Well IT Happened to Me

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
the psychology of individual experiences being related to group dynamics is complicated and expected. There has however, been numerous instances of this recently here on ATS and I think we need to take a step back and consider some concepts...

Individual...

"Singular"/ "One"/ "Independent" of the Group

To take any event that occurs to, about or for an individual and then make judgments, references or evaluations about a group is both misleading, inaccurate and unfair to all involved.

Group

"Many"/ "Communal"/ Reacts within the dynamics of "Preset" controls and limitations

Groups though made up of individuals react with set guidelines and controls. these may be sociological or administrative. Still the controls are always there and within certain parameters, effect the overall movement and actions of the group.


Anytime we as individuals experience an event, bad good or indifferent; we will as humans place that event within certain categories within our own psych. In so doing we have the propensity of marking our prejudices outside the limits of the group dynamic. This is a natural occurrence and to be expected. We can however, as individuals resist this phenomenon and come to understand the deviations that exist within the group dynamic.

Those deviations are as diverse as the individuals that make up the group. Though by definition, within the control of external factors, the actions of the group are, to some small extent, affected by the actions of the individual.

That stated "Small Extent" can and often does, appear monumental when we are the individuals affected.

Still the rational mind must overcome that particular phenomenon in order to appropriately evaluate our own actions that may have led up to the particular incident.

Some old expressions that apply

"One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch"
"One can ruin it for the rest of us"

Yet imagine the chaos if we allow our own prejudice and misunderstanding of group dynamics to actually determine the outcome of the existence of specific groups.

Johnny was struck by a SWAT team member, so we are going to abolish all SWAT.
Who do you call for the next hostage situation? Barricaded Subject? Sniper?

Chuck is prejudiced and he is black, so all blacks must be prejudiced and therefor relegated to that category forever and never given serious consideration in an intellectual debate.

Jill was hit by a passing motorist, as all motorist must be dangerous and we must abolish automobiles.

It just gets goofier and goofier...

Yet read the threads and one can see where this is manifest in MANY members. Myself included at times.

So the personal challenge is to rise above this and view a topic from an intellectual point of view and not a reactive personal one.

I promise I will from now on....


Semper




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
So the personal challenge is to rise above this and view a topic from an intellectual point of view and not a reactive personal one.


It's SO true! It's always tempting to attribute a negative experience to something or some group so we can aviod it next time.

For example, a woman is raped. If she can "attribute it" to something "men do", she can aviod men and aviod being raped again. She then blames men (the group) for her rape experience. She hates men for what "they" did to her.

It's ALWAYS tempting (to me) to decide that an individual in a group behaves the same as the others. That makes a nice little predictable package in my mind. But even in groups with the worst reputation (say, child molesters) there are individuals who are simply messed up and could be rehabilitated. There are those who were terribly abused as kids themselves and even though what they've done is reprehensible and there's no excuse for it, there's actually a good person in there that just needs some help. I'm not saying they're ALL like that, just bear with me.

What I'm saying is that if we can look at the individuals of a group such as child molestors, surely we can look at individuals in other groups as well and stop the generalizations and prejudiced thinking.

We must rise above the temptation to generalize people. We must not make excuses for our prejudices, claiming that this one time, it's ok, because MOST of the group does this or this group should be held to higher standards... Judging a group by what some do is wrong, no matter what.

Semper!



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Like I said in the cops thread, I personaly find it rather normal that when people have bad experiences with elements of a group of people that is authorized to beat the # out of a person without much reprecushion and carries a gun and aren't scared to use those guns to a deadly extent, its normal for people to distrust or dislike the entire group.

Its like the terrorist situation. Out of more then a billion muslims there are maybe 100k worldwide that have extrimist tendency's and could opt for the terrorist route in life.

How do most people feel about this these days? The exact same as people who had terrifying, painfull and humiliating things happen to them because of bad cops.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I agree, thematrix, it's normal and feels natural, that's why it's so hard and so important to consciously fight against the temptation.


Like the terrorist situation you mentioned. It feels natural and normal for people to fear, loathe, hate Muslims and Arabs, but it's still wrong.
I continually stand up and remind people that Muslims and Arabs cannot all be held accountable for what some do.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Thats why I think its important for cops to take the same approach that people keep calling out for Muslims to do.

Fight the bad apples, condemn them, denounce them, put them in jail and kick them out of the corps.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
It is ironic that I clicked on this thread just before authoring one of my own that pertains to the same issues really. Group dynamics, peer pressure, etc., are all really intriguing me lately.

It is not completely redundant of what has been mentioned here, so off I go.


I'll Be Back!




