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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.