• Recent Posts

  • Am I an introvert?
  • In the name of atheism
  • It’s just not fair
  • Life cannot be fair
  • Being yourself
  • Punishment to fit the crime
  • Internet anonymity
  • The Happy Danes
  • Chinese Earthquake
  • If
  • Meditation and sleep
  • Mental health divergence
  • A week in my life
  • Respecting beliefs
  • Why pray?

• Categories

  • Atheism (19)
  • Business (1)
  • Life (19)
  • Psychology (11)
  • Religion (17)
  • Sport (1)

• Archives

  • July 2008 (2)
  • June 2008 (4)
  • May 2008 (4)
  • April 2008 (1)
  • March 2008 (6)
  • February 2008 (10)
  • January 2008 (14)

• Meta

  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

I had one of those rare moments of enlightenment today. Stumble had stopped me accesing atheist sites, so I stumbled instead on psychology sites. It talked about introversion, and how it is so often misunderstood.

There were two concepts that the article discussed. One, that shyness and introversion are not the same. And two, that introverts are often very happy to chat.

You see, I had assumed that my daily habit of visiting coffee shops to chat meant I was at least partially extroverted. Apparently, introverts are not all shy, and often do engage in good conversation. It is just that they need to spend a larger time on their own, ruminating on matters, or engrossing themselves - too much chat overloads them.

An extrovert needs human contact to get energised, needing little or no time to recover. They despair of the dullness of being on their own.

Additionally, the article describes how extroverts misunderstand introverts, thinking them ignorantly quiet. And because they are indeed often quiet, the extroverts never get to learn that the introverts dislike the in-your-face attitude of extroverts. But the key frustration for introverts is that the extroverts rarely ever want or try to get to understand how introverts feel.

I do try to understand how others feel, so I guess I am indeed more of an introvert than I thought.

Extroverts tend to get on and get involved in exciting things that would overwhelm introverts.

Introverts often get their kicks from computers, books, and other non-people things.

They tend to misunderstand each other.

But neither behaviour is right. Just different ways of living. Where it becomes a problem is when the natural behaviour of one type simply does not fit a situation.

With the enormous power of thousands of years of indoctrination, with massive churches and cathedrals legitimising their activities, religions can carry out otherwise criminal acts. We appear to be morally obliged to accede to all requests made in the name of religion.

Islamists butcher the genitals of young females. Americans ostracise non-believers.

But religion, like atheism, is a belief system. You act according to what you believe to be true in the absence of form corroborating truth.

I would like to claim that my belief that the World was not created by an almighty power be respected in the same way that a religious view claims the converse. But more importantly, I want to claim freedom for those oppressed in the name of religion. And have the weight of numbers of atheists as my support - atheism is hardly a fringe, eletist belief system.

On this theme of fairness, I thought I would add another insight.

The last week or two, I have been having progressively greater pain in my teeth. Initially when very hot or cold food was eaten, and now for hours at a time with no obvious trigger.

The pain is in a molar on the lower left side, and the matching molar on the upper left side. Now how unfair is that - not just one toothache, but two!

But then I thought about it.

It is exactly the opposite of unfair. It is nicely timely that problems in two teeth should manifest themselves at the same time, thereby requiring only one sequence of visits to the dentist.

Then I wondered about the pain itself. Is it really necessary to feel such pain? And I realised that I have done absolutely nothing about these teeth simply because the pain comes in fits and starts - there is literally not enough pain for me to take action.

Instinctive gut reactions to discomfort, such as when it gets too hot, and we moan of poor sleep, are often misjudged. They represent shallow thinking - merely emotionally driven verbalisations.

Fundamentally, fairness is only really meaningful when dealing like with like. It is basically fair to apportion an inheritence equally to offspring. But what if one of the offspring is severely disabled?

 We are different, so life will necessarily not be the same for any of us. To one degree or another, some will get a better deal than others.

But people often do not ponder long on the degree with which this difference manifests itself in the real World. Insomnia is a very common complaint, disturbing sleep and leaving the poor sufferer somewhat less than fully energised each day. I discivered today that my friend Nick cannot remember at all ever failing to sleep well. Even allowing for a poor memory, he essentially falls asleep within 3 minutes if hitting the pillow every night, his mind free from worries or thoughts that might keep him awake. Each morning he awakes fully energised, ‘like a bullet’ in his words, often working for 12 hours.

Additionally, and at least in part a corollary of the good sleep, he cannot remember when he was last ill.

So, every day as far as he can remember, he functions effortlessly, unrestrained by tiredness or illness of mind or body.

For many people, never in their whole life have they had a day as good as Nick’s normal day. Yes, of course, you get used to good and bad, but I certainly know which I would prefer.

Statistically, Nick is stratospheres healthier than almost everyone in the UK. He is a nice, pleasant, friendly, happy fellow, and you wonder what on earth he has done to deserve this. But this is life - indiscriminantly treating people very very very differently.

I have often heard the suggestion that you should ‘be yourself’, targetted at others and myself.

The most likely reason why people suggest that I do this is that I stress myself out being patient with others.

So I thought to myself, it would indeed be prudent to be more natural. Besides, I am a pretty good guy, with good social skills. But after a few weeks of doing this, I notice the consequences. Simply that when less inhibited, my subconscious has a frequent tendency to blurt out inappropriate things. And to be very intolerant of others who fail to hear or understand me first time. I have had to apologise a number of times for being ‘curt’.

So now I understand why I have adopted my chameleon behaviour - adpating to each person so as to make them feel confortable being with me. It is not such a bad thing to do, because often the real me is actually not so nice. When I am abrupt or impatient or tactless with someone, I actually do not like myself doing it.

What people really mean by ‘Be yourself’ is to be the natural, easy going fellow you can often be, rather than say and do everything someone wants of you. But my point is that this state is not always the natural one - the impatient, intolerant state is often the natural one.

Catch those kind of people who are indeed always themselves on the wrong day and they will not hesitate to be rude or abrupt with you. And not apologise if you question their behaviour.

 As to what is the best way to be, there is no real answer. A smart way to be is possibly to be relaxed when you feel in a good mood, and be very wary of what your brain will do when you are in a touchy mood. But this is still chameleon like behaviour - you are controlling how you are with others, rather than being ‘yourself’.

Oh to be someone who is basically in a stable, socially acceptable mood all the time. Life must be so much less tiring when you are like that.

One of the key tenets of most juridicial systems is to punish in proportion to the crime.

If it is recognised that you are not responsible for a crime, and did not, indeed carry out the crime, then you are generally not punished.

 According to many religions, however, a lot of our suffering on this planet is a punishment for the crime of our forefathers. Such as Adam and Eve. Is God being entirely fair or rational in dispensing punishments in this manner?

When I play the Oriental game of Go on the Internet, I like to chat to my opponent. Of course, it is up to my opponent whether he/she wants to chat.

However, I am getting up set because many players simply ignore all that I type. When I question them, they see no problem in doing this, and not saying why.

 I really have a problem with this - I really really should not get upset that they ignore everything I type. But underlying all this is the general anonymity on the Internet that legitimises a flippant, dismissive attitude to others. It is like a breeding ground for antisocial behaviour. Just as in a car when you cut someone up, they cannot address you face to face, so you have some anonymity, and can treat others without the respect you would give them if face to face.

A survey a while back declared Denmark to be the happiest nation on Earth. The causes of this are necessarily multifactoral, but there is one overriding flavour to the Danes - a collectivism.

 They have a very limited gap between the highest and lowest paid jobs and pay an enormous 50% tax to provide them with many social benefits. Compare with the Americans, where individuality rules the roost.

The Danes work together as a team, and reap benefits on many levels.

To illustrate, one of the more recent ways in which Britain continues to copy American ways is in litigation. Had an accident? Sue someone. No win no fee. You can’t lose.

Except that the whole nation loses, as the cost is paid heavily not just in increased premiums, but in a breaking down of social bonds. Bunting used in street parties in one town may only now be fitted if done so in accordance with rigid standards because there have been injury claims.

We focus on material things like motorcars rather than make public transport so good we can pedestrianise lots of streets. We would then see these strange creatures called children who are currently cocooned in houses, cars and school. What better, to have a new car or have social bonds?

The standard ‘defence’ by theists to such indiscriminately devasting disasters as the recent earthquake in China is that God works in mysterious ways. That his understanding and methods are beyond our comprehension. But as the same time, they endow him with an intimate, loving understanding of each and everyone of us, thereby knowing that we neither understand nor gain from these mysterious ways. The victims and families of victims of the earthquake feel intense pain and loss of life. The massive absence of compassion for these people is manifest. Did God really make all these people so as to allow them to perish so painfully and arbitrarily?

 What is more likely - that the observable and measurable friction of tectonic plates underground caused severe vibrations that caused many buildings to crumble, crushing most within - or that God arranged for this as some kind of punishment for the victims, their families, or mankind in general. Without uttering a word of explanation?

 If God is all powerful and loves us all, why fail to act when his beloved people are slaughtered? Why not arrange for any damage to be inflicted on prisons rather than schools?

God is supposed to be not only all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but perfect.

Apart from being an impossible cocktail of attributes, it is way too easy to find Him behaving somewhat imperfectly.

If God is capable of stopping the painful deaths of thousands of innocent children in the recent Chinese Earthquake, then He is guilty of manslaughter through inaction.

Life on Earth is rich and diverse. There is a certain balance in all its inhabitants - we all have strengths and weaknesses. But the staggeringly enormous difference in the quality of life means that some people have a life beset by only the occasional set back, whereas others struggle with constant, enormous mental, emotional and physical burdens.

If God is all powerful, He is guilty of failing to give us all a balanced life. He allows extreme unfairness to persist.

Next Page →