It’s now been over two and a half years since I first started blogging for The Emotion Machine – and just recently I’ve passed over one million visitors.
It’s a significant milestone to me, but more importantly it’s provided me with a lot of experience about what it means to build a following.
Wole Soyinka
I have a nasty (yet often rewarding) habit of finding ways to critique nearly everything. Sometimes it really irritates people. They think I’m trying to show off or I’m being pedantic, but I just like progress. One time while critiquing a friend’s opinion he replied, “Steve, you can poke a hole in anything.” I don’t think he meant it as a compliment, but I took it as one anyway.
While it’s not always appropriate to show criticism, sometimes it can spark very healthy discussion. That’s usually my goal. I don’t aim to piss people off, but some people will always find a way to take disagreements personally.
On the other hand, I encourage disagreements. I see them as an expression of our diversity as a species. We all have different viewpoints, different knowledge, and different values, so not only is disagreement inevitable, but it helps us to better understand others, as well as better understand ourselves. Being able to tolerate these differences is a huge mark of maturity and intelligence.
That’s why I encourage readers of this blog to feel free to disagree with me. I know I’m not perfect and I know others have different values than me, so I always appreciate it when people share their thoughts in the comment section or on my Facebook and Twitter. It helps me learn new things and see from alternative viewpoints.
As the quote on the top of this page suggests, being able to disagree is a part of your right to freedom of speech and thought. It’s what makes democracies and free societies work. If we all conformed to the norm, nothing could be improved. We would all just settle for the status quo. But upstanding individuals like Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Thomas Jefferson didn’t settle for the status quo. They exercised their freedom to disagree even when they were the underdogs. And much of the social progress we take for granted today is a result of that kind of bravery; the kind of bravery that doesn’t succumb to social norms or tradition, but pushes the envelope and later emerges into a new standard of living.
I don’t know about you guys, but sometimes I even get suspicious when someone is always in full agreement with me. I guess I find it hard to believe. They may be just trying to please me, but I’d rather they let their personalities shine through more. We shouldn’t be ashamed to hide our differences, as often they are a sign that both parties have something to learn from each other.
So I’m going to keep this message real short: you have your own mind, with your own thoughts, and your own beliefs and values. Use it! Be willing to express it and also be willing to let others express their beliefs. If you find yourself struggling with taking criticism or others disagreeing with you, try some of these tips on how to take criticism.
Join my newsletter for more!
There is a social stigma in making an appointment with a psychologist or therapist that is unlike a visit to the doctor or dentist.
Whenever something goes wrong in our bodies, such as catching the flu or having a toothache, we are typically not ashamed to seek professional expertise to help rid our ailment. But admitting that there is something wrong with our mind seems to reveal something much more vulnerable.
In a recent online survey of 660 individuals, 26% said they thought about seeing a psychologist but later didn’t because they were “too afraid or had too much pride.” That is one in every five people who thought at one point that they had some kind of mental issue to resolve, but were too reluctant to seek advice from an expert.
What about our culture and taboos might contribute to this reluctance? What are we afraid of?
Perhaps a part of our aversion can be explained in regards to the stereotypical psychologist, often perpetuated in movies and TV. Films like One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest (and Shutter Island, to a large extent) make psychologists out to be cruel and inhumane. Other films like I Heart Huckabees and Couples Retreat make therapists seem detached from reality and overly eccentric. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey in Shrink and Billy Crystal in Analyze That are portrayed as unhappy hypocrites, who love to give advice to their clients, but can never apply it successfully to their own lives. These are just some of the most salient examples, but the myths are equally reinforced in other movies where psychologists play minor roles. Who wants to visit people like that?
For those who have never had an experience with an actual psychologist, these are the sources of information individuals use to formulate their first impressions. It’s not very pretty. For many, psychologists in society are at a foreign and almost mystical status. We don’t regularly go to one like we would an annual check-up to the doctor or dentist, so they remain unfamiliar to us until we absolutely have to see one (that is if we actually work up the courage to do so).
