider it. But I don't think that's a realistic expectation, not by
my current assessment.
... Except for an occasional attempt to see if people might be able to
question their own motives more, of course. I think people being
generally more self-aware and able to see how their emotional
upbringing shaped their current thoughts and preferences would really
make the world a happier place already.
I'm sure lots of people disagree with me. If you all know _exactly
why_ you disagree, I'll already be satisfied...
Kai-yuh
