A James Kroeger Masterpiece

[Linette]

No, it's not about politics, exactly, but it sure does explain what makes the Republican Party tick.

It's called http://www.nontrivialpursuits.org/motivation.htm">Why Are People So Cruel?: "An in-depth examination of human nature that provides insights into the current socio-political environment while also suggesting new directions for social policy in the future."

It's a long read, but if you're interested in the topic, it's well worth the time spent. One insight after another. Amazing.

[patdem]

1. Your link does not work..it has an extra http// in it...I managed to get

around it, but you might want to fix it. Am going to peruse the article.

[ixion]

2. correct link

for those who don't want to be rerouted to microsoft.


http://www.nontrivialpursuits.org/motivation.htm


Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ixion]

3. I see the whole 'need' thing as one large rationalization...

I argued this back in my 'Sociology of Deviance' class, that people DO consciously make themselves ill and cause themselves pain, they just generally use a defense mechanism (rationalization, projection, etc) to find something/one else to blame.

Emotional 'needs' are indulgences. The only things you really 'need' are food, water, oxygen and shelter. Beyond that, it's all gravy, IMO.

Mind you, this is not a popular theory, because it places the blame solely on the individual, and not on some 'need' or some greater ill with society. Sure, there are those things, but emotional reactions are not reflexive. They might be ill-conceived or executed, but they are not reflex actions. That is, they are not actions that we, as a species, are incapable of controlling. They are not autonomous. They are selective, they are intentional. There may be a complex series of arguments that causes the action to happen, but it happens because we allow it to.

Just my two cents.

[Linette]

4. It's interesting

Kroeger's explanation of the emotional world seems to contradict everything that men have been saying about the subject for centuries. He's basically saying that men have been deluding themselves in thinking that emotions are a choice. I must say that I think Kroeger's explanation makes a lot of sense ;)

BTW, thanks for providing the correct link, ix!

[ixion]

5. yeah, I know it's sort of a 'guy' opinion

but then, I'm a guy, so I guess it makes sense. :-)

Really, though, I had a critical theory prof try and tell me that 'stoicism is dead', but I don't believe it is. The ability to control and/or disregard emotional responses in the face of extreme duress is a core component of more than one religion, Buddhism being only one example. In any case, this is an extreme example. Most people don't take it this far, hence they react very emotionally to just about everything.

Collectively speaking, humanity has the emotional capacity of a disturbed third-grader, for example. ;-)

[Linette]

6. Male POV vs. Female POV

The more I think about it, I'd say that James Kroeger---a guy---has presented the best defense of the feminine perspective vs. the masculine perspective that I've ever read.

His Why Are People So Cruel? article essentially says that the answer to most of our problems is for men to become a lot more like women.

Can there be any doubt that we'd have fewer wars? ;)