Some bad Elements of the Human Psyche

Ipemndoh dan Iyan

All living Organisms are comforted by different Aspects of their Existence. This is a priori. I am not of the Plant Family, so I cannot recount the Happiness and/or Sadness of Flora at any given Time or Space. I am an Animal but equally I am restricted by my Animal Type of being bi-pedal – at least after emerging from Infancy into Toddlerhood – in my Inability to account for my quad-pedal Cousins with any Confidence even in our natural State where we share the same Biota. Yeah, yeah, I am part of the Fauna Group.

What I know of the Human Species – my Group’s common Description – are the following, and the Reasons I am writing this short Commentary. My Observations are universal, and they cut across all Human Types; African, Caucasian, and Oriental. The Propositions here about our human Character are general. They are about the Ways we comfort ourselves in our Denial of what we really are. There are Exceptions among us who do not suffer from the negative Attributes I will be discussing. These Exceptions are those who are highly-evolved in Intellect, but alas are overwhelmed in Number by those of us stuck with the negative Attributes.   

One; the Person – another Way of identifying Members of my Group – is essentially attached to Family. This Attachment is not in the Tradition of the indescribable Affection we have for one another we call ‘Love’. 'Love' is a good Thing. It is protective, and the Protection is Virtue when it is for a good Cause. The Attachment that I am talking about here is when Protection is directed at consolidating what is bad. This I call ‘Loyalty’. ‘Loyalty’ removes from us the Ability to reason. We are unable to be sensible, what some would say ‘objective’. We are dedicated to defending our erring Members at all costs. There are many Examples in this Terrain. We can defame and/or slander another Person without thinking twice. Such Degradation of Character comes to us naturally. However, when we believe, rightly or wrongly, that a Member of our Family is thus treated, we are up in Arms, it is then we discover the Nastiness of Defamation and/or Slander. We become defensive to the Extent of insulting the Person so audacious to slight our Family Member. To justify our unrighteous Indignation, we come up with ‘defensive rhetorics’ like: “you don’t know this Person,” or “this Person is well respected,” and so forth and so on. Now, we make you remember that we also do not know the Persons we had defamed and/or slandered. You see, it is okay for us to impugn the Integrity of another Person we “do not know”, but who is also “well respected” but when it comes to our Backyards, that Person who tries to defame or slander our Kin has absolutely ‘no Right’. We apply this same Irrationality in successive Order when it involves our Ethnicity,1 or Nationality,2 or Country. We extend this Unreasonableness to protecting our Friends, and Race, but where these two fit in the Continuum would depend very much on our Individual value Judgment. This Loyalty that forms our Worldview reinforces our Sense of ‘Belongingness’, of being Part of Something bigger than ourselves.

Two; we tell Ourselves that we are “fair” and are “fair-minded,” but what is ‘Fairness’; this salutary Ascription we have thus bestowed upon ourselves? I say ‘Fairness’, at its most basic Currency, is to do and/or say to another Person what we know we will not take umbrage at if directed at us or at anyone we care about.  'Fairness' is Equality of Thought and/or Deed about another Person that will not offend us were we the Ones at the receiving End. So, from the above Paragraph on our Exercise of Loyalty can we say in Truthfulness and with Sincerity that we are worthy of this sterling3 Integrity we have gifted ourselves? In Reality, our Appreciation of ‘Fairness’ ends with attributing that Characteristic to Ourselves. In what we do or say, it would appear we have absolutely no Clue what that Concept represents. Let me give another Example here beside the Example of ‘Loyalty’ we already traversed. It is this: we are at opposing Ends with another Person. We denigrate the other Person as not “openminded”. We then bombard this other Person with Pieces of Information favouring our Position in Opposition to that other Person's. Surely, there must be, at least, a Piece of Information backing that other Person's View? Well, they know that they too have Materials supporting their Positions, but they could not be bothered with attempting to batter us into Submission by assailing us with those Materials. They are letting it be because they know that we hallucinate when we claim we "have an open Mind." Unable to transform that other Person into our alter-ego we get very abusive. Still we do not present any Fact to them for them to identify exactly how our Claims in our Interlocutions are valid. We have not ourselves articulated any Argument to them except for the Opinions we had been assaulting them with; Opinions which also do not reference any Fact, but if they do, distort such Facts. 

