Distortions 2.0
Jul. 29th, 2021 10:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mazecraft13A few weeks ago I was ruminating on the way in which innovative or progressive ideas can become distorted by well-meaning people that don't quite grok the nuance of the idea. One example that comes to mind is the movement to encourage parents not to spank/use corporal punishment on their children. (Disclaimer: I am not a parent nor an expert on this subject). But the conversation around this topic makes for a good example because the proponents of this idea can take the notion to extremes and not discipline their children at all, or do so in ineffective manners. Also, they might get super judgy of the parents that do spank their children. A result of this distortion is that the children of parents with ineffective or nonexistent means of disciplining their kids go out into the world with all sorts of expectations and sense of entitlement, or any number of other iterations of behavior that socially limits them.
As a result, those that are determined to spank/use corporal punishment (and the louder the proponent for this style of discipline the more I shiver at what happens behind their closed doors), will then hold up as an example for the state of society the undisciplined kiddos as why all the data collected on the matter by psychologists and all the hours upon hours therapists have spent unpacking the damage done to them by heavy handed disciplinarians is all garbage. Now the people that took the argument against spanking without learning more effective methods of parenting have become an unwitting tool of the opposition to the theory.
Weird example tbh but, pretty much you can pick almost any movement toward societal change and a similar dynamic will play itself out. Somebody out there or groups of people will come up with an idea that is nuanced and sophisticated, and the idea will pick up steam and be telephoned through the nervous systems of people that miss the fine details and distortions will enter into it. Those that oppose the change or new idea because it upends their own ideology or position of power will then point out the failure of the idea among those that applied it incorrectly as evidence against it. Repeat ad nauseum.
"I understand. In life, Project Mayhem members don't have a name. But in death, we do. His name is Robert Paulsen."
*All chanting in unison*
"His name is Robert Paulsen!"
If you remember that scene from Fight Club than you already know exactly what it looks like to be not only misunderstood by people that claim to grok an idea, but how the distortion can spread and get out of hand.
Generally speaking, the more extreme a position that someone takes, the more likely it is that they are going to bend a workable idea out of shape. Because extremism by its very nature tends to gravitate toward black and white thinking and misses the nuanced details within the gray area. I hate to kick a hornet's nest, but radical feminism balanced against evangelical christianity tend to start to look a lot alike if you hit the mute button and just watch their body language. (Don't @ me that was a metaphor not a real observation). The fact that I tend to agree with the points of the radical feminists more often than not doesn't mean there aren't also caveats that their most extreme points of view fail to notice or care about.
Narrow-mindedness always skims across the surface of understanding and jumps to the conclusion with the largest platform they can land on. A nuanced path is a bit more of a carefully calculated climb that requires a slower pace and usually leads to a plateau with a wider point of view.
Holy crap this reads like I know what I am doing and am smarter than everyone else. *facepalm* I'm not any of that and honestly I have made the same mistake of extremist thinking multiple times in my life. I probably will again. Cause it comes on whenever we are activated by complexes and shadow material most of all. And we all have those moments.
But I am just trying to note what I have observed in myself and others and warn against these distortions of really good ideas and how those that oppose them can manipulate the conversation around them to their benefit. It behooves us to make sure that we aren't distorting or misrepresenting ideas before we share them so that we do not become an unwitting tool in the arsenal of those that want to see us fail.
As a result, those that are determined to spank/use corporal punishment (and the louder the proponent for this style of discipline the more I shiver at what happens behind their closed doors), will then hold up as an example for the state of society the undisciplined kiddos as why all the data collected on the matter by psychologists and all the hours upon hours therapists have spent unpacking the damage done to them by heavy handed disciplinarians is all garbage. Now the people that took the argument against spanking without learning more effective methods of parenting have become an unwitting tool of the opposition to the theory.
Weird example tbh but, pretty much you can pick almost any movement toward societal change and a similar dynamic will play itself out. Somebody out there or groups of people will come up with an idea that is nuanced and sophisticated, and the idea will pick up steam and be telephoned through the nervous systems of people that miss the fine details and distortions will enter into it. Those that oppose the change or new idea because it upends their own ideology or position of power will then point out the failure of the idea among those that applied it incorrectly as evidence against it. Repeat ad nauseum.
"I understand. In life, Project Mayhem members don't have a name. But in death, we do. His name is Robert Paulsen."
*All chanting in unison*
"His name is Robert Paulsen!"
If you remember that scene from Fight Club than you already know exactly what it looks like to be not only misunderstood by people that claim to grok an idea, but how the distortion can spread and get out of hand.
Generally speaking, the more extreme a position that someone takes, the more likely it is that they are going to bend a workable idea out of shape. Because extremism by its very nature tends to gravitate toward black and white thinking and misses the nuanced details within the gray area. I hate to kick a hornet's nest, but radical feminism balanced against evangelical christianity tend to start to look a lot alike if you hit the mute button and just watch their body language. (Don't @ me that was a metaphor not a real observation). The fact that I tend to agree with the points of the radical feminists more often than not doesn't mean there aren't also caveats that their most extreme points of view fail to notice or care about.
Narrow-mindedness always skims across the surface of understanding and jumps to the conclusion with the largest platform they can land on. A nuanced path is a bit more of a carefully calculated climb that requires a slower pace and usually leads to a plateau with a wider point of view.
Holy crap this reads like I know what I am doing and am smarter than everyone else. *facepalm* I'm not any of that and honestly I have made the same mistake of extremist thinking multiple times in my life. I probably will again. Cause it comes on whenever we are activated by complexes and shadow material most of all. And we all have those moments.
But I am just trying to note what I have observed in myself and others and warn against these distortions of really good ideas and how those that oppose them can manipulate the conversation around them to their benefit. It behooves us to make sure that we aren't distorting or misrepresenting ideas before we share them so that we do not become an unwitting tool in the arsenal of those that want to see us fail.
