I really should study more psychology because it fascinates me to observe people and try to figure out how they work. I suppose for me it's always one of those "If I ever get a round to it" things. Maybe one day when life isn't so hectic (if you could hear my tone of voice at this point in time, you'd be laughing with me, not at me) I'll look into it more. For now, I'll just content myself with voicing my own musings and my own findings.
Many Christians, especially my Mormon friends, often repeat the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin." And one time I saw one of those trending Facebook text-pictures that said "If you can love the sinner and hate the sin, then I can love the believer and hate the belief." At least that statement is logically valid. But, one thing I've noticed is that it's not quite as easy as we sometimes like to think that it is. I have found myself on many occasions not being able to separate my feelings for a particular viewpoint (say, for example, the idea that homosexuality is evil) from the person voicing the view. I try to. Often I think that I'm succeeding at it. But several times now, I've found that I simply feel toward the person I'm having the argument with the exact same as I feel toward the ideas ey's expressing.
It leads me to wonder several things. First, is this concept of objectification a good thing? I'd like to think that it is. Second, is it humanly possible, or does our psyche simply not allow it? I would definitely be interested in reading about any studies that have been conducted to research this question. I'm going to guess that it's at least theoretically possible but in practice quite difficult to execute. Third, assuming that it is good and possible, am I doing it? Who knows. I think other people would have a more objective view on how well I'm doing on that regard than I would myself.
I will give my opinion, though. Which, again, is just my opinion. It's not meant to be scientific fact or incontrovertible truth. Just a guess. Perhaps we evolved this as a survival mechanism. If a predator attacked us, we would need to remember that predator and be able to think of it as bad in order to survive. So we blend together the act of being attacked with the entity doing the attacking and say they are both dangerous.
Many Christians, especially my Mormon friends, often repeat the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin." And one time I saw one of those trending Facebook text-pictures that said "If you can love the sinner and hate the sin, then I can love the believer and hate the belief." At least that statement is logically valid. But, one thing I've noticed is that it's not quite as easy as we sometimes like to think that it is. I have found myself on many occasions not being able to separate my feelings for a particular viewpoint (say, for example, the idea that homosexuality is evil) from the person voicing the view. I try to. Often I think that I'm succeeding at it. But several times now, I've found that I simply feel toward the person I'm having the argument with the exact same as I feel toward the ideas ey's expressing.
It leads me to wonder several things. First, is this concept of objectification a good thing? I'd like to think that it is. Second, is it humanly possible, or does our psyche simply not allow it? I would definitely be interested in reading about any studies that have been conducted to research this question. I'm going to guess that it's at least theoretically possible but in practice quite difficult to execute. Third, assuming that it is good and possible, am I doing it? Who knows. I think other people would have a more objective view on how well I'm doing on that regard than I would myself.
I will give my opinion, though. Which, again, is just my opinion. It's not meant to be scientific fact or incontrovertible truth. Just a guess. Perhaps we evolved this as a survival mechanism. If a predator attacked us, we would need to remember that predator and be able to think of it as bad in order to survive. So we blend together the act of being attacked with the entity doing the attacking and say they are both dangerous.
"Perhaps we evolved this as a survival mechanism."
ReplyDeleteI was just going to write this. There have been many studying showing evolution is responsible for tribalism: the idea that you must defend your tribe and fight others at all costs. (See wikipedia for the evolutionary link) This was necessary for survival and is embedded in our blood today.
You see it every day between Christians and atheists. Both are insistant about only pointing out the silly ideas of the other side while ignoring, by willfull ignorance, their own problems. I personally think this is why humans are prone to things like racism. The easiest way to guarantee someone was of another tribe anciently is if they were another ethnicity.
So you are absolutely right. Evolution catalyzed tribalism and our genes aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Am I saying we should just give in to our tribal urges since "That's how we are made"? No, one of the great observations that biologists have had is for the first time we are in a position to overcome our biology. It just takes time and will-power and a striving to cease such behavior.
But this is easier said then done. I fully admit to having a tribal mentality when it comes to Mormonism.
Yeah, that was the main point I wanted to make--that it is easier said than done. I've found it to be quite difficult.
DeleteBut, I think it is significant that we do have the ability to fight against our biology, and I think it's valuable for us to determine exactly which biological factors we should countermand and to proceed to do what it takes. Clearly we don't want to fight against all of it, since much of our biological urges are for our own good (such as hunger pangs and pain). But this is quite likely one of the ways in which we should try to undo past evolutionary changes, if not in whole then at least in part.