Arguing & the Golden Rule

I despise shrinks because they despise the Golden Rule:  Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Me, I would have others answer my questions according to themselves, and stop worrying about the motives and emotions behind them.  I don’t want them vetted, or subject to ideological screening, and I can’t imagine that the shrinks in my place would, either.

I don’t believe in evading tough questions, subscribing to the tough Marine logic of never asking from others what I will not ask of myself, and that includes issues of validating another’s feelings.  If someone else wants to use my answers to validate his actions, well, that’s his busines, not mine, but that’s also out of my desire not to be a hypocrite. 

Being creative involves emotion, yet shrinks have denied it a place in debate altogether.  That’s wrong;  Shrinks and pundits wonder about public incivility, and increasing cases of depression, yet it comes, pretty clear to me, from an unwillingness to convince others that you hear them, as opposed to going through the motions. 

You know that talking fast, according to body language specialists, isn’t a sign of dishonesty?  And yet, shrinks treat them like they’ve done something wrong.  They demand that such “calm down,” yet give no reason, starting with the fact that they’ve never been emotionally heard and understood.  “We can’t validate anger–that would just lead to more of the rame rage,” is a dumb answer, and I’m living proof.

Just because you validate rage doesn’t mean you can’t manipulate, or redirect it.  Ah, but shrinks deny that manipulation is part of their job description.  Look:  Making conscious effort of whether or not to answer a question is manipulation, and social pressure, be it good, or bad, is inherently so.  Any social construct, even as it syncs or spars with instinct, is largely a product of social beliefs, arbitrarily placed, whether or not they actually make sense.

We as a society have placed greater emphasis on thinking outside the box, but at the same time, by thottling fast-talkers, by threatening to punish disengagers with social isolation, we are both shielding and entrenching stick-in-the-muds–a far cry from our ideals, ain’t it? 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t liked having my motives judged, when I’m trying to challenge the thinking of others.  It throws me out of my groove, places me in bad sorts, and just isn’t nice.  I don’t do it to others, and don’t expect others to do it to me.

Try me if you like–go ahead, and see just how bad a hole you can acknowledge me into via a  whole series of bruising questions.  I’m not afraid of beat-downs, and that’s because beat-downs don’t phase me; if they do you, I’d suggest you ask yourself why that is. 

As I see it, I’m embodying the Golden Rule, whereas the shrinks fight it.  Everybody wants to feel valid, yes?  Everybody wants to feel heard?  Well why do shrinks advise counter to common sense?

Well, I think it goes back to Freud–be ever observing, watching, but neutral.  Thing is, when they’ve got to admit they’ve got a dog in the fight, but don’t.  Why deny the obvious, friends?  Such kills me.


About Noitartst

You wanna know about me? Oh, I think, write, and fury. I'd say that about covers it.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Arguing & the Golden Rule

  1. SeanL says:

    “Me, I would have others answer my questions according to themselves, and stop worrying about the motives and emotions behind them. I don’t want them vetted, or subject to ideological screening, and I can’t imagine that the shrinks in my place would, either.”

    Hmmm… Sadly, it is not a good time for me to formulate thoughts and words carefully, so this is a bit off the cuff.

    On the one hand, I would agree with you totally. But I would also ask, have you maybe been in a conversation and realized that the words of your interlocutor were not quite up to the job of saying what they wanted to say? Or maybe they were reluctant to say it outright? Or perhaps they did not know exactly what they meant to say? Sometimes considering the motives and emotions is the only way to understand what is really being said. The words themselves, qua words, have no meaning. It is the speaker who has the meaning.

    Now none of that is to say that you should not be taken seriously.

    But I have to run… I’ve got work to do.

    • noitartst says:

      The whole point of this form of argument is to pressure your opponent to stand or fold. I’ve got plenty of suspicions concerning the what, why, and how, of my opponent’s words, but don’t want it to turn into no guessin’ game. Just spit it out, will you? I’m told I’m very articulate, and frankly wish that the others I talked with were likewise. Just spit it out, will yas?

      Obviously, there’s such a thing as too much pressure, and unless you’re simply trying to torment, you’ll want good cop, bad cop, at least in some circumstances. The entire goal is to bring candor to the fore, and in a constructive manner. Done the wrong way, argument will breed distrust, but done right, argument, I wager, will evaporate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s