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I find it interesting that you equate racial prejudice with prejudice against an organization. Organizations are voluntary, and attract certain types of people. This is obviously not the case with race.

Just as NAMBLA is likely to attract men who like little boys, and the KKK is likely to attract racist whites, you can make assumptions about most (if not all) members of a group based on the group that they are in. I'm sure members of the Crips have the same type of commonalities, but this can't be attributed to all black people. Doing so would be something different entirely.

I know you're referring to your cop thread, and I'm not sure why this required a separate thread.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I find it interesting that you equate racial prejudice with prejudice against an organization.


Who did? I DO equate them because no one has provided a meaningful difference. One is voluntary and one isn't. That doesn't matter.



Organizations are voluntary, and attract certain types of people. This is obviously not the case with race.


Organizations attract all kinds of people. The police attracts a bad element, true, but it also attracts people who want to help others, who wish to "protect and serve", who are willing to put their life on the line for the safety of the community. These are the people who suffer under the generalizations.



Just as NAMBLA is likely to attract men who like little boys, and the KKK is likely to attract racist whites, you can make assumptions about most (if not all) members of a group based on the group that they are in.


Following your logic, the police is likely to attract people who want to enforce the law. And yes, you can make the assumption that most of them do.



I'm sure members of the Crips have the same type of commonalities, but this can't be attributed to all black people.


EXACTLY! And the "Crips" of the cops (the seedy element) should not reflect on all cops.



I know you're referring to your cop thread, and I'm not sure why this required a separate thread.


This isn't about cops. It's about people. It's about the idea of generalizing and prejudice.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who did? I DO equate them because no one has provided a meaningful difference. One is voluntary and one isn't. That doesn't matter.


Semper did in the OP. And I did choice vs. birth is a huge difference. I think you know that. If not, then the whole born gay v. choosing to be gay thing would be a moot point wouldn't it?



Organizations attract all kinds of people. The police attracts a bad element, true, but it also attracts people who want to help others....


Let's leave the police thing in the police thread. There's plenty of room there for it. Here is where we discuss the broader picture, or am I mistaken?





Just as NAMBLA ...


Following your logic, the police is likely to attract people who want to enforce the law. And yes, you can make the assumption that most of them do.


It also attracts people who like to carry guns. People who like to be in authority. People who think they look good in uniform...



And the "Crips" of the cops (the seedy element) should not reflect on all cops.


Again, the choice vs. birth issue. There is an obvious difference. The Crips attract violent members who make the choice to join. Your "Crips of the cops" made a choice, as did the rest of the cops.





This isn't about cops. It's about people. It's about the idea of generalizing and prejudice.



Then lets leave cops out of the rest of the thread.

Let's use NAMBLA in it's place. If someone tells me that they are a member of NAMBLA, I can make some accurate assumptions. One being that they are attracted to little boys. Maybe the "bad apples" are the ones that rape little boys, but they joined because they have that same base attraction.

Or lets use the Klan for instance. Maybe the "bad apples" are the ones who drag black people behind them in pickup trucks, but the all joined because of the same base reason, they don't like black people. Or maybe they think they look good in a hood. Different strokes for different folks.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Semper did in the OP.


I read over it again and I don't see it. I'm sorry.



And I did choice vs. birth is a huge difference.


Yes, it's a difference, but not a meaningful one. What does it matter whether one chooses to be part of a group or not? They still shouldn't be judged based on the behavior of others in the group. Never! Whether they choose to be in the group or not.

If I'm a school teacher, I shouldn't be judged by the actions of other school teachers. I should be evaluated for MY actions, not the actions of other teachers. I'm a woman (I didn't have a choice about that). I shouldn't be judged by the actions of the bitchy, golddigging, nagging, feminazi women out there.



If not, then the whole born gay v. choosing to be gay thing would be a moot point wouldn't it?


What? That's totally irrelevant to this discussion. Whether they choose or are born to be gay, the individual shouldn't be judged based on the behavior of others in the group. That's the point of this thread, whether you're talking about cops, blacks, men, teachers or priests.



Let's leave the police thing in the police thread. There's plenty of room there for it. Here is where we discuss the broader picture, or am I mistaken?


No, you're right. I didn't bring police into this. Thematrix was actually the first to mention the cops thread. But the cops are an example of what I interpret to be Semper's point in this thread.




It also attracts people who like to carry guns. People who like to be in authority. People who think they look good in uniform...


Yes, ALL KINDS, as I said. So does the priesthood. But we cannot fault them all for the actions of some.



Your "Crips of the cops" made a choice, as did the rest of the cops.


