I've found the reason for the evilness in this world!
So it might be more like “one of the many reasons” (although I think it is an important one) and it might not play into all kinds of evilness (I'd leave out flip-flops and Martha Steward).
But still, while I was having a shower, reflecting (i.e. stating my opinion to an invisible audience) the documentary and panel discussion I had seen on TV tonight (and I don't mean the boykissing part), it occurred to me, why people are so easily drawn to prejudice, homo-, xeno-, whateverhaveyou-phobia, war, religious fanatism, nationalism, why they don't respond to your arguments in discussion (or even acknowledge you have arguments), why there are questions like “are you with me or against me” - in short:
why people are dumb.
The answer is: monocausalism. (to say “monocausalism is the reason” is a nice paradoxon, but as I said above, it is, of course not, only the one that I think is often underrated, but nonetheless highly important.)
Monocausalism comes in different disguises and can cause several other “syndromes”, like stereotypal thinking, “monoconsequentism” (i.e. not acknowledging the possibility of a scenario to have more than one outcome) and generalisation. But all of them can be traced back to monocausalism or at least require the same way of thinking: A inevitably leads to B - and the other way round. To say “A is dumb - because she's blonde” and “A is blonde - so she's dumb” are just two expressions of the same kind of idiocy.
Here are some examples of where monocausalism appears - and my theories about why it is so widely-spread:
1.
“Why did WW1 begin?” - “Because Franz Ferdinand was shot.”
People often confuse “trigger” and “reason”. To say the shooting of the Austrian Prince was the trigger (or “pretence” or “final drop”) is all right from my point of view. But it is not a reason, much less the reason (if I shot Prince Charles, GB would certainly not declare war to Germany). To understand the reasons one has to delve deeply into the complicated net of alliances between the Europeans countries of the time, explore power structures, hostilities, anxieties, psycholgies of political leaders, the atmosphere of the time, the economical dimensions and on and on and on. And even if you did all this it is still difficult to figure out the main reason. Because even if you have one, it often needs further reasoning.
Still, the only thing most people still now is “they shot Franz Ferdinand” (we can count ourselves if they still know why they shot him. And who “they” is). Sure, I acknowledge that one can't remember every detail of everything one learnt in school or read somewhere. The thing that bugs me is that people don't say “it had something to do with that shot prince... but why exactly... no idea.” They just deem their own half or quarter knowledge as full knowledge instead of admitting to not knowing the background.
This might be harmless or amusing in some cases, but is dangerous/infuriating/annoying in many others.
2.
“Why did WW1 begin?” - “Because Germany wanted it.”
People need an easy explanation - if possible with someone to blame.
I don't want to start a historical discussion about the righteousness of the Treaty of Versailles or who is to blame for this war (I did that in school, thank you). My estimate is that this answer contains a certain amount of truth. The point is that it's just one part of a large picture. Whether the part is huge or tiny - that’s open for discussion. But that a larger picture exists (has to exist) is something no sane historian would disagree with.
And it leads us straight to the concept of “the others”. Hello prejudice. Just listen to a palestinian saying “They took our land and murdered our people so it's just fair that we go over to them and kill their children.” Same thing on the other side, of course. The unabilty to accept own faults.
“Who is to to blame?” - “They”. “Why did this happen?” - “Because of them.”
3.
“No War for Oil!”
Yes, I proudly shouted that while I was demonstrating for peace. Because a demonstration is not the place to discuss intentions, moral questions, alternatives and so on, but to say “no” or “yes” to something. There is nothing wrong with slogans - as long the place for said discussion still exists. I have to admit that I was shocked, when people stated they really believed this was the one and only reason why one single person (“W”) invaded Iraq.
Hello? Where am I?
Of course, dominance in the middle east (and why would people want dominance there? Has to have got something to do with the oil) was a reason for this war. You can even call it the main reason. But not the reason. How much power does Bush have? Did he decide this? Was it Cheney? Rice? Did they really believe this stuff about weapons of mass destruction? Hell, maybe Bush really thought he was doing the Iraqis a favour, I don't know! I have my theories, I like to discuss them, I can say which of those I think are more or less likely. But that’s it. And I don't think that those people saying “Bush did it because he wants oil period.” know that much more about it than I do.
4.
Nature or Nurture?
This is what brought me to writing this. In this documentary I watched they asked whether illnesses, character traits and sexual behaviour are caused by our genes or by our surroundings. After that they had a discussion with to experts. Although I liked what they were saying, the questions of the moderator showed how difficult the concept of “both, more or less, depending” is to grasp.
What we are, with all our characteristics, weaknesses and strengths depends on both our genetic heritage AND our upbringing and surroundings.
In some cases (like Anorexia) the genetic influence might be low. In others (homosexuality) it might be higher. Sometimes people get lung cancer because of their genes, sometimes because of smoking, sometimes because of both. Some ethnical groups might be more susceptible for certain illnesses than others. Or less. And that doesn't mean that this applies to every single one of this group. In some cases the question is wrong. Is there a gene for intelligence? There is not even a standard definition of intelligence. And just because you have a higher risk to become depressive because of your genes doesn't mean you will certainly get a depression. Or the other way round.
Still, the mod kept asking exactly those questions (Can we say for sure? Does that mean that...?). I don't know why all of the above is so hard to understand, but it appears to be.
5.
Straight or Gay?
My favourite discussion. And one of those questions I can't answer, because I don't know whether to say “neither” or “both”. I think one of the reasons why bisexuals are much less often discussed than strictly homosexual people is that they they are not as easily to grasp.
Homosexuals sleep with partners of the same sex, heterosexuals with partners of the other sex. Bisexuals... sleep with both, yes, but is it fifty-fifty? To how many men and to what degree must a man feel seuxual desire until he's bi? When does he become gay? A fourty-year old woman, who only ever had sex with men, and suddenly falls in love with a woman she spends the rest of her life with - is she bisexual? An ex-hetero, now-homo? Homosexual people are “they”, bisexual's are neither “we” nor “they” - and therefore vaguely threatening.
6.
“What causes Climate Change?” - “CO². ”
Yes. Among other things!
Also, we do not know if “Wilma” was a cause of the climate change. It's possible. Not more. We don't know how much sea level will rise - if at all. Climate is complicated. Very complicated. There are so many variables to take into account, we can't foretell what will happen. We don't even know for sure how much is really caused by man. It looks like that - but there could be other explanations.
Of course we shouldn't blow gasses into our atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. We should protect our environment, build envionmental friendly cars and sue companies that violate environmental laws. But no one can say “10% less CO² = 10% less global warming”. It just doesn't work that way. Maybe the situation is not as bad as we think - maybe it's worse. But no one can tell for sure. We can make simulations and construct theories and accumulate data - but there are no definite answers. That’s why all those clever people are still discussing about what is happening.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!
*breathes*
So, we have multiculturalism and multiopinionalism - don't you think multicausalism might be a good thing, too?
In conclusion: What I'm trying to say is that I'm so superior to others not because of my higher-than-average intelligence or charisma, but because I can answer the question “are you introverted or extroverted” only with a definite “depends...”. Those who find the paraoxon here may ask a personal question of their own choice.
Also: I finished knitting my first sock. It's kinda huge. And bulgy. Well.
But still, while I was having a shower, reflecting (i.e. stating my opinion to an invisible audience) the documentary and panel discussion I had seen on TV tonight (and I don't mean the boykissing part), it occurred to me, why people are so easily drawn to prejudice, homo-, xeno-, whateverhaveyou-phobia, war, religious fanatism, nationalism, why they don't respond to your arguments in discussion (or even acknowledge you have arguments), why there are questions like “are you with me or against me” - in short:
why people are dumb.
The answer is: monocausalism. (to say “monocausalism is the reason” is a nice paradoxon, but as I said above, it is, of course not, only the one that I think is often underrated, but nonetheless highly important.)
Monocausalism comes in different disguises and can cause several other “syndromes”, like stereotypal thinking, “monoconsequentism” (i.e. not acknowledging the possibility of a scenario to have more than one outcome) and generalisation. But all of them can be traced back to monocausalism or at least require the same way of thinking: A inevitably leads to B - and the other way round. To say “A is dumb - because she's blonde” and “A is blonde - so she's dumb” are just two expressions of the same kind of idiocy.
Here are some examples of where monocausalism appears - and my theories about why it is so widely-spread:
1.
“Why did WW1 begin?” - “Because Franz Ferdinand was shot.”
People often confuse “trigger” and “reason”. To say the shooting of the Austrian Prince was the trigger (or “pretence” or “final drop”) is all right from my point of view. But it is not a reason, much less the reason (if I shot Prince Charles, GB would certainly not declare war to Germany). To understand the reasons one has to delve deeply into the complicated net of alliances between the Europeans countries of the time, explore power structures, hostilities, anxieties, psycholgies of political leaders, the atmosphere of the time, the economical dimensions and on and on and on. And even if you did all this it is still difficult to figure out the main reason. Because even if you have one, it often needs further reasoning.
Still, the only thing most people still now is “they shot Franz Ferdinand” (we can count ourselves if they still know why they shot him. And who “they” is). Sure, I acknowledge that one can't remember every detail of everything one learnt in school or read somewhere. The thing that bugs me is that people don't say “it had something to do with that shot prince... but why exactly... no idea.” They just deem their own half or quarter knowledge as full knowledge instead of admitting to not knowing the background.
This might be harmless or amusing in some cases, but is dangerous/infuriating/annoying in many others.
2.
“Why did WW1 begin?” - “Because Germany wanted it.”
People need an easy explanation - if possible with someone to blame.
I don't want to start a historical discussion about the righteousness of the Treaty of Versailles or who is to blame for this war (I did that in school, thank you). My estimate is that this answer contains a certain amount of truth. The point is that it's just one part of a large picture. Whether the part is huge or tiny - that’s open for discussion. But that a larger picture exists (has to exist) is something no sane historian would disagree with.
And it leads us straight to the concept of “the others”. Hello prejudice. Just listen to a palestinian saying “They took our land and murdered our people so it's just fair that we go over to them and kill their children.” Same thing on the other side, of course. The unabilty to accept own faults.
“Who is to to blame?” - “They”. “Why did this happen?” - “Because of them.”
3.
“No War for Oil!”
Yes, I proudly shouted that while I was demonstrating for peace. Because a demonstration is not the place to discuss intentions, moral questions, alternatives and so on, but to say “no” or “yes” to something. There is nothing wrong with slogans - as long the place for said discussion still exists. I have to admit that I was shocked, when people stated they really believed this was the one and only reason why one single person (“W”) invaded Iraq.
Hello? Where am I?
Of course, dominance in the middle east (and why would people want dominance there? Has to have got something to do with the oil) was a reason for this war. You can even call it the main reason. But not the reason. How much power does Bush have? Did he decide this? Was it Cheney? Rice? Did they really believe this stuff about weapons of mass destruction? Hell, maybe Bush really thought he was doing the Iraqis a favour, I don't know! I have my theories, I like to discuss them, I can say which of those I think are more or less likely. But that’s it. And I don't think that those people saying “Bush did it because he wants oil period.” know that much more about it than I do.
4.
Nature or Nurture?
This is what brought me to writing this. In this documentary I watched they asked whether illnesses, character traits and sexual behaviour are caused by our genes or by our surroundings. After that they had a discussion with to experts. Although I liked what they were saying, the questions of the moderator showed how difficult the concept of “both, more or less, depending” is to grasp.
What we are, with all our characteristics, weaknesses and strengths depends on both our genetic heritage AND our upbringing and surroundings.
In some cases (like Anorexia) the genetic influence might be low. In others (homosexuality) it might be higher. Sometimes people get lung cancer because of their genes, sometimes because of smoking, sometimes because of both. Some ethnical groups might be more susceptible for certain illnesses than others. Or less. And that doesn't mean that this applies to every single one of this group. In some cases the question is wrong. Is there a gene for intelligence? There is not even a standard definition of intelligence. And just because you have a higher risk to become depressive because of your genes doesn't mean you will certainly get a depression. Or the other way round.
Still, the mod kept asking exactly those questions (Can we say for sure? Does that mean that...?). I don't know why all of the above is so hard to understand, but it appears to be.
5.
Straight or Gay?
My favourite discussion. And one of those questions I can't answer, because I don't know whether to say “neither” or “both”. I think one of the reasons why bisexuals are much less often discussed than strictly homosexual people is that they they are not as easily to grasp.
Homosexuals sleep with partners of the same sex, heterosexuals with partners of the other sex. Bisexuals... sleep with both, yes, but is it fifty-fifty? To how many men and to what degree must a man feel seuxual desire until he's bi? When does he become gay? A fourty-year old woman, who only ever had sex with men, and suddenly falls in love with a woman she spends the rest of her life with - is she bisexual? An ex-hetero, now-homo? Homosexual people are “they”, bisexual's are neither “we” nor “they” - and therefore vaguely threatening.
6.
“What causes Climate Change?” - “CO². ”
Yes. Among other things!
Also, we do not know if “Wilma” was a cause of the climate change. It's possible. Not more. We don't know how much sea level will rise - if at all. Climate is complicated. Very complicated. There are so many variables to take into account, we can't foretell what will happen. We don't even know for sure how much is really caused by man. It looks like that - but there could be other explanations.
Of course we shouldn't blow gasses into our atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. We should protect our environment, build envionmental friendly cars and sue companies that violate environmental laws. But no one can say “10% less CO² = 10% less global warming”. It just doesn't work that way. Maybe the situation is not as bad as we think - maybe it's worse. But no one can tell for sure. We can make simulations and construct theories and accumulate data - but there are no definite answers. That’s why all those clever people are still discussing about what is happening.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND!
*breathes*
So, we have multiculturalism and multiopinionalism - don't you think multicausalism might be a good thing, too?
In conclusion: What I'm trying to say is that I'm so superior to others not because of my higher-than-average intelligence or charisma, but because I can answer the question “are you introverted or extroverted” only with a definite “depends...”. Those who find the paraoxon here may ask a personal question of their own choice.
Also: I finished knitting my first sock. It's kinda huge. And bulgy. Well.