Interpreting Social Group Dynamics

I've met those who will make personal remarks about a persons political leanings in very judgmental, cruel ways. I haven't come across that yet. They do talk about Republicans as if they have no redeeming qualities.

I personally avoid talking about politics, except in the most general terms. I tend to be a moderate who accepts that both parties have issues. And when I use the term "conservative" I mean that I care about family values and morality.

I'm more concerned with hearing the reasons for why the people in my group believe what they believe, instead of just talking like they are self-evident facts. I care a lot about the difference between what I believe and what I can know and prove.

Considering what R? has said about the Nazarene denomination in the past, he does tend to get his opinions and the facts mixed up, while trying to convince me that he knows more about the topic than I do.

We had a pretty good group last night. I continue to feel more affinity for NB because she cares so much about social justice.

R? teased me about believing I can know the absolute truth, which is untrue. What I've tried to get across is that I believe there is absolute truth (because to deny it is a contradiction), but I have no more access to the truth than anyone else. And our knowledge of the truth is ever changing.

It's odd, because in the past, R? and I had conversations about post-modernism wherein he mocked their relativism, but now, R? himself recently literally said "it's all relative", and appears to be questioning that any absolute truths exist. So, he's been contradicting himself, and treating me like I'm in the wrong somehow. All this with a condescending smile on his face.

I'm sure he does believe what he says. It certainly seems that way to him.

That's what I mean, though. It's more psychological and personal for people like that, as opposed to being a matter of trying to find solutions to problems.

I have debated on behalf of many different political ideologies over the years, and I have determined that I can make just about anything sound good and/or natural, and just about anything sound bad and/or like sheer madness.

So I tend to gravitate to people who are not trying to make an ideology sound like anything, but who rather focus on specific issues/topics/problems and discussion on ideas of how to improve or tackle them.

So I guess when someone tries to paint an ideology as good/bad/whatever but doesn't seem to have given much if any thought to actual ideas to solve problems, well I have practiced doing just that to get a feel for what it's like. And it's all just kind of hysterical and meaningless in the end.

It can always swing both ways, though. By defining conservative (assuming as in like, socially conservative) as caring about morality, that implies that you believe socially liberal people do not care about morality. That is a rather heavy implied accusation. But that's what I mean, though. Going beyond discussion of specific issues and ideas, **** gets messy haha.

Glