Vol #1, Col #6: The Great Debate

As an editorialist, I tend to walk (erm…write) on the “controversial” side of the spectrum. Touching upon subjects like whether religion or science has caused more human catastrophe, whether certain behaviours should remain gendered and/or whether humans have the right to play “God” via technological intervention, for example…I’m sure you get why I tend to piss a lot of people off.  

But, of course this is NOT my motivation, but rather a symptom of the fact that individuals frequently get emotional when one expresses strong convictions about well…just about anything. I must be doing my job right however if I’m at least getting you thinking; after all, you wouldn’t be reacting emotionally unless that were being accomplished. Just saying… 

The problem, in my view, does not lay within maintaining opinions nor expressing them. As someone who gets paid to tout her thoughts, I’d be a huge hypocrite if I were not always readily and happily available for a good debate. Instead, the problem rests in our reactions upon hearing something that flies in the face of everything we believe, likely always have believed and/or hold dear to our hearts. When it comes to differences of opinion, what sets apart the psychologically mature and immature then comes down to three distinct characteristics:  

1) the former does not cling to his/her values, attitudes and beliefs in ignorance (ie: he/she has strong validation, if not research to which to refer to back up his/her opinions. In a word, such an individual is “invested” into who they are and why they believe what they do. There’s that good old introspection again!) 

2) the former is willing to admit errors in judgement upon the acquisition of new information and therefore adjust his/her views accordingly 

And finally and most importantly, 3) the former is respectfully accepting of the opinions of others, even when they directly contradict his/her own views (ie: he/she will simply “agree to disagree”) 

With all of this said, I hope it is obvious that it is NOT the receipt of impassioned emails I receive from readers pointing out the “flaws” (in their opinions) of my views that bothers me. In fact, I ALWAYS (and you can quote me on this) take the time to read through their arguments and respond in an objective fashion. The issue I have is when my simple expression of a given opinion somehow transforms me in my entirety into an individual characterized by a derogatory comment, particularly when it’s being uttered by someone who doesn’t know a thing about me other than the fact we do not see eye-to-eye in ONE area. This is what is known psychologically-speaking as a “personal attack”. But before I get into that definition, I’d like to point out what I feel are two important pieces of information to consider from my perspective in this equation (sorry for all the numbered lists!):  

1) I don’t recall ever forcing anyone to read my writings

Moreover, 2) I don’t recall ever forcing anyone to accept my opinions as their own  

Now, in any disagreement with another individual, you always have a clear choice in terms of how maturely you will phrase your reactions. Admittedly, we all get heated at times and say things out of turn, but a huge aspect of developing psychological maturity is getting a handle on one’s emotions (ie: both being able to control oneself and further being able to understand why one reacts the way he/she does).  

With all of this said, there’s a HUGE difference in terms of strongly disagreeing with someone on a given subject matter and not liking them as an individual altogether. I should know being the hippie artistic child of a highly successful entrepreneurial businessman father: when it comes to the subject of the value of money or the government’s right to taxation, we couldn’t possibly be singing from more different song sheets. Our difference in opinion however is not “just cause” for me hating my pops nor calling him a selection of profanities. So why has this unduly treatment been issued to me and other entertainers/personalities? Well a few reasons (oh man, another numbered list?! I know, I know I apologize in advance.):  

1) when you work under the public’s scrutiny, "the common joe" seems to believe that your feelings don’t get hurt as easily or as much when shit is slung in your general direction, and/or you can or SHOULD be able to take more shit than the average person. FYI this is NOT always true.   

2) when a psychologically immature individual is faced with evidence that may cause him/her to re-examine (or examine for the first time) the rationale driving his/her beliefs which is an aspect of his/her self-concept, instead of being introspective, he/she will often react defensively and emotionally as a means of self-preservation (something we discussed last week)  

and 3) this week’s discussion: the concept of anonymity. The individuals who send me and others “hate mail” don’t truly “know” who we are as people and therefore have no obligatory ties to us. In sum, unlike if I were to call my dad a dick for believing something I could not even begin to conceive of, the aforementioned “hate mailers” suffer little to no consequences for their actions.  

As explained by Rider University’s Dr. John Suler in, CyberPsychology and Behavior: “Anonymity works wonders for the disinhibition effect. When people have the opportunity to separate their actions from their real world and identity, they feel less vulnerable about opening up. Whatever they say or do can't be directly linked to the rest of their lives. They don't have to own their behavior by acknowledging it within the full context of who they ‘really’ are. When acting out hostile feelings, the person doesn't have to take responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even convince themselves that those behaviors ‘aren't me at all.’ In psychology this is called ‘dissociation.’” 

As you’ll recall, I earlier stated that I always take the time to write back to my “hate mailers” and probe them further to question themselves as to why they hold the views they do, while gently reminding them that a difference of opinion is not grounds for verbal abuse. Interestingly, I NEVER receive responses; a fact that very much confirms Suler’s analysis that those engaged in “dissociative anonymity” do not categorize their actions as an encompassment of who they are. To respond would force them to own up to their actions, whereas failing to carry on a dialogue and actually getting to know me as an individual allows them to maintain their prejudicial views. It isn’t a stretch to consider then that racism is commonly based upon similar foundations (ie: lack of exposure to/ignorance of other groups outside of one’s own immediate periphery).

