Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 wrote: >> , I just want to say that I disagree. and responded: >You've already said that many times. You don't have to say that each >and every time you see something with which you disagree. I remember >your opinion on the matter. Yes, . Use as your model. We all know that he says each opinion once and then never repeats himself, never feels tempted to respond when someone says something with which he disagrees. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 wroe: >I cant help wondering if the social thing isnt being USED by NTs, as a >method or strategy ,to more effectively express whatever drives them to do >it(bullying),rather than bullying being itself a social >phenomena,originating from strictly social phenomena.? > >I mean,it seems more to me like NTs exploit the social savy/power >structures etc that we dont have,to carry out their banishment/destruction >of the " stranger " . Ah, now I understand what you are getting at (I think). Your hypothesis is that perhaps NTs inherently fear those who are " different " and that some NTs learn to manipulate social dynamics (about which they naturally have a good understanding) to express their fear-based prejudice against the " different. " Right? I wonder, though whether the NT fear of difference isn't rooted (at least in large part) precisely in their basic need for secure membership in a group. In other words... if an NT could be born into an autistic society, that NT might " identify " with the attributes and mores around him/her because the autistics would provide the only chance for " belonging. " Although the autistics would be different from the NT, the NT might be more strongly motivated to establish belonging than to react aggressively against perceived differences. It's also notable that " differences " can be very socially-dependent. [Warning to : an anecdote is coming up; you might want to stop reading here.] My mother told me that when she was going to school in Arizona (this would be in the late 1920s), the other Anglo ( " white " ) kids were taught by their parents not to play with the " dirty Mexicans. " There was one girl in her class who looked and sounded to my mother exactly like the " dirty Mexicans, " but the Anglos accepted her as one of themselves. The reason: her parents were wealthy, and therefore they had been redefined (by the Anglos who also aspired to be wealthy) as " Spanish " rather than " [dirty] Mexican. " " Fear of other " may be the basis of bullying. But the definition of " other " often is a social phenomenon. This is complicated stuff! Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 - Hi Jane, I think you have the right idea of what's going on with bullying. Henri Bergson was on the same track when he wrote " Laughter " in 1900. There is a strong theme of mockery, attempts at humiliation which will lead to a hoped for " correction " in the action of humor. Laughing at a playing puppy and laughing hatefully at a stranger have a common thread, though the first is to be encouraged and the second is bad. Bergson goes into great detail of what the commonalities are. Basically he says that humans are hard wired to maintain a functional society based on individuals who are flexible and make flexible choices. The person with OCD for example does not make flexible choices around his compulsions and the schizophrenic is not making flexible choices based on the same reality that the rest of his neighbors are experiencing. (Bergson doesn't refer to specific diagnoses of illness, though) Seeing this inflexibility is offensive to the group because it causes a potential threat. This is the core of sensation of humor. It is funny to see a human acting inlfexibly, and depending on the level of inflexibility he or she is in need of being mocked and humilitated. Puppies are funny only insofar as they remind us of humans. However, the greater group can become inflexible in it goals or immoral in its goals and use the same function to persecute the one who is truly being flexible. That's how I would apply his theory to things like the Holocaust under Hitler. This is tied up in the t-shirt slogan someone else came up with... " You laugh at me because I am different, I laugh at you because you are all the same. " The thing is that the greater group will laugh in relation to the lack of emotion they feel toward the individual. I.e. if a " normal " person has understanding and compassion for the the inflexible one, he will not laugh at him, or the laughter will be moderated. So who is acting heartless and " autistic " ? The NT bully for trying to coerce the other into being predictably flexible? Or the autistic who just thinks that people should be however they are and get along. ooooh, I am sooooo deep. It is really an interesting topic though. Oh and here black people are only black in relation to how much money they have. Black becomes white with a big enough bank account. Camille ===snipping=== > >I mean,it seems more to me like NTs exploit the social savy/power > >structures etc that we dont have,to carry out their banishment/destruction > >of the " stranger " . > > Ah, now I understand what you are getting at (I think). > > Your hypothesis is that perhaps NTs inherently fear > those who are " different " and that some NTs learn to > manipulate social dynamics (about which they naturally > have a good understanding) to express their fear-based > prejudice against the " different. " Right? > > I wonder, though whether the NT fear of difference isn't > rooted (at least in large part) precisely in their basic > need for secure membership in a group. In other words... > if an NT could be born into an autistic society, that NT > might " identify " with the attributes and mores around > him/her because the autistics would provide the only > chance for " belonging. " Although the autistics would be > different from the NT, the NT might be more strongly > motivated to establish belonging than to react > aggressively against perceived differences. > > It's also notable that " differences " can be very > socially-dependent. [Warning to : an anecdote is > coming up; you might want to stop reading here.] My > mother told me that when she was going to school in > Arizona (this would be in the late 1920s), the other > Anglo ( " white " ) kids were taught by their parents not > to play with the " dirty Mexicans. " There was one girl > in her class who looked and sounded to my mother > exactly like the " dirty Mexicans, " but the Anglos > accepted her as one of themselves. The reason: her > parents were wealthy, and therefore they had been > redefined (by the Anglos who also aspired to be > wealthy) as " Spanish " rather than " [dirty] Mexican. " > > " Fear of other " may be the basis of bullying. But > the definition of " other " often is a social phenomenon. > > This is complicated stuff! > > Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 wrote: >I don't know what your problem is with my statements regarding the lack >of provative value of anecdotes, but it does not warrant a response such >as this. I apologize. For some reason I forgot temporarily that humor was not allowed on this list. I'll try not to let it happen again. In fact, I guess I'll be a lurker only from now on, since I do not engage in the kind of debate you see as the only legitimate type of post here. I'll try to remember to send my responses privately rather than to the list. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.