People are always trying to keep certain sects of human beings

[CherryTrooper]

Throughout history, people are always trying to keep certain sects of human beings from doing things, from being equal, from having rights...

I just don't understand. From African Americans, gays, women, or even Christians being barred from this and that nowadays by the realm of political correctness.

But my main question. Women in combat? Gays marrying? the latest? I just don't get it. If something doesn't apply to you, why do you try to prevent others from doing it? It really is absolutely beyond me.

Obviously, women in combat is a more personal thing for me, but it's like, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! If you don't think women should be in combat, don't join the Army! If you don't think churches should preach, don't go to church! don't BAN everyone from doing it because you don't like it unless it's somehow tantalizingly threatening to you, your safety, or their own personal safety.

 

[theChosen1]

You've heard of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), right?

Have you ever heard of it's cousin Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD)?

There are some similar traits between the two, but the biggest point to note is the difference. With OCD, people make up rules for themselves that often involve counting or personal hygiene, and these rules become rituals that destroy their lives. With OCPD, people make up rules for their environment...including everyone in it. They then turn these rules into rituals that everyone in their environment must obey.

People with OCD hate their rituals, and they wish that they could live normal lives. But people with OCPD believe that their thoughts are correct, and their anxiety manifests when they begin losing control over the rules they've created for everyone.

OCPD = Obsessive Compulsive Police Department. The Though Police.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Because people have an annoying habit of looking to the past for examples of what they should be doing today. These are essentially all examples of ingrained social conventions that have been a part of human society for a long time. Each successive generation is taught the ideals of their parents, and in turn the society that came before them. 100 years ago, the notion of women voting in a presidential election would have sounded ridiculous, because that was the way society had been structured for so long. Today, we see that as ridiculous...because it is ridiculous. Most younger girls don't even realize that women have only had that right to vote for a relatively short time.

The same is true of racism. It has been bred into our way of life for so long, that many people just inherit the prejudice of their lineage. And again, most younger African-Americans and other minorities don't realize just what their ancestors went through to get the rights that they have today, and they don't realize just how short of a time they've had these rights. There's a difference between reading about it in a textbook in a history class, and REALLY understanding it.

Gay marriage is essentially the same thing. Many people view it as being unconstitutional(it's not) or against the principles of religion. Whether or not it's against their religion is open to a lot of interpretation and what is really meant by the various scriptures of their faith, but it's almost a moot point to this discussion. Again, it is simply ingrained in society. People grow up hearing about how "the gays are destroying the sanctity of marriage" etc...and simply align themselves with that notion without really making a conscious decision on the issue.

The same is true of many social conventions though, not the least of which is ones choice in religion. The vast majority of people don't "choose" their religion. They are simply born a Christian, born a Catholic, born a Jew or any other of a number of religions. People inherit the beliefs and tendencies of their parents almost by default, and this fact can play a major role in what they do or do not believe.

 

[krash661]

Everything always leads to a bigger picture.The subjects out come is based on human mentality and human behavior in a majority without subject to change.There's at lease 10% truth to everything,More than likely 90% of it is bull ****.Nothing more.Humanity flows in it's path as it does,And as of this moment in humanity,what is value to it, is what is value to it.Nothing more.We as humans decide what is valuable by a majority.Nothing more.In the end,there's only 3 thing for human existence that is tangibly or realistically valuable,and those 3 things are,Life,intelligence and language Everything else is just ******** to keep a majority content.humanity has already failed.

 

[arildno]

It is generally, more pleasurable to have control over others, as well as over one self.
Getting people to abstain from what they like, is a proof of your own degree of power of them, and hence desirable.

 

[CherryTrooper]

theChosen1: Interesting. There must be a huge amount of the population that suffers from this, considering these silly conventions and obsessions are somehow turned to laws.