In sum, while issuing “personal attacks” may allow the instigator of such to achieve a temporary feeling of quasi-“superiority” based on an avoidance to look within, from a psychological stance, it’s a logical fallacy to divert an argument to belittling unless the goal were to determine who is willing to sink to a lower level (see political “muckracking” campaigns if you require more proof). Likewise, it’s a logical fallacy to possess feelings of hatred toward strangers and/or label strangers hurtful derogatory comments seeing as it literally does not make sense to harbour such strong feelings when there is no actual emotional connection (yet another indication one should look within, instead of outward). In other words, and as we’ll cover more next week, by all means go forth and debate, but first learn the art of “fighting fair.”

Vol #1, Col #5: Bloody Pirates!

Once upon a time in a land not too far away, I made the naïve presumption that the world of theatre was somehow more legit than that of rock’n’roll. That was until the following story was relayed to me… 

Excited to endeavour to express his artistic side via a new medium, I’ve been assured that the motivation behind the actions in which my good friend (who will remain nameless, out of respect) partook that I’m about to describe, stemmed only from a desire to achieve what was best for the production for all involved.  

Upon being cast for their various roles, he along with the others were issued a score, script and cd featuring the musical’s key tracks and provided with the simple instructions that they were to familiarize themselves with each before formal rehearsals began. Well, one can only imagine the dismay he and his fellow cast members experienced when practises started and they discovered that one of the featured tracks was to be performed in a completely different (MUCH higher) key than what was featured on the disc. Worse, the leads in the song were clearly “actors” more than “singers” and their struggle to hit the right pitches was apparent to everyone. 

Several under-the-breath comments, grimaces and questions were issued toward the musical director (MD, for short) of the production, but he seemed either oblivious or uninterested in catering to the strengths of the cast. My friend gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was the former and sent him a politely worded email that I agree was anything but confrontational bringing this concern to the MD’s attention. The message emphasized that my friend was merely speaking on behalf of himself and SOME of his fellow cast members with whom he’d conversed, and proposed that perhaps at the next rehearsal a poll could be taken to see how everyone was feeling in regard to the new key of the song.  

Now admittedly, this was my friend’s first ever experience with community theatre and therefore he’s willing to admit it’s possible he did not correctly follow protocol here, however it only seemed logical to him (and me, for that matter) that if one had a music-related concern, they’d address it toward the music director. But I digress… 

Believe it or not, my friend’s seemingly innocuous act addressing what he felt was only a minor concern led to all hell breaking loose and the MD proceeding to send out a mass email to the entire cast and crew accusing my friend of being the ringleader in a “mutiny” against him. Instead of even attempting to resolve this matter professionally (keep in mind my friend even offered to apologize to everyone despite the fact he’s still not certain where he went wrong), my friend was as they say “cut” from the show.

Now there are several different psychological concepts this story houses within itself (ie: outgroup versus in-group mentality and “scapegoat-ism” to mention a few), but I’d like to offer a theoretical hypothesis for the MD’s over-the-top response:

Generally as a result of some sort of trauma or bullying they've experienced, certain individuals (usually those with pre-existing insecurities) develop what is known as a “hypersensitive” disposition as a means of self-preservation. Essentially, on a subconscious level their minds become primed to react consistently in a “survival protectionist mode” (also known as “defensiveness”) anytime anyone proposes even the slightest objection/suggestion in regard to their actions. Given that I’m told the MD was an eccentric fellow and member of a minority group, I’m gonna hazard a guess and suggest that he likely continues to be/has been in the past tormented by others.  

Because of this hypersensitivity, such individuals are unable to react rationally (ie: non-defensively/non-emotionally/non-combatively) even when NO clear “personal attacks” are issued (personal attacks to be discussed at length in the near future). As leadership mentor Shelley Holmes explains in her hit e-book, Influence Your Way to Success, a hypersensitive reaction occurs when one feels psychologically “unsafe” in conversation. This feeling of “unsafeness” is triggered by a fear of, “being found to be less than what they want others to perceive them as, a loss of status, [a belief that one’s] self-image is under challenge, [a belief that one’s] self-esteem is threatened or finally a fear of rejection”. Basically, anything that doesn’t fit into the context of “praise” regardless of the tone used, content discussed or the person who is uttering said remarks is interpreted as a means to “go to war”.  

It’s important to recognize that the MD’s elected form of strategy (ie: to form a gossip train) instead of having a mature adult discussion with my friend directly or at the least asking the director of the show to act as a mediator between them to resolve the issue, further exemplifies (t)his behaviour is rooted in insecurity: why else would one launch a “smear your enemy/pity me campaign” unless it were to seek the validation of others and therefore denounce any sense of personal responsibility for causing the concern? That’s highschool tactics 101.

The biggest problem however when it comes to hypersensitive individuals is that if you point out their defensiveness, it generally only leads to them then becoming defensive about being defensive. Eugh! Suffice it to say there’s a reason that defensiveness has been labelled one of the “four horsemen of [relationship] apocalypse” by psychology professor and marriage researcher Dr. John Gottman. It not only impedes communication between parties, but ALSO self-reflection on behalf of the individual afflicted by this issue. The reality is this: defensiveness like depression is ultimately something the bearer of said behaviour has to overcome by first being willing to admit they have a problem.  

If you should ever (god forbid) find yourself in a situation wherein you’re dealing with a hypersensitive individual, how you react in turn will undoubtedly be affected by your relationship to him/her. If, for example, you’re dealing with a loved one, the best advice I can offer is to gently remind them that the motivation behind whatever you’ve said or done that’s resulted in their defensiveness is purely coming from a place of care and therefore there is no need for them to feel threatened. If on the other hand you encounter this behaviour from a stranger, superior or someone with better established political ties within the group, you may very well be screwed as my poor friend was.