So, a wee while ago I was sleeping with a psychology student. Psychology is about as close to my heart as I was to his arse. So we got along quite well.
One of the games we would play was "Why do you think that is?" Where we would be chatting away about our life, and at any time one or other of us would ask 'why do you think that is?' throwing down the gauntlet to the other to come up with some feasible, psychological reason for whatever incident was being discussed.
Only, my abilities were underestimated. Not only could I come up with a reason, but I could come up with two. And not just two; but two diametrically opposed arguments.
Take, for example, this: he said "I need to be in a relationship. I can't do single"
I know. I've discussed "those" types before.
But argument number one is that he was an only child. As an only child he was showered with love, affection and attention. So much so, in fact, that when he moved away to university he needed a replacement for that love. He distracted himself from his loss, his sudden isolation and loneliness with a substitution: he substituted the love of his parents, that relationship with another. A crutch to replace what was missing and to occupy the time and space previously filled to keep him out of trouble or morbidity. Displacement or distraction or replacement.
Or...
He came from a very large family. He felt underappreciated, insignificant, overlooked. He desired to be loved like other people, became jealous of it. The more siblings he had, the more dilute the attention he got, the stronger his desire for more attention. And so, on being released into the world, he found people willing to give him that attention for little or no sacrifice on his part. Envy.
This is just a brief demonstration not just of how subjective such assessments can be, of the caution to be exercised before rushing into an assessment, but of my ability to see and argue either side of a dispute, regardless of whether the point which I end up fighting for is the one with which I agree.
And that is why, on the more discursive posts on here I explore all the arguments, validly arguing all sides without necessarily drawing conclusions or even necessarily opining. I'm not, after all, the Daily Mail.
Thank goodness.
One of the games we would play was "Why do you think that is?" Where we would be chatting away about our life, and at any time one or other of us would ask 'why do you think that is?' throwing down the gauntlet to the other to come up with some feasible, psychological reason for whatever incident was being discussed.
Only, my abilities were underestimated. Not only could I come up with a reason, but I could come up with two. And not just two; but two diametrically opposed arguments.
Take, for example, this: he said "I need to be in a relationship. I can't do single"
I know. I've discussed "those" types before.
But argument number one is that he was an only child. As an only child he was showered with love, affection and attention. So much so, in fact, that when he moved away to university he needed a replacement for that love. He distracted himself from his loss, his sudden isolation and loneliness with a substitution: he substituted the love of his parents, that relationship with another. A crutch to replace what was missing and to occupy the time and space previously filled to keep him out of trouble or morbidity. Displacement or distraction or replacement.
Or...
He came from a very large family. He felt underappreciated, insignificant, overlooked. He desired to be loved like other people, became jealous of it. The more siblings he had, the more dilute the attention he got, the stronger his desire for more attention. And so, on being released into the world, he found people willing to give him that attention for little or no sacrifice on his part. Envy.
This is just a brief demonstration not just of how subjective such assessments can be, of the caution to be exercised before rushing into an assessment, but of my ability to see and argue either side of a dispute, regardless of whether the point which I end up fighting for is the one with which I agree.
And that is why, on the more discursive posts on here I explore all the arguments, validly arguing all sides without necessarily drawing conclusions or even necessarily opining. I'm not, after all, the Daily Mail.
Thank goodness.
No comments:
Post a Comment