This picture is only marginally related to the article, but it is was taken especially for me by my friend Elisa Gianola (rights reserved), so if you do not like the article, but you like the photos please votarmi the same for the Macchianera Blog Award.
Waiting on the epidemiology of beliefs becomes a discipline truly believe that we can identify some fixed patterns, some common reasons behind the fascination with certain urban legends, of certain common myths often in academia.
Today I will talk about conspiracy theories, in their delusion that needs no explanation apart. The fact is that everyone (but especially, I have to recognize those who have to do with the humanities and philosophy) we have had experience of theories patently absurd but mysteriously become mainstream and almost universally accepted that the "conventional falsehood." I think the appeal of certain beliefs and why they spread lies precisely in this, in our love (often successful) to the paradoxes: it is hard to resist a theory that goes against our intuition, but is also extremely rich in implications, and then makes us see the world in a different light.
The clearest example that comes to mind is the psychoanalytic theory of Freud. Psychoanalysis has changed the world, there are no doubts about his great impact on contemporary culture, but there is only one small problem: it is empirically false, as each of us can testify that he never passed through the antechamber of the brain to make love to his mother. Freud of course, respond immediately that it was the revulsion we feel for incest is a sign of censorship by the superego on our unconscious desires, which is only one explanation ad hoc (a classic "heads I win, tails you lose") only with this simple move has already screwed, why not go for bigots we are forced to consider the idea, to explore all the implications: some blocks that make up our world view are moved to make some attempt, until at some point it snaps something in my head that says "hey, but this is pretty cool! would be crazy if it were really so, why did not I think of that before."
philosophers in particular, I said, like to impress others with paradoxical reasoning, acceptance of which more or less supine depends on the prestige of the philosopher or more generally by zeitgeist: we have not yet released at all, and maybe not ever free from Wittgenstein, people believe that even when we're on the toilet bowl what we do, in fact, is "language game", not to mention the deconstructionists, who believe that any text, including instructions for assembly of Ikea furniture, not actually speak of nothing but himself, negating any claim on its own to refer to nothing outside itself (which is why we serve there, no?).
What usually pushes the philosophers, however, is really the love of paradox for the sake of paradox when things get a bit 'more complicated as regards the ground of psychology or sociology, where ideological considerations, and sometimes the mere wishful thinking often cooperate to the distortion of reality. It is totally unrealistic to expect to find in the manuals for use by schools, a realistic description of the functioning of our societies or impulses that drive individuals to act in certain ways: it says only what people want to hear, have a largely comforting.
An example on which I've discussed recently is the phenomenon of bullying. Until recently the most common description of the phenomenon (still popular among non-specialists) described the figure of the bully, violent and aggressive, as motivated by a disregard of self, low self-esteem and a fragile and insecure personality. Recent research has highlighted that this theory lacks any empirical support (rather than the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that the bullies have un'alta considerazione di sé e pochissima per gli altri, e proprio per questo tendono ad essere violenti) ma quello che dovrebbe sorprendere, in primo luogo, è che qualcuno abbia mai potuto pensare una cosa del genere, e che sia stato pure ascoltato.
Perché mai chi sfrutta la propria superiorità fisica per vessare gli altri, avendo pure successo e traendo conferme dal proprio atteggiamento, dovrebbe sentirsi insicuro? Davvero si pensa che, fra carnefice e vittima, quello che sta male sia il carnefice? Ma la cura dell'autostima sembra essere diventata la panacea di tutti i mali, non solo del bullismo. Qualcuno forse è convinto che dare lezioni di autostima a Totò Riina aiuterebbe a risolvere il problema della criminalità organized.
gone on to another myth psycho-pedagogical, still taught the theory of Bowlby (the most popular on the mother-child relationship, after Freud). The first months of life, Bowlby argues, are critical because the future relational behaviors depend on the quality of attachment to the mother, which is depending on its sensitivity and availability. If the attachment is insecure all the relationships built in the future with other personalities will be characterized by emotional instability and fragility, but if you establish an appropriate attachment relationship (if the child gets enough protection, a sense of security and affection shown by reference ) we have a development ottimale della personalità. Per farla breve, è la teoria: "poveretto, si vede che ha i genitori separati".
Peccato che Bowlby non abbia pensato a verificare se il comportamento tenuto dai bambini nell'ambiente familiare avesse qualche correlazione con quello tenuto nell'ambiente scolastico o dei propri compagni di gioco, o controllare che tali modelli perdurassero nell'età adulta. Perché si dà il caso che, escludendo le variabili genetiche (i figli tendono ad assomigliare ai genitori) non vi sia alcuna correlazione. Ma per questo non c'era bisogno di fare delle ricerche, anche se è bene non fidarsi delle impressioni personali. Ad esempio, basta considerare a quanti è capitato di incontrare il classico angioletto well-bred which is the joy of the parents, which turns into a psychopathic creature Lovecraftian immense destructive power is not just out of reach. People adapt to their environment that they find, and do not have any meaning, for survival, slavishly copying the patterns of behavior learned in one context to play them anywhere. The theory has no other function than to easily identify those responsible for a bad outcome of education. Continuing
second Gregory Bateson, schizophrenia is a result of "double bind", or of ambiguous messages. That is, if you insist on giving conflicting messages to your kids, those at risk of becoming schizophrenic. Esempio (tratto dall' Enciclopedia multimediale delle scienze filosofiche ): "la madre torna a casa carica di pacchi della spesa […] il figlio di sei anni le si fa incontro, pronto ad abbracciarla. La madre gli dice: 'Abbracciami, perché non mi abbracci?', mentre invece questo evidentemente è impossibile, dato che ha in mano i pacchetti". Miseriaccia, l'avreste mai detto che un incidente così banale può portare a una cosa seria come la schizofrenia?
A proposito di Freud, oltre al complesso di Edipo, si potrebbero citare altre amenità, come l'invidia del pene, che fanno tanto arrabbiare le femministe, salvo che le femministe hanno poco da gioire perché are among the principal determinants of the spread of theories no less absurd than Freudian. One of my favorites is that of the diffusion front of matriarchal societies, the paleolithic era, this patriarchy and male oppression and of course responsible for all the wars and violence. Classic example of evidence that goes across from one side (you know many matriarchal societies, you?) And theory that goes in the opposite direction (the matriarchy is the true "natural" state of humanity).
Many feminists, then, are also convinced that our current Western society is "particularly" oppressive to them, and this, needless to say, goes against all evidence. Societies that oppress women, it's trivial but it is worth remembering, not the ones with advertising posters and naked women everywhere attacked, but those where naked women are not seen just never (want to give you any feedback on good taste certain images). And these are companies where you consume more often violence against women. I just do not want to hear you say, perhaps because this is how we would remove a scapegoat (which is not human nature) for the violence that still occur.
The review ends here because otherwise it becomes too controversial, and I do not have it with anyone. I reflected on the possible usefulness of certain theories, because the natural history also offers wonderful examples of completely counterintuitive theories proved right: the Copernican theory tells us that the Sun is stationary, against appearances, and the Earth is moving at high speed even though we do not notice anything. And even the continents are moving close to or far from each other, thanks to forces that we can scarcely imagine (what can move a continent?).
But Galileo and Wegener had not met immediately by the unconditional approval of the scientific community. On the contrary, as we know. This is not an evil, despite the petty rules with which he tried to silence Galileo: scientific theories must be innovative criticized, even at the cost of making the figure of the old conservative, so that we can understand what they really hope and what are simply crap. Today everyone wants to be revolutionaries, the problem of science is to protect you from Galileo, to embrace and avoid any nonsense just because it is inconsistent with the knowledge handed down and even with good sense (I think homeopathy, I think creationism). Or maybe because it is convenient from a political point of view.
0 comments:
Post a Comment