Yes, and some of the cops joined to make the world a better place.



Then lets leave cops out of the rest of the thread.

Let's use NAMBLA in it's place.


I'm sorry, I don't think comparing the police to NAMBLA or the KKK is a proper comparison. I also don't go along with the comparisons of gay sex to beastiality. That's the same kind of comparison you're trying to draw when you compare cops to the KKK or NAMBLA.

The very purpose of NAMBLA is sex with youngsters. Of course the organization is going to attract people who like sex with youngsters.

The purpose of the police on the other hand is to protect and serve. To make the world a better place. To help people. And it attracts those kind of people as well as the seedy kind.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Raso, I really don't want to argue about the cops thing with you (or anyone)
And I don't want to argue with you about anything.


Let me say something about this, though.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Let's use NAMBLA in it's place. If someone tells me that they are a member of NAMBLA, I can make some accurate assumptions. One being that they are attracted to little boys. Maybe the "bad apples" are the ones that rape little boys, but they joined because they have that same base attraction.


If we could use a group whose sole purpose is not sinister... Like the church choir. If people join the church choir, we can make the assumption that they like to sing. Because that's the purpose of their organization. We might also assume that they are religious.

So you're right. We can make some fairly accurate assumptions at least about MOST of the group. Now, if you find out that on Saturday night after choir practice, half the members are going out to the strip club and getting loaded and paying for favors, can you make that assumption about all of the choir members?

Can we assume that a newcomer in town who joined the choir did so because he liked to go to skin joints and get drunk?

No.

But he could have! That's why we can't judge them all based on the actions of some. We won't know about the new guy till Saturday night rolls around. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and figure that he likes to sing and praise the Lord!


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
That stated "Small Extent" can and often does, appear monumental when we are the individuals affected.

Still the rational mind must overcome that particular phenomenon in order to appropriately evaluate our own actions that may have led up to the particular incident.


Semper, that is kick ass, and superbly worded. It is also superbly applicable to all who have an interest in developing serious self evaluation techniques for personal betterment.

I mean out of all the programs we run, a good choice for anyone is to keep a personal betterment program running resident in memory. Loaded with the kind of code you just posted there.


So the personal challenge is to rise above this and view a topic from an intellectual point of view and not a reactive personal one.

I promise I will from now on....


Well, considering there will always be at least a reactive personal view and resulting action, an intellectual viewpoint is most often going to take place after the reactive viewpoint has occured. But that's ok, because a beauty of intellect is its ability to refine the reactive personal viewpoint towards the next occurence.

Another issue is group statistical data, and what bearing it may have on individual actions. But I suppose that's a whole nuther can o worms...



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
And still the debate rages on whether it is about race, SWAT, police, KKK....

The thread is conceptual people, given that, one can only surmise that EVERY group qualifies and the particular phenomenon should be, at least on an intellectual level, struggled against.

Until we learn to treat everyone as individuals and discontinue the categorization by group, we WILL NEVER MOVE PAST THIS...

Because I am a Cop does not mean I abuse people, nor does it imply I cover for those that do...

Because you are Black does not mean you are a thug or a robber, or that you associate with them.

It applies in every instance and is really a simple concept. Difficult to implement, but what other choice do we have?

There are racists on this board, there are Cop haters on this board, that is evident by their words and very plain for all to see. Yet we have to take the first step and stop placing even them into categories and treat them as individuals. How are we ever to move past this particular method of hate if we do not?

Can anyone tell me an emotion more destructive to the individual than hate?

I do not know of one....

Semper



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
To take any event that occurs to, about or for an individual and then make judgments, references or evaluations about a group is both misleading, inaccurate and unfair to all involved.

Semper, I think you might be on to something.

When I first began posting in 'the race threads', the responses I received gave me the impression that many posters assumed I was poor... you know, a lot of "if you would get off your butt and work, you wouldn't be complaining" kind of comments.

Those posters assumed a lot about me, based on what? My screenname and my politics?

Maybe your words will make them think twice.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

Because I am a Cop does not mean I abuse people, nor does it imply I cover for those that do...

Dont then assume when someone has a complaint about the police force they have a complaint against you.Their complaint may be valid.



There are racists on this board, there are Cop haters on this board, that is evident by their words and very plain for all to see.

I have posted on your Cop thread and had negative things to say about the police force from what I`ve seen,does that make me a Cop hater to you?


Yet we have to take the first step and stop placing even them into categories and treat them as individuals. How are we ever to move past this particular method of hate if we do not?

If I could not become a police officer because I may be ordered to do and enforce something I disagree with,is where I would group police officers who do, together, and ask how could they? to myself.Is that a crime or bad of me from your perspective.