But the biggest myth is that psychology is only for those who are already mentally ill.
What about modern day psychology can be offered to the average healthy and functioning human being? Imagine if psychologists, like doctors, did periodic check-ups on healthy individuals – they could perform diagnostics to catch any early symptoms of mental impairment (especially ones that come with age, like dementia), and they could provide preventative care for memory problems, attention disorders, anxiety, and depression. Maybe mental health institutions can even provide easily accessible seminars that individuals would be encouraged to attend once or twice a year. Insurance companies could work together with these health institutions, and offer lower rates to those who are pro-active in maintaining mental health.
You wouldn’t only have to go to a psychologist when you are on the brink of self-destruction, you could also go in order to preserve or even improve mental health. With this kind of purpose, psychology could become less of a taboo, and more an active part in our everyday lives. It would be seen as a desirable luxury and not a crutch.
And the fact is this is what psychology is turning into. It has evolved greatly over the past century and more people should know about this. Psychology is no longer only about treating those with hysteria or psychosis, through poorly understood methods of hypnosis or psychoanalysis (like how it was practiced in the late 19th century/early 20th century). Psychology, in a word, has become more and more de-mystified, and we have finer methods now to improve health. We no longer should feel like a loony if we wish to seek out today’s psychologists, therapists, social workers, counselors, or consultants.
This is a good thing for the future of psychology. There are now many new fields dedicated to the benefit of “average, functioning” individuals: sports psychology, positive psychology, industrial-organizational, educational psychology, consumer psychology, law psychology, military psychology etc. The list goes on much more, and psychology is constantly spreading its influence into new areas of life.
Every individual can find research in these fields and apply them to their everyday life. Seeking extra advice from experts, through counseling or coaching, should be seen as a legitimate form of improving our quality of life (just like when we see a doctor to get a new diet or exercise plan approved, or when we hire a gym trainer, or a diet specialist). Mental health is just as serious as physical health, and the word “illness” doesn’t even need to enter the dialogue anymore. This should make others more open to the benefits of psychology research, without being worried that they will be labeled as “sick in the head.”
Once we come to terms that psychology is a broad field not only concerned with mental disorders – the stigma surrounding psychology begins to evaporate, because psychology has something to offer everyone, there is always room for improvement, and seeking improvement should never be something we are ashamed of.
Violence Breeds Violence
More and more through science we are confirming the Buddha’s teachings on karma. In an article last month at Wired.com, kindness was shown to breed further acts of kindness.
Experimenters created a game where “selfishness made more sense than cooperation,” however, “acts of giving were tripled over the course of the experiment by other subjects who were directly or indirectly influenced to contribute more.” Here is a visual representation of those effects:
Understanding karma, I believe this multiplying effect should also hold true for acts of violence, coercion, or threat. If we treat people poorly, they are likely to treat us poorly in return. Therefore, evidence seems to show that we should follow the good ol’ golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
The Non-Aggression Principle
As I understand it, the Buddhist moral notion of karma is congruent with libertarian-anarchist ethic of the non-aggression principle – which states that all initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons is inherently illegitimate.
Although Buddha obviously cannot comment on the political theories past his time, I think if he understood our current understanding of government he would see that it is in strict violation of this principle.
Libertarian anarchists consider non-voluntary taxes (a process used to fund almost any government that has ever existed) to be a form of initiated aggression. Therefore, no matter the well-intentioned goals of politicians, the very means of government is seen as immoral. In Ayn Rands words, “Force and mind are opposite; morality ends where a gun begins.”
I think Buddha too would agree that you cannot create a moral society through the immorality of government coercion. Only free choice builds moral fiber. Even when people are forced to pay for others health care, housing, or food, they are in the process of becoming slaves, not saints. Not only is this a morally illegitimate way of building the society we want, it is impossible. In Buddhism the means don’t justify the ends: the means determine the ends.
