doctor paradox

Showing all posts tagged psychology:

First, we have to go all the way back to the Enlightenment Age to remember the profound historical rift opened up between Emotionality and Rationality -- a divide that still rages fiercely in our politics today (even moreso of late, as it is consciously being stoked by Bad Faith actors both externally and internally). Next, we look at how Emotionality has been aggressively gendered since (at least) then: women are the emotional sex, we've been told. Men are the rational, cool-headed arbiters of the Best Decisions -- mythologically, after long periods of research, praxis, and careful deliberation. This allows the impulsive, cowboy, "Men of Action" strain of political derring-do to pass by largely unexamined as maintaining Rationality -- even when the only commonality between the two paradigms is often the possession of a Y chromosome. In other words, typically men get to appear rational even when acting impulsively, while women have no such culturally-accepted Emperor's New Clothes...
* Abusive of others for pleasure * Unreasonable sense of entitlement * Controlling * Rigid and intolerant * Cold; callous; lacking in empathy * Lacking in conscience; feels justified to any action to achieve one's goals * Sees others as enemies * Avoids taking responsibility * Lacks integrity * Manipulative * Over-inflated sense of self-worth * Overconfidence; tyrannical righteousness; absurd moral authority * Extreme hypersensitivity when slighted; persecution complex * Black and white thinking; general extremism of belief and behavior * Prone to concrete thinking, vs. abstract thinking * Resents authority * Poor morals * Hypocritical; holds others to standards one does not meet oneself * Projection * Denial * Blame shifting * Lack of object constancy -- have trouble seeing people as complex entities worthy of consideration * no concern for coherency of thought, or consistency of value system * Treat people like appliances, expecting them to perform to their ...
Considering your thought patterns and style of interacting with the world, which set of traits seems to characterize you more: InternalizerExternalizerBelieve it's up to you to change thingsExpect others to do it for youMentally active; love to learn thingsImpulsive and reactive; take action before thinking about things, to blow off anxiety quicklySelf-reflective; learn from mistakesAvoid self-reflection; rarely use mistakes to learn how to do better next timeSolve problems from the inside outAssign blame to others; believe if others would only give you what you want, your problems would be solvedSensitive; try to understand cause and effectInsensitive; prefer to forget and move onSee life as opportunity for self-developmentFirmly attached to the idea that things in the outside world need to changeWork hard to cope with realityStruggle against reality, often by attempting to avoid itInstinctively take responsibility for solving problems on your ownFeel that competent people owe you...
There's a popular and somewhat understandable misperception of culture as a vehicle of reproducing "normalcy" throughout society. However, each historical era makes the cognitive mistake of assuming its particular version of Normal is, well, Normal. And that all eras which came before -- that were obviously ruled by stupid people who could not understand the kind of objective truths we are now privy to in the New Modern era -- were a series of mass delusions in which people fooled themselves into thinking they had The Answers, when they so clearly didn't. Because The Problems continue apace. The twisted social psychological paradox we have not yet managed to escape is our abject failure to understand that we Moderns, too, are trapped within an enormous cultural projection of our current set of utopian delusions. We are no different, nor more special, than all the well-intentioned optimists and sad charlatans of bygone eras we love to thumb our elitist noses at. But our cursed cross...
Upon some additional furrowed-brow rumination over this well-written and thought-provoking read about "Why we can’t rely on technology for a better future" (I did some other ranting as responses within the post), some additional insight: The reality is, old rich dudes don't want to die (and at some point they've realized their days are numbered, despite the best efforts of whatever Calico is liable to come up with in our lifetimes) -- and they certainly don't want to leave a terrible legacy of apocalyptic doom behind them and be made liable for it in the unforgiving (yet malleable, via power) annals of history. They want to leave behind a glittering, unassailably awesome planet full of unbelievable wonders, and they see emerging technologies as their pyramids -- as opportunities to be remembered, and to in some small way escape the infinite darkness of death by living on in the minds of the human beings left behind in the world of the Still Living. They want to be glorified, not v...
Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict. Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity. Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave -- the collective harmony we mistake for God.
the psychology of naive realism: "everyone is influenced by ideology and self-interest. Except for me. I see things as they are."
by doctor paradox · February 24, 2009 Douglas Adams’ “rules that describe our reactions to technologies": “Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works." “Anything that’s invented between when you’re 15 and 35 is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it." “Anything invented after you’re 35 is against the natural order of things." via Luddite by Degrees | Futility Closet.