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

[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.