Lead By Example, Not By Force
Karma teaches reciprocity. Only by being the change we wish to see in the world can we make a positive difference. We don’t create society by stepping into a voting booth once a year, we create society through our day-to-day actions and how we treat others. We lead by example; and when we do this, we inspire people’s hearts and minds to do the same.
An individual’s freedom is a prerequisite for all moral behavior. You cannot force or threat others to be good, you can only guide them through example and reason. People too can be guided the wrong way through example and reason. Morality is always and everywhere a battle of ideas. It starts in our minds and it spreads through our actions.
Government: Old Idea, Bad Idea, or Both?
The need to govern others is an ancient idea: master and servant, leader and follower, boss and worker are all distinctions buried in our unconscious. It is not just an old idea, but an idea we often take for granted. Modern America condemns it’s history with slavery but doesn’t yet see the the shapes and forms it takes through the veil of democratic government; in which, even Thomas Jefferson considered “mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Today this is sometimes referred to as tyranny of the majority. To learn more I recommend Hans Hermann Hoppe’s great book, “Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.”
Schools somewhat condition us to accept government; democracy being the glorified system of “fairness.” Many people I know find it hard to even imagine a peaceful society without any form of government. Instead they hear “anarchy” and imagine Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows – complete chaos and rebellion. But the truth is humans self-organize all of the time without the help of government bureaucracy. Even children can put together community baseball games without authoritarian oversight. The Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek would probably draw a parallel between this kind of social behavior and the “spontaneous order” of a laissez-faire economy.
My point is that the absence of government is not equal to a state of disorder. Humans organize voluntarily (out of their own free will) all of the time; of all people, Buddhists should recognize this inherent interconnectedness between individuals. So we shouldn’t need government to command our actions like some sort of ant colony – our ability to get along with others is a built into our humanity.
Am I suggesting that anarchy is a utopia? It may sound like it, but I assure you that I am not. How can you expect a perfect society from imperfect individuals? You can’t. It’s not realistic. But it is realistic to believe that humans can coexist peacefully without big brother government. Sure, there will still be crime and evils in the world and we will have to deal with those accordingly. But government may not be the answer to poverty, drug abuse, or even murder. Perhaps before looking to our paternal state for all the solutions to society we should take a deep gaze into ourselves; and see how we as individuals are personally responsible for the world around us.
In light of my recent posts on self-reliance and individualism (1, 2) I came across a very interesting editorial in Newsweek that asks the question, “Why Are Teenagers Growing Up So Slowly Today?”
The article mentions author Dr. Joe Allen, who says today’s children aren’t growing up because adults simply don’t let them. In his troubling book Escaping the Endless Adolescence, he shows how modern culture has shun children away from real life.
Long ago we as a society decided that children should be in school for at least 13 years before they can display any sense of competency in the world. Allen writes:
“We place kids in schools together with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of other kids typically from similar economic and cultural backgrounds. We group them all within a year or so of one another in age. We equip them with similar gadgets, expose them to the same TV shows, lessons, and sports. We ask them all to take almost the exact same courses and do the exact same work and be graded relative to one another. We give them only a handful of ways in which they can meaningfully demonstrate their competencies. And then we’re surprised they have some difficulty establishing a sense of their own individuality.”
I think Allen would agree with me that modern society has reinforced a culture of dependency. Nowadays we look around and see child-minded young adults in their early 20s, early 30s; in fact, some don’t ever seem to grow up.
Some of the most common excuses we hear are that “teenager’s brains aren’t developed enough,” or “our world is more complex now, so we need more education.” While it may be true that teenager’s brains aren’t fully developed or that our world is more complex, what better way to learn than to step outside of the classroom and embrace this complex world head first (especially while our brains are most ready to learn).
As I mentioned before, many of my posts on this blog already address these issues and draw upon my own personal battles with formal education. In many ways this blog is a reaction to that whole culture. However, I want to hear your guys opinions:
- What are your experiences with the current education system?
- Can you name any particular instances where you felt your individuality was being suppressed?
- If you could, how would you reform education in today’s society?
I also encourage discussion of this post over at Evolver.net.