QuantumCurt: That makes a lot of sense-- and yet how do people not have the capacity to understand when certain things are infringing on basic human rights? If someone was to do the same to them, would they quietly accept and think "My ancestors were slaves, so I shouldn't be allowed have a job"? The scary thing is there IS a lot of these people. A female told me once "I don't get why women should be anything other than a housewife. We are the weaker sex, after all, that's how we were created." And if this is your goal and ambition, do your thing, but how dare someone try and instill it on all society. It's insane!

krash661: It's like that movie Never Let Me Go-- everything is just a distraction from the ultimate acceptance of the fact that we are slowly creeping toward our death.

arildno: An appealing realist POV. Power as an ends within itself! Now what causes what people would like to have power over and what people leave alone? Are the rest of us normal people just averted to social control and seek it in different manners, and why?

 

[arildno]

" Now what causes what people would like to have power over and what people leave alone? "

At the root of it:
To have maximal number of opportunities to get laid, and get most progeny.

Within our dumbf*ck brains if people get more like you, they'll look a lot more like kids of your own making.
----------------------------------
BTW, both biology and history suggest quite strongly that you are the abnormal one, rather than the opposite.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A lot of people don't give their beliefs very much thought. They tend to believe what the people around them believe. That's why the internet is such a good thing; it reaches into these isolated areas where a lot of good ideas couldn't penetrate before, and connects people.

 

[theChosen1]

It is generally, more pleasurable to have control over others, as well as over one self.
Getting people to abstain from what they like, is a proof of your own degree of power of them, and hence desirable.

I can introduce you to a psychiatrist who will tell you that you just put up a huge red flag.

A desire to get people to abstain from what they like is a type of behavior that comes from a different class of personality disorders than OCPD. The type of behavior your describing comes from "cluster B" based on the extreme antisocial and narcissistic tendencies of the statement.

 

[theChosen1]

theChosen1: Interesting. There must be a huge amount of the population that suffers from this, considering these silly conventions and obsessions are somehow turned to laws.

1-3% of the population has the disorder.

The reason you think that everyone has it is because an untold number of people show the tendencies, but don't have the full-blown disorder. Here's the criteria that you've described:

1. Reluctance to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
2. Rigidity and stubbornness.
3. Overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values

Additional criteria for OCPD (with only 4 of 8 required for a diagnosis):

4. Perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
5. Excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
6. Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
7. Unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
8. Miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.

 

[CherryTrooper]

1-3% of the population has the disorder.

The reason you think that everyone has it is because an untold number of people show the tendencies, but don't have the full-blown disorder. Here's the criteria that you've described:

1. Reluctance to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
2. Rigidity and stubbornness.
3. Overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values

Additional criteria for OCPD (with only 4 of 8 required for a diagnosis):

4. Perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
5. Excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
6. Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
7. Unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
8. Miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.

The tendencies are quite enough as it is. I'm just tired of people telling entire groups of the human race what they can and cannot do based of no logical deduction what-so-ever, or false logic. Also hoarding money is a terrible habit. Money is meant to be spent, especially on others.

 

[WannabeNewton]

T

But my main question. Women in combat? Gays marrying? the latest? I just don't get it. If something doesn't apply to you, why do you try to prevent others from doing it? It really is absolutely beyond me.

I ask myself that question all the time. I'm sure many level minded people do. I don't think there is an easy answer. There are many human beings that are just messed up.

 

[256bits]

1-3% of the population has the disorder.

The reason you think that everyone has it is because an untold number of people show the tendencies, but don't have the full-blown disorder. Here's the criteria that you've described:

1. Reluctance to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
2. Rigidity and stubbornness.
3. Overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values

Additional criteria for OCPD (with only 4 of 8 required for a diagnosis):

4. Perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
5. Excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
6. Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
7. Unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
8. Miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.

Most of that sounds like someone who would be in charge of a company, department, etc. Are owners and leaders of companies suffering from OCPD?

 

[theChosen1]

Most of that sounds like someone who would be in charge of a company, department, etc. Are owners and leaders of companies suffering from OCPD?

Yes, but...

...the correct way to say it is, "it is common for business owners and leaders of companies to show tendencies towards Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder."

However, a couple of those "symptoms" are found in overachievers who are not in the least bit OCPD (#5 and #6). The biggest way to tell the difference is this: "Am I dealing with an irrational control freak, or am I dealing with someone who's killing themselves trying to be Superman."