Because you are Black does not mean you are a thug or a robber, or that you associate with them.

It applies in every instance and is really a simple concept. Difficult to implement, but what other choice do we have?

Birds of a feather,we as humans even within a group of birds of a feather will find differences to argue about,welcome to life.

Groups feel safety in there numbers and in a cause or belief.Some people within a group are terrified of leaving those boundaries of it or not associate with anyone else,because its the only identity they have,thats sad.(Cops included)

I`m glad your here Semper and not stayed within your group and had the courage to voice your opinions with the probability some reality might be thrown back at you,that you may not have been aware of.

Having the peace and piece of mind to be able to understand someones complaint about ones belief or group and not have to take it so personal is a matter of patience and maturity.

I have also failed at this and probably will again.ATS gives us a good opportunity to meet all kinds and types of people to be challenged by our deepest thoughts or fears,I would rather people say here on ATS what those thoughts and feelings are than to act on them in society,because they may just learn here they have been wrong.

What I`m getting at is,this thread was a reaction to your other,I learned a lot of things I didn`t know, I dont see you as a bad person,though I do see some bad things within governments and some laws etc.Hopefully you also learned something from people because of that thread,if so? and its positive to you,how cool is that!, if not,I`d be disappointed you didn`t because there were many valid complaints made that you probably would not get to hear face to face on the job.

But by grouping people that you believe are Cop haters or racist etc your already committing that which you wish to stop,without hearing and trying to understand the complaints you may miss that they maybe valid.It probably is more that they dont hate cops or other peoples skin, its the hate of their actions by some or many towards them.

If defensive words are always used then how can someone see anyone as any different,to what they experienced,such as "I dont believe you" "that doesn`t happen" "no we dont" etc.This goes along way to bridging gaps Cops on the thread wish to close.


Can anyone tell me an emotion more destructive to the individual than hate?

I do not know of one....

I hate many things,you do as well and for good reason I`d say and feel safe to assume.

Hating injustice, racism ,murder ,rape ,heartlessness etc along with ones own short comings or mistakes to name a few certainly isn`t a bad thing.



[edit on 16-3-2007 by gps777]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
\When I first began posting in 'the race threads', the responses I received gave me the impression that many posters assumed I was poor... you know, a lot of "if you would get off your butt and work, you wouldn't be complaining" kind of comments.


I hope you don't think that was what I was implying in the cop thread. I was talking in general about doing a better job than everyone else,so that you can get ahead.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
gps,

I like to think I learn a little something from every experience in my life...

HH,

I always assumed you were... well... Gorgeous...

Was I wrong?

Semper



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Raso, I really don't want to argue about the cops thing with you (or anyone)
And I don't want to argue with you about anything.


Nor I BH.




Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and figure that he likes to sing and praise the Lord!




I have to point this out though. When someone has the potential to shoot me or beat me and suffer no repercussions, that is when it is better, and safer to err on the side of caution. The church choir don't carry a utility belt full of offensive weapons.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I have to point this out though. When someone has the potential to shoot me or beat me and suffer no repercussions, that is when it is better, and safer to err on the side of caution.


I think you should err on the side of caution. I know I do. When I see a cop, I'm VERY aware of what I do and how I appear. Not that I'm breaking the law, but I don't even want them to question anything. And I can't imagine your position with the history of cops and race. And I respect that.

And I KNOW there are bad cops out there and any cop I come up against could be one. But as hard as it is sometimes to hold back negative judgment (getting conceptual again) I feel that it's a "sin" if you will, to judge all of any group based on what some do. It's simply unfair to the "good" of any group, whether they carry weapons or not.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Raso,

You are aware that the statistics are this...

Less than 30% of all Assaults are reported

The average closure rate for police cases is less that 40% WAY less

Most crimes committed by citizens go unsolved

The closure rate for my departments internal Affairs Division is over 90%

Most Departments are at that level or higher

Mostly due to Garrity

There are what? 300 Million citizens I think..

I know that there are less than 700,000 police officers, sworn, in the country

(according to the California Department of Justice, in 2001, the average is 1 officer for every 583 citizens. That indicates 514,580 actual officers) {I believe this number to be higher now but not significantly}

So statistically you are more likely to be assaulted, shot, killed by someone from the general population, WAY MORE, than a police officer

The Officer is WAY less likely to "get off" as you put it


The UCR Program estimated 857,921 aggravated assaults,
Crime Stats


So there were approximately 200,000 more assaults then total sworn officers

Statistically your fears are unfounded

Semper



top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join