The sensible Thing to digest is that an open Mind will endeavour to understand the Generality of Issues, and also the Specificity of various Interests. This kind of Attitude would appositely be recognized as 'Triangulation'. It enables One to appreciate what all Interests are   grieving about or proposing, especially what One's Antagonist is about. One’s Opponent is not always without Reason. It is from entertaining the Views held by all can One sift the Chaff from the Seed.  It is after this that we can settle on a Position that no longer requires us to follow individual Comments which are no more than restating the same Arguments although they might come in different Forms. What is important to note is the Logic of the Position eliciting those Arguments, which we already know from our Triangulation Exercise.

Persons who are rationalised by their Irrationality, controlled essentially by their Sense of ‘Belongingness’, are unable to understand that once you have been “in Bed with the Enemy” and you have become so completely familiarised with that Enemy, you can no longer be surprised, and you are now at Liberty to dismiss the Manoeuvres of that Enemy, especially when you know they are false as calling the ‘Night’, ‘Day’. We then ponder how anyone could be so dismissive, and why should s/he not? It is the same repetitive, shallow, unevidenced, and, unimaginative Sentiments reframed as not to be blatantly regurgitative. That Person has heard it all; it is the same Theme, and only at times with different Representations. Unable to make the other Person abandon own Rationality for our Irrationality,4 we then lash out with what we consider our incisive Determination, but which in Reality exposes the Limitations of our Lacklustre Intellect, if there is any, by disparaging that Other as ‘Mr/Ms Know it all’. Well, well, well, what had we been doing with our Barrages of Propaganda at that Other? ‘The Pot calling the Kettle black’: ‘thou shalt first take out the Log in thine Eye before thou seek to remove the Speck in the Eye of thine fellow Protagonist’. 

Three; we snort at the Capability of another Person because such Capability lay bare our Inadequacies. Instead of engaging with the opposing Side with our self-ascribed Intellect to enlighten that Side, we fling Insults at them for not accepting as Facts all the Pieces of Opinions not referencing any normative Evidence we have sent them, if at all any Evidence was presented. This is notwithstanding that they had assured us of the Willingness to revise their Position if such Evidence held true.  We choose to undermine their Confidence in themselves rather than grab the Opportunity to write our Opinion to that other Side supported by Facts. We tell them they are being “academic when everything is not academic” yet most of the Pieces of Opinions we send them are from Professor this or Professor that. Professor of what, we do not apprise them. What is that? Is it not double-talking? We have to win the Argument “any which way.“ Quite kindergarten, actually. Importantly, Intellect is not presumed in Titles, but demonstrated by Output. What is Intellect, by the Way? No matter how it is presented, ‘Intellect’ ultimately is defined as ‘objective reasoning’. However, this Definition is limiting. It is not comprehensive. It is checkmated to assessing Contradictions. I see Intellect as more than that. Intellect is ‘object reasoning’ as well as ‘innovative thinking.’ Intellect is the cognitive Ability to resolve Difficulties in novel Ways, which is the same thing as coming up with fresh Thinking and/or new Ways of doing Things. This is why I have always argued that Yacouba Sawadogo, 2018 Right Livelihood Laureate albeit almost-illiterate by Western Standards, is an Intellectual, and that he should be awarded a Nobel Prize. He is a Philosopher too: “I don’t want to eat today and leave future generations with nothing to eat. The work I do is to create the seeds for wealth ...”5

On yes; ‘Intelligence’. ‘Intelligence’ is not the same Thing as Intellect. It is of lower Grade. ‘Intelligence’ is commonly misunderstood by the Western World. In whichever Way they define it, 'Intelligence' is generally presumed around two Measures.  One Measure is the Assessment of Memory Retention of Familiar Information called ‘Intelligence Quotient Test’ (IQ Test). Here is something to consider from 'The Bell Curve ...’ (1994): “the average white person tests higher than about 84 percent of the population of blacks and ... the average black person tests higher than about 16 percent of the population of whites. ...”6 I emailed Charles Murray (Political Scientist), one of the two Authors of the Book shortly after Publication I think, asking inter alia, about the Method underpinning the Book. Richard J Herrnstein, the Psychologist co-Author, was already deceased. Murray came back confirming the Method was IQ testing. Anyone who has had a look at Western IQ Tests would realize immediately that the Questions contained do not ask about original Situations but of what One knows about the already-known or what One can recollect about the already-learned. Weird, is it not that Intelligence is tested about learned-Experiences or known Facts if it is none other than to measure Memory Retention? In the US, as in the UK, "black" Folks - as you would include me - do not occupy themselves with the Majority of Information out there with which "white" Folks are absorbed. We have our separate Interests except where we want to be 'wannabees'. So, it is not surprising that "white" People would score greater Marks in Questionnaires about their Lifestyle(s). The 16% higher 'black' Scorers could have been interested in the predominant 'white' Culture for a Variety of Reasons, including Curiosity, simple Familiarisation or Desire for Acceptance by 'white' Folks. Similarly, the 16% lower scoring 'white' Folks could not have been bothered on many Bases, one of which could be the Recognition that the IQ Test is simply another Way of propagating the hallucinatory cognitive Superiority of the Occidental (‘White’). The IQ Test was founded, and hence designed on Awareness of a Combination of Western Culture across Indulgence, Leisure, “general knowledge”, et cetera. 

All Western Definitions of 'Intelligence' arrive at the same Terminus that 'Intelligence' is 'the Ability to learn and apply what is learnt'. They say it much grander than I have as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."  As you would have noticed from my Remarks on the IQ Test, that Test limits 'Intelligence' to Memory Retention. 'Intelligence' in Reality has only one Form to it from which all the Characteristics of the 'ability to learn', et cetera, emerge. 'Intelligence' is the Capability to assess correctly any given Situation, and to respond accordingly. This is what 'Intelligence' is, period. So, if all One is capable of, is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," One is really at the bottom of the Human evolutionary Tree. One ain't, ipso facto, intelligent.

The other Presumption of Intelligence in European Culture generally, and Western Culture particularly, is the Extent of One’s formal Education. 

Four; we are busy-bodies in the most contemptible Manners. Some years ago, a guy approached me at our local Library. We became close Acquaintances. Within a Week of knowing me, he wanted to know what I did for a living. I asked him why, but he said he just wanted to know. So, I asked him why I had not inquired similarly of him. Now, this is one question we should not ask anyone unless its Answer was volunteered (making unnecessary the question) . At another Moment in the Library, the same Person was peering onto my Computer Screen while sitting next to me. I was working on my Curriculum Vitae (CV) at Time. I asked him why he was doing that. He answered by saying one of the Universities I attended "is a good university." I could not believe the Audacity of this Guy who is about 15 years my junior in Age not only intruding on my Privacy but also assessing the Universities I attended. So, I apprised him that he really is a Person who could never stay in his Lane. This Individual's Busy-Body Syndrome arises from Psychological-Insecurity. He was in an irrational Competition with me. He was comparing himself with me. What for? I give these Illustrations to better argue my Busy-Body Syndrome, not for any other Reason. 

Five; we tell Stories. Not only do we tell Stories in backbiting, gossiping, et cetera, we also fabricate Stories to tell about another Person. We invent what to say about them whether or not we have ever spoken with them. You might argue that this is in the same Category as Defamation and Slander. Not necessarily so. Defamation and Slander are intentional Attempts to damage another Person on false Premises. Differently, backbiting might contain certain Truths which are misrepresented or not, some Embellishments in Flights of Fancy, and some Inventions to contrive Familiarity with the Subject Matter. 

Six; We are thieving. This could be by Burglary, Fraud, or Robbery, inter alia. We covet the material Possessions of others whether or not those Possessions were originally acquired by honest Means. We steal from 'the People' by marauding Public Coffers either by directly siphoning Money into our Pockets or indirectly through 'Clientelism' (Government Contracts to our Inner Circles). Fortunately for the World in a Way, not many of us are this ill-disposed. 

Seven; we thrive on Dishonesty. Disconcertingly, majority of the Human World Population are this inclined. 

Endnote

1My 'Ethnicity' is Group Differentiations within National Identities.

2''Nationality' recognizes Belongingness to a Nation. The 'Nation' itself denotes Group Identity founded on common cultural History, and shared Genealogy.   

3I recently read a Piece of quite dishonest writing from someone who uses big Words to make Sentences but did not know how and when to use the Word ‘sterling’. He appears not to know that it is an Expression of Accolade. 

4My Stance on this is quite simple. Each Side in a Disagreement assumes the Rationality of own Side and the Irrationality of the Other)

5https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/yac 

6Herrnstein, Richard, J., & Murray, Charles., The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. 

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM©

AsimauGlobalMedia© 

All Rights 2021©

13 July