Under the macroscope

[andrewducker]

Over here pigeonhed asked _why_ we needed to know what caused certain kinds of behaviour.

To which my response was that we didn't _need_ to know, but that many people want to know why people behave the way we do - me included. I'd love to know why I'm straight, geeky, smart, unable to draw (beyond very bad stick men), able to write tolerably well (but was completely incapable when at school), etc. I've spent huge numbers of hours reading about human behaviour, in an attempt to understand both myself and others better.

But I know that not everyone does this. And clearly some people find investigation of their behaviour uncomfortable - even when it's in the abstract (i.e. investigation of people that do the things they do).

[Poll #1245164]

Comments

[yalovetz]

Sometimes someone investigating (in general) the kind of behaviour I engage in can be simultaneously fascinating and make me uncomfortable.

[sageautumn.livejournal.com]

This.

(Though I picked fascinating.)

[headinclouds.livejournal.com]

Just what I was going to say.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

I ran head-first into this as a teenager. Some people become confused, some hostile at the thought of/attempt to examine their own motives, the roots of their thoughts and behaviours. Most seem to prefer to deny/ignore there is anything beyond the immediate surface - or seem genuinely baffled.

Maybe because the follow up to "why do we do what we do?" is "How can we change it?".

Also, in later life I have found the superficial, obvious and even stereotypical options a far better predictor of the actual behaviour of real people around me in the real world than anything else. If that really does hold, then there'd be little advantage in knowing deeper roots and therefore little pressure for most folks to be all that introspective.

most people are not really all that complicated...

[andrewducker]

If that really does hold, then there'd be little advantage in knowing deeper roots

I'm fairly sure you're right there - there's little advantage in it. I'm just fascinated by it.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

hmm, me too. but in a far less intense way these days.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I agree with your points, but I guess pigeonhed is saying that sometimes analysing a person can be reductive and even dehumanising. And in some people's hands it can be.

I love digging around in the roots of human behaviour as much as the next nosey parker, but I guess I can understand why people can feel differently. Not that you'd ( I mean you personally) would ever make the link from understanding reasons to 'curing' and 'solving' non-standard personalities and sexualities, but it's not surprising the subject can be a bit prickly in this world we live in.

[andrewducker]

I understand that if people are being judgemental and offensive then that would be upsetting. And that, to me, seems to be distinct from analysis.

However, if the two had frequently gone together in my experience then I'd probably feel differently.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

It comes up in MBTI. You get these idiots saying some personality types are naturally inferior (or some such bollocks) and that gives us all a bad name.

[andrewducker]

Damn those ESFJs!

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. I was trying to make the point that analysing sexuality is the same as analysing taste in other areas eg music or food, but for some reason attention is focussed only on sexuality, and the reason i see is 'to find a cause' and hence 'a cure' and that angers me.

As far as sexuality is concerned, the reasons I found ex-girlfriend A attractive were different to why I liked B, and again C and so on. Some of these reasons may have overlapped some of the time. Some didn't. In fact the reasons I liked A on Tuesday were often different to the reasons I liked her on Friday. I could even think of times when the reasons I liked her on Tuesday were the same reasons I disliked her on Friday. Consequently, there is no 'cause' for my preference just an infinte number of variables. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp?

[andrewducker]

I was trying to make the point that analysing sexuality is the same as analysing taste in other areas eg music or food

If swathes of people could eat any milk products at all, while being fine with all all foods except for that, then that would be worth investigating - and indeed, it has been. When swathes of people are only interested in a specific sex of partner, that too is worth investigating.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

But they don't investigate why people are heterosexual, do they? They investigate the perceived abnormalities. Which is why this is a problem.

[andrewducker]

Yup, we do. There's lots of investigation into desire and how/why it works. It just doesn't get reported as widely, because it doesn't make for the big headlines.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I think its interesting in why people BELIEVE why they do the things they do.

As a 16 year old I was absolutely baffled by other people, couldn't fathom what went on in their heads at all. Psychology hasn't brought me any closer to illumination... and I kinda like it.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think that studying people just like other animals are studied, paying no attention to what they say, or what they say they think or believe, purely their *actions*, might be the most illuminating (and accurate) way to go about it.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Suppose that part of what I am trying to say is that we can never be sure what goes on in anyone else's head - and not our own either. A vast amount of thought seems to be post-hoc. Action happens first.

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

open minded investigation is fascinating, the usual preset narrowminded axe-to-grind nonsense is very uncomfortable.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Generally agreed and that's one of the reasons I covered Psychology at university. I like to think I have a certain awareness of my thinking and why I feel certain ways.

But going from something you mention in passing, I feel uneasy about a need to establish why people are gay and it's the inference that something has gone wrong somewhere. That thinking leads on to trying to prevent or "cure" homosexuality. I feel quite strongly that tolerance and understanding are more relevant to society as a whole.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Just to roll with the most obvious, and most mentioned example...

I am pretty sure that most of the sexual-orientation researchers are just interested, no agenda. It's the people with the agenda (whatver that may be) putting their spin on the results that's the problem - but that's the problem with all science - the use the knowledge is put to. Long and old debate... but I am all for knowledge, once you start trying to proscribe that then (IMO) that's the first steps on a very long and dark road indeed...

Of course it's not just the homophobes who have an agenda.

I'd imagine (which is all I can do being straight) that there might be some gay folks who wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about why, perhaps *especially* if there could be proven to be a strong genetic influence.

Of course this could be used for not-very-savoury purposes - e.g. (if it was at all feasible) parents choosing to abort/meddle with 'gay' foetuses, to ensure a 'straight' child, OR gay parents choosing to do the same thing in reverse...

But - there may be uses of such research that all to the good.

Now here, I *really* don't know, but just suppose there might also be gay folks who aren't happy with how they are, and that unhappiness might not all be due to the surrounding society and its pressures, but internal somehow - and they might like to try a "cure".

Or (if, hypothetically speaking, it could be a temporary thing) just fancy a change for a bit. With that one, there may well be straight people who'd quite like to try out being gay - just for kicks. I mean yeah, you can always *do* it, but it's not the same as having the real desire...

So I say roll on all research (on this and all other topics!), but don't let the results fall solely into the hands of those with *any* agenda. Pick them up and analyse them yourself, see if they can be interpreted another way. Discuss, advertise, publish that. Encourage those who do so. It's, y'know science, that's how it works....