Skip to main content

Separation of person and idea

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.

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Cancel the gym

After I went to the gym this morning, I pulled in to the McDonald's drive through.  While waiting for my food, I played out in my mind a possible conversation I might have with someone concerning just this.  In fact, I have had many real conversations of similar nature.
"How was your morning?"
"It was good.  I went to the gym.  Then I grabbed a late breakfast at McDonald's on my way to work."
"Won't that cancel out?"
"Cancel what?"
"Going to McDonald's after the gym.  Won't that undo all the work you just did?"

I understand the humor.  I laugh about it.  It's funny.  And I think humor is an important thing, and that we should all laugh a little bit more and be offended a little bit less.  And so I write this not up-in-arms, but in the attempts of perhaps reaching some of those who literally believe this line of reasoning.

To the person who asserts that eating "cancels out" going to the gym, I ask just this…