If you're dealing with an irrational control freak...run! (Remember, they believe that their dysfunctional thinking is correct; so you will never be anything but a pawn in their system.)

 

[reenmachine]

I ask myself that question all the time. I'm sure many level minded people do. I don't think there is an easy answer. There are many human beings that are just messed up.

If I had to make a pseudo-scientific guess , it would be something like the need to belong from a high percentage of the majority.The people at the top of the majority use the minority to rally people from the majority against something (the minority).

Two brothers will often fight against each other , argue etc... but normally when there's a common enemy of the family they'll fight together against this enemy.People trying to isolate a minority by turning the majority against them could be using this kind of emotion in their favor.

Some people are good at convincing a lot of people that there's an ennemy when there isn't one.

Of course all of this is highly unscientific , just an hypothesis or food for thought.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Some people are good at convincing a lot of people that there's an ennemy when there isn't one.

You mean politicians?

 

[reenmachine]

You mean politicians?

Yes , but not exclusively.

Though in Canada "us against them" wasn't the favorite philosophy of the average politician until the Conservatives came along a couple of years ago.We had this thing going with Quebec's independantists vs English Canadians where people from both sides definitely used this kind of philosophy , but it wasn't on an international level.

Of course it's always there in some form , but not as extreme as with the Bush administration for exemple.

 

[CherryTrooper]

I'm not talking international politics, though. I'm talking domestic occurrences. IE, Islamic state's obsession with keeping women docile or whatever.
And I'm not sure how this relates to the Bush administration (other an attempt at pushing some sort of hyper liberal agenda?) other than his (and many conservatives) silly views on gays, women's rights, etc.

 

[jim hardy]

I was going to chime in, but ---
having seven of the eight behaviors listed above

1-3% of the population has the disorder.

The reason you think that everyone has it is because an untold number of people show the tendencies, but don't have the full-blown disorder. Here's the criteria that you've described:

1. Reluctance to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things.
2. Rigidity and stubbornness.
3. Overconscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values

Additional criteria for OCPD (with only 4 of 8 required for a diagnosis):

4. Perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
5. Excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
6. Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost.
7. Unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
8. Miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes.

I thought better of it.

So i'll just quote Eric Hoffer:

“When a man’s business is worth minding, he will mind it. When it isn’t, he will mind other people’s business.”

 

[nitsuj]

I'm not talking international politics, though. I'm talking domestic occurrences. IE, Islamic state's obsession with keeping women docile or whatever.

the world is a big place, with lots of people in it. You are just one of them, with your own set of ideals.

What's worth fighting for is anyone's choice...don't you just wish you could control that?

Unless you counter what's right is right :tongue2: In that case reel in your empathy.

( of course my personal belief is women are equal, yet I treat them better then men )

 

[Tzikin]

Back to your original question CherryTrooper, it seems to relate to an intrinsic desire to define 'humanity' as good under the worldview and mindset of each and every individual. They are unable to accept that anybody could think differently to the way that they think since this describes their own humanity and self-appointed belief of superiority and self-perfection. To accept that another person who disagrees with them could be right challenges that belief and would force them to admit they were wrong.

This is not particularly a conscious decision. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy would suggest that this is about the subconscious mind trying to maintain what it considers as normal for its world according to its experience. It causes a stress reaction whenever it encounters anything that is abnormal in terms of those norms. It relaxes when those norms are followed.

So people do actually become physiologically stressed and agitated in these situations. Their subconscious world view is under threat when others do things that are alien to their learned world view.

The only way to combat this is for society to make rational decisions regardless of these stress relaxation reactions and if this is practised openly and consistently, the population becomes accustomed to it at a subconscious level and their subconscious has been retrained.

It becomes difficult in terms of minorities. A female soldier is battling the overwhelming common stereotyped image that women are non-physical and pacifists in everyday life experience. The subconscious of the observer sees this image in everyday life and rarely sees the female soldier on the front line and in action. That is where Hollywood comes in...