|
Finally spring is upon us. I hope you are enjoying it as
much as I am.
March is almost over, but I have managed to complete
this newsletter before it's gone, so I can still call it the
March newsletter.
Jealousy and Self-Deception
Jealousy has long been recognized as a source of
human misery and destruction. It is no accident that it
holds a place of honor in the Ten Commandments. All
major religions consider jealousy to be a grave sin. Few
of us are free of jealousy, and that is because it has a
strong biological basis. The drive for power and success
is inherent in all living things. When we see others
being more successful than we are or having things we
don't, it is natural to feel jealous. The irony is that, as I
will shortly be explaining, when we are jealous of
others, it is really ourselves that we are resenting.
We can suffer from jealousy without even being aware
of it. Lola, my college age daughter, often brings her
friends over for dinner, giving me the opportunity to
pick the brains of the bright stars of the college-age
generation (much to Lola's consternation).
One of her friends expressed his contempt for kids who
are born to families with great wealth (for example,
George W. Bush) because they have a huge, unfair
advantage over people like himself. It is much easier for
the offspring of the wealthy to reach positions of
political power than for someone born into meager
means. (It IS possible, as Bill Clinton proved,
but it is harder).
I asked Lola's friend, if he were given a choice, would
he prefer to have been born into great wealth? He
said "Of course!" I pointed out to him that but a few
moments ago he expressed his contempt for those born
into wealth. Thus, he hates the person he would like to
be!
Yes, when we are jealous, we hate the person we
would like to be! What foolishness! We would be better
off being happy for those who have what we wish for,
and hoping that maybe one day we, too, will be as
fortunate as they are.
|
|
"The Passion" and Violence in Entertainment |
 |
|
Mel Gibson is a genius, having produced what may
become the biggest blockbuster movie of all time. What
I don't understand, though, is how, being a devout
Christian, he can produce such a film. He isn't stupid.
Perhaps he doesn't read the professional psychological
journals, but anyone who reads newspapers and
watches news on television knows that violence in
entertainment desensitizes people to real-life violence.
Why would Mel Gibson make a film that will desensitize
viewers to Jesus' pain? And if we become desensitized
to the pain of Jesus, won't we also become
desensitized to the pain of ordinary mortals?
I also don't understand the excitement of the country's
Christian leaders, either. Why are they encouraging
their flocks to see a film that will desensitize them to
the pain of their Lord?
Because they AREN'T stupid. Violence in entertainment
has always been used to SENSITIZE people to life
problems. Virtually all literature, including the Greek
tragedies and the Bible, is full of violence.
Entertainment is one of the most powerful teaching
tools, giving us windows into aspects of life that we
otherwise may miss. In modern times, entertainment
has served to raise people's awareness to the plight of
Blacks, Jews, Latinos, Irish, women, Gays and Lesbians,
the learning disabled and people with various other
handicaps, and virtually every minority you can think
of, including endangered animal species. It has raised
sensitivity to child abuse, drug abuse, and a host of
other social problems. I would bet that entertainment,
more than any other force in modern life, has sensitized
people to human suffering.
The only people that have seemed to miss the purpose
of violence in entertainment are those researchers who
are invested in proving that violent entertainment
causes violence in real life.
|
|
|
A Difference between Conservatives and Liberals |
|
|
In my seminars on Anger Control, I explain how
agriculture unleashed the explosion in human population
by freeing us from the food limitations we experienced
as hunter/gatherers. Since the Earth cannot sustain
unlimited human population growth, wars, epidemics,
contraception and abortion are some of the ways in
which our population is controlled.
A major difference between conservatives and liberals
lies in their respective attitudes towards abortion and
warfare. Liberals tend to be in favor of abortion and
against warfare, while conservatives tend to be against
abortion but more quick to endorse warfare.
Both abortion and warfare are forms of killing. One or
the other is needed for limiting the population
explosion. The difference is that conservatives are
more inclined to have people die once they have
reached adulthood, while liberals want to have people
die before they have left the womb. Which is better?
That's a tough philosophical question, and I don't know
the answer. All I do know is that both conservatives
and liberals promote some form of death.
|
|
|
Read Previous Newsletters |
|
|
My mailing list grows from month to month, and many
of you may not have seen my previous newsletters. If
you like this one, you will probably like my old ones,
too. The ideas tend to be different from those
you are used to hearing, so I invite you to read them. I
am providing here a link to the webpage that gives you
access to my newsletters. As always, I invite you to
reprint them and distribute them as you see fit. Just
kindly give me credit as author.
Read Izzy's previous newsletters. »
|
|
|
Movie Recommendation: Woody Allen's "Anything Else" |
|
|
I have often said that the best psychologists are
comedians. They see our weaknesses and show us
what we are really like. Of all the comedians, none has
a more insightful grasp into human psychology than
Woody Allen.
A few months ago, I wrote about neuroses and
personality disorders. Personality disorders have
traditionally been considered more pathological than
neuroses, a step closer to psychosis. What has
perplexed the experts, though, is the fact that people
with personality disorders do not decompensate to
psychosis any more frequently than neurotics do. My
opinion is that they are really two sides to the same
coin, with the difference being that neurotics tend to
blame themselves while the personality disordered
blame others. Since blaming does not solve problems,
both are limited in their ability to deal with life.
Woody Allen's latest film, Anything Else, available on
DVD, does a magnificent job of demonstrating the
complimentary nature of neurosis and personality
disorders. The movie is an interesting twist on his
typical neurotic love-affair stories. Woody Allen
befriends a young Jewish man, Jerry (Jason Biggs), who
is a psychological replica of his younger self. Jerry is
hopelessly in love with a personality disordered young
woman, Amanda (Christina Ricci), who takes terrible
advantage of him. Woody Allen gets to advise the
younger neurotic with the benefit of the wisdom that
comes with age and experience.
Perhaps the main message of the film is that he
neurotic and the personality disordered are the pot and
lid that go together, one being no more healthy than
the other. The personality disordered is the manipulator
and the neurotic is the sucker. You can't have one
without the other.
|
|
|
Marriage and Personality Disorders |
|
|
I have often been struck by the observation that
mental health professionals get divorced at least as
often as the general population. When I talk to them
about their ex-spouses, they inevitably describe their
exes as personality disordered. Mental health
professionals are supposed to be adept at quickly
diagnosing problems. Yet we can date someone for
months and even years and not realize that they're
personality disordered until after the wedding!
|
|
|
Biologically Programmed Behaviors |
|
|
Sometimes seminar participants criticize me for
supposedly contradicting myself. I am grateful for such
criticisms because they make me think and sharpen my
views.
On a few occasions, I have been told that I claim that
anger is a genetically programmed behavior, yet I tell
people they can stop themselves from getting angry.
They tell me that just like you can't control hunger and
the need to urinate, if anger is a genetically
programmed behavior, how can I tell people it can be
controlled?
What is the answer to this dilemma? Eating, urinating,
and anger are biologically programmed behaviors, but
the first two are NEEDS, while the latter is a
RESPONSE. You can't live without eating and urinating,
so we cannot make these needs go away without
dying. However, anger is a response - a response to
danger (pain or the fear of pain). If there is no danger,
then anger doesn't get triggered. Biologically we are
best off if we have a life without danger. And in
civilization we don't experience as much danger as
when we were living in nature.
What I teach is that the things that trigger our anger
in civilization are not true dangers. When you realize
that the people who have been triggering your anger
are not real enemies looking to injure you or kill you,
then it is a simple matter not to respond with anger.
|
| Quick Links... |
|
|
