Nick Coons Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I have an idea, a hypothesis; I don't want to call it a theory because I don't think it deserves that kind of credibility yet.. it's just based on my observations. The saying goes, "You have to suffer in order to appreciate what's good, or understand what's bad, or..." etc. While I don't think this is entirely true, I do find that there may be some truth it in. For instance, it seems that people that I know who have had the worst childhoods are more easily able to recognize bad parenting and the empathize with those who have had those experiences. Those same people also seem to be more open to the ideas of arrived at by rational thought (anarchism, atheism, non-aggression, etc). To contrast, people that I've talked to who have had only mildly bad childhoods (I don't personally know anyone that had good parents by the standards I would judge, even though many of them would self-report has having good parents) who most in society would consider to be "well-adjusted" seem to have the most difficulty with the acceptance of rational thought at a non-superficial level. They also seem less empathetic, and will respond to claims about another's bad childhood with comments like "stop blaming your parents." So the hypothesis is this. There is an evolutionary component to human psychology that prevents really bad things (caused by other humans) from propagating for extended periods of time, because such events would eventually lead to extinction. As an example, if people alive in the 1940s didn't recognize the evils of the holocaust and therefore did nothing to stop it, those practices would have spread until humanity was extinct. People who suffer bad experiences are able to recognize those as bad and make a major shift toward improvement because not doing so would more likely mean their early demise. People that don't go through the same degree of suffering have less of a survival-based need to recognize it or do anything to combat it. In other words, there is an evolutionary backstop to human suffering in order to prevent extinction. If the hypothesis doesn't hold, I'm sure there would be some things that could easily nullify it. I'm interested in the thoughts of others here on this. My goal here is to try and explain why it is that, from my observations, people that have had more early bad experiences tend to be more easily able to adapt and improve even beyond people that have not, and I don't particularly careful the corollary of "therefore, everyone must suffer at some point."
LooseBrick Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I know they're kind of crazy but in that 3rd zeitgeist film one of the people interviewed is a therapist that's worked with death row inmates for years. He says the number one predictor of extreme violent behavior is really bad child abuse. So that would kind of go against your idea that 'people that have had more early bad experiences tend to be more easily able to adapt and improve...' Perhaps those guys are just the minority though.
Nick Coons Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 I know they're kind of crazy but in that 3rd zeitgeist film one of the people interviewed is a therapist that's worked with death row inmates for years. He says the number one predictor of extreme violent behavior is really bad child abuse. So that would kind of go against your idea that 'people that have had more early bad experiences tend to be more easily able to adapt and improve...' Perhaps those guys are just the minority though. That's a good point. My initial reaction is that they would be the minority, because it would seem (no statistics to back this up at the moment) that most people that experienced bad child abuse do not end up on death row. On the other side, I don't know any anarchists/atheists that experienced no child abuse. All of them that I've spoken with have experienced what they would classify as above normal levels of abuse.
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Can an objective truth have a subjective experience as a requisite?
Nick Coons Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 Can an objective truth have a subjective experience as a requisite? Are you asking because you've interpreted that what I'm saying would imply that to be the case? I know that my first post and the thoughts contained are not well-formed, so it's certainly possible if not likely that it was somewhat confusing.. completely my fault if that's the case. In answer to your question, I would say no. An objective truth is true regardless of any experience, in fact, even without the possibility of experience (i.e. the Earth is still round even if there is no one nor ever was anyone here to experience it). But it may be possible, if not likely I think, that subjective experiences make it can make it more or less possible for someone to accept than an objective truth is true.
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 But it may be possible, if not likely I think, that subjective experiences make it can make it more or less possible for someone to accept than an objective truth is true. Rather than assigning a gradation to it, I think it's more accurate and useful to say that given that humans are born truth-seeking universality machines, any rejection of the truth must be due to subjective reasons. Such as valuing one's own parents' behavior over the truth. Does this help you to state your hypothesis more clearly? I found "mildly bad childhoods" to be imprecise and even inaccurate if it is described as leading to damaged empathy and/or inability to accept the truth.
Recommended Posts