tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6399176615124237715.post2273063676730684081..comments2016-07-09T11:49:21.344-04:00Comments on One Frame of Mind: It's In Our StarsTrevor Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17116401135931314768noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6399176615124237715.post-22841809130123714552012-02-26T17:17:16.074-05:002012-02-26T17:17:16.074-05:00For what it's worth, let's look at this fr...For what it's worth, let's look at this from the perspective of medicine. There are many illnesses to which that patient's behavior is a contributing etiologic factor: the various complications of smoking or intravenous drug use come to mind. Obesity and its sequelae such as diabetes are a bit more controversial because it isn't so clear whether overeating is really a choice. Be that as it may. Now, I follow a lot of blogs where the topic of health insurance and the health care "reform" act are frequently discussed. One of the arguments often raised against expansive (vs. restrictive) benefits in health plans is that the patients are to blame [that word used] for their conditions and ought to bear that cost themselves.<br /><br />That suggests that the issue is something like this: something bad has happened, and now there will be costs to clean up the mess. I don't feel that I did anything to contribute to the mess, and I don't want to be left holding the bag to pay for the cleanup. So I want to assign blame to somebody else so that I can avoid those costs. This in turn suggests that the culture of blame is connected to a broader ideology, one that says: leave me alone, I don't want to be a part of your society, I am [want to be] an island. This makes sense when we think that the European countries, which have broader social insurance, tend, I believe, to have less culture of blame. If the losses are already covered, the absence of someone to blame is less threatening. In a society like ours where people avoid participating in social insurance schemes, blame is enhanced.<br /><br />Well, if I may digress, last night I watched the movie Mask [not to be confused with The Mask], starring Cher and Eric Stoltz. It says a lot about the whole issue of in-group/out-group, normal/deviant that was discussed in an earlier post on this blog relating to ComiCon. If you haven't seen Mask, I recommend it.Clyde Schechterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10037411039318795888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6399176615124237715.post-62590368179822177382012-02-11T13:39:33.970-05:002012-02-11T13:39:33.970-05:00Suggestions for addressing blame-mongering... give...Suggestions for addressing blame-mongering... give humanity another outlet for its bloodlust? Control breeding for a few dozen generations until we're more high-minded, cooperative, and goal-oriented as opposed to being so aggressively individualistic? Sweeping sociocultural change? ...oh, you wanted practicable suggestions.<br /><br />You're right to read the parallels of casting blame and conducting an outright attack; it seems to me that the former is a socially-acceptable outlet for the urge to do the latter. If actually removing someone from the gene pool will result in your own rejection from society, much better to do everyone the favor of simply isolating the offender (by e.g. reducing his status, income, etc.). Or anyone's status, for that matter, so long as it allows your organization/you to maintain the precious illusion of pristine effectiveness.<br /><br />There's a lot going on here. People want to feel superior and entitled, and if you make mistakes, well, maybe you don't deserve that $100,000 car. If you can find someone else to blame, your own self-image stays intact-- so long as you don't waste time worrying over every peon, colleague, or friend thrown under a bus.<br /><br />To avoid sounding completely bitter, I want to acknowledge that "responsibility"-based conversations do happen; problems are fixed, people learn and grow. But when there's pressure to perform and we don't have the "luxury" of treating our fellow man with all that high-minded dignity... Kill or be killed is still a respected and viable business mentality, if not /the/ respected and viable (business) mentality.<br /><br />So I guess we should all just blame capitalism.<br /><br />Wait a minute, there...<br /><br />OK: Maybe the real issue to address is why mistakes feel like an attack in the first place. If we can find a way to present negative outcomes as opportunities for improvement rather than "Somebody screwed up" or even "We're in trouble," the reduction in pressure could allow people the time to make a more productive response. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I keep coming back to money: ultimately, there ARE consequences for certain negative outcomes because we're not willing to pay for a broken toy. Some companies, relationships, people are big enough and strong enough (read: wealthy enough) to weather setbacks and development; some aren't. When faced with the question of survival, people and corporations get nasty. If cutting a few employees will improve morale and your numbers, that becomes the rational choice. But that's "mean," so we play the blame game until we can feel (and look) better about letting them go. It was all Jim's fault anyway.Pat B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04865720447221493704noreply@blogger.com