Birds of a feather flock together.
Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.
Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?
True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?
Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?
Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.
We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.
Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?
Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?
I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.
Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.
You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.
Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...
The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.
As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.
Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?
Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.
Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?
I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.
We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.
What's wrong with that?
When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.
One of your double-edged swords, again!
I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.
I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.
I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.
Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?
Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.
Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.
We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.
You read horror stories, I didn't know that!
My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.
Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.
You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.
Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.
I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.
I've never heard of that one.
We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?
You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?
If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.
What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?
You have to like them first.
You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!
I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.
Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?
If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.
First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!
A wonderful way to start the new year!
Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.
Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?
True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?
Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?
Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.
We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.
Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?
Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?
I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.
Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.
You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.
Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...
The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.
As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.
Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?
Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.
Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?
I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.
We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.
What's wrong with that?
When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.
One of your double-edged swords, again!
I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.
I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.
I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.
Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?
Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.
Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.
We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.
You read horror stories, I didn't know that!
My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.
Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.
You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.
Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.
I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.
I've never heard of that one.
We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?
You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?
If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.
What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?
You have to like them first.
You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!
I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.
Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?
If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.
First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!
A wonderful way to start the new year!
Posts
