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

[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.