"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."
- Mark Twain
Some people can't cope with it. Either success of some sort of a clean version of good example drives them crazy.
It's human nature. I'm not aware of anyone ever having said that human nature was a good example of anything positive.
It is, however, by some means about which there is no common agreement, one of the components of our makeup which has allowed humans to flourish on every part of our planet.
Some people don't want others to succeed or to be happy or to give the impression that they are achieving important goals in their lives.
They can't raise themselves above the positions they have worked themselves into. So they try to hack away at others to bring them down to their level.
A good example reminds them of their mortality, of their failures, of their weaknesses.
Sadly, very little can be done to help them up. They believe (or force themselves to believe) that they are at the peek of success themselves. But deep down they know they are not.
We can help those who want to improve. We can do nothing for those who believe that they have nothing to improve upon.
Do they like what they see when they look into a mirror? Do they even see anything? Perhaps they see what they want to see and that is all that matters to them.
Pity. We will have to grow without them.
No one builds statues to remember critics after they die. No one creates memorials. They are quickly forgotten while those who are good examples live on in memory and story for generations.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, striving to help those who want to improve.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
If you want more less than larger than life people; Jeffrey Dalmer, Gacey or however you spell that, O. J. Simpson, Sadaam Hussain, the boston strangler, (Jack the Ripper - very romanticized) I am sure these people will become larger than life at the time of their death too.
Your words, and sage advice, are always educational and thought provoking. I only wish I was able to get around and comment on your work more often. I will try a little harder from now on...!
Carol, living on in memory is not the same as someone building a statue in your honour. True, there are modern day Nazis and white supremacists, but none who are socially accepted on a broad scale. I am certain that none of the people whose names you mentioned grew up wanting to be remembered after their deaths in the way they are.
How very true, Mr. Bill. Humans are, by nature, utterly despicable, contemptable, and, likely, unsalvageable. They should be exterminated from the planet, so that the poor trees can finally have some peace.
If any junior high school students happen to find their way to this "article", please be advised that the above is a perfectly good example of awful writing--also known as "gibberish".
MORE gibberish.
I'm not aware of anyone ever having said that human nature was a good example of anything positive.
Hmmmm. I don't think I agree with this. I've heard "human nature" used as the explanation for (as an example) the instinctive need to protect and provide for a family. I think that's a good thing. I think it is usually used to explain things that don't necessarily involve a great deal of conscious thought; but some of our finest impulses, especially under severe stress, are deeply instinctual.
"Good example" is so subjective, anyway, as is "success." I think it is "human nature" to be annoyed by someone/something who holds up a mirror to us, whether inadvertently or deliberately. Someone who achieves something I have failed to achieve is holding up a mirror. Someone who fails where I have succeeded is doing substantially the same thing, reminding me of weaknesses I have overcome, and I may be equally annoyed by that person, if not more so.
Another great article by you Bill, keep them coming and I'll keep reading them.
I also agree that much of this article is subjective. Indeed, most people react to statements of a sociological nature based on their pesonal experience, as if their one example spoke for everyone. It often does, but replying on our own experience as the sole measure of validity of researched work would not be wise.
Thank you Candy. My objective is to inspire and to cause people to think. What I write is not perfect, nor need it be. If each article touches one person deeply, then it has been very successful by my estimation.
I also agree that much of this article is subjective. Indeed, most people react to statements of a sociological nature based on their pesonal experience, as if their one example spoke for everyone. It often does, but replying on our own experience as the sole measure of validity of researched work would not be wise."
Wow! Even MORE gibberish, and it keeps getting more and more incomprehensible.
Actually, Bill, just a few examples of what is in the nature of the human species include: consicousness and conscience, imagination and hope, and spirituality and love. I think we have at least a few redeeming virtues. Agree or disagree?
Those who think my work is crap always have the option to not read it. Reading something you think is a waste of time seems to be an unwise use of your time and talent.
I'm asking this in a spirit of honest discussion -- do you think that any research to do with human emotion/behavior is ever really accurate or valid, given the fact that every person is in fact a product of his own particular experiences?
David, your question jumps into the area of psychology, for which I have little respect because it's based on a whole lot of guessing coming out of theories that often don't stand the test of time.
I made a comment about Freudian psychology a few days ago, believing that no one would accept it since Freudian psychology has fallen into disrepute (though it is making a comeback since no other theory works either in the discipline, so far as I am concerned).
Having said that, I retreat to my own specialty of sociology. Sociology is based on generalizations, which some of its detractors like to mistake (intentionally, so that they can take pot shots at it) for absolutes.
Only at the level of generalization can statements be made with some confidence about emotion, emotional development or behaviour, and only then with the provision that there are exceptions to every generalization.
You will either agree or think I have produce a load of bull cookies here, but that's what I must state about emotion and behaviour. There are no absolutes, and taking a generalization as an absolute would be wrong because one would run into and exception quickly and maybe destroy a life in the process if one tried to use the generalizations as rule books.
Each person is a unique individual and must be handled in an individual way in order to help them.
Maybe they don't need to be reconciled, and the answer is that generalizations are helpful, except when they're not. I guess that's true of a lot of things, really . . . that they're helpful, except when they're not.
My personal opinion is that research into the area of general human behaviour may be valid statistically (which is what sociologists do) if its purpose is to derive strategies for advertising or politics, for examples. But no generalization about behaviour is valid across the board (which would be an absolute).
When studying individuals (what psychology does), generalizations are of no value except to give a psychologist a place to begin (if that is not obvious). As you suggested, people's experiences are so different that even general approaches by psychologists may not work because there are so many exceptions to the "rules" by which they formulate their approaches.
We are all very similar genetically, but vastly different psychologically. We behave generally according to certain identifiable perameters, but they don't apply to everyone and should not be attempted on everyone.
If this helps, psychology and sociology cannot be reconciled, in my opinion. Nor do they need to be. However, neither is much good in helping any given individual with a problem.
More than anything else, a social scientist or social worker who tries to help an individual should not try to fix that person, but should help that person to fix themselves. No matter how expert any peson is, he can't see inside the head of another person. So that person must help themselves. The expert may be able to help the person by steering him toward focussing on certain factors in his life that may help him make sense of things.
The best cure for anyone with a problem is still time.
"EACH PERSON is a unique individual and must be handled in an individual way in order to help THEM."
You might want to try one of the following words at the end of your sentence here, Bill: him, her, or it (each-singular/them-plural). Glad I could help.
(BTW, Bill--hope you're feeling better today. Yesterday you sounded practically apolplectic. And, oh yes, you REALLY went overboard on satisfying my diabolical craving for attention there, Bill. I thought you knew better. )
David? "I'm a little confused by your answer"? I think that you'll find that the more of Bill's writing you read, the more confused you'll get--if you take it seriously, that is.
Do you really think so? I see an awful lot of people with nothing but time and also nothing but stasis and suffering in their lives. I don't know . . . I don't claim to be an expert about anything, but I do think that empathetic intervention (assuming that the person wants it) is better than just plain time. Time by itself doesn't do much without some effort being made, in my opinion.
I've always thought the saying about time healing all wounds was very very strange. Time can equally easily cause a wound to fester, infect the whole body, and kill someone, even in a spiritual, emotional, or metaphorical sense.
Nor can time be the only "cure." Again, focussing on a generalization as if it were an absolute (without exceptions or alternatives) would not be wise.
Time gives people an opportunity to find ways to address their problems. If time is short and the problem severe they often can't see their problem objectively or find a solution because they are too close to it.
I must end my controbution to this thread now because my dialup connection takes too long to reload this page. Join me again in another thread.
There are many people who are sufficiently narrow-minded to believe that general principles are, in fact, absolute. It seems prudent to me, when writing, to try to avoid generalizations or at least to make it clear that I do not subscribe wholeheartedly to them . . . unless I am interested in debating a point at length, in which case it doesn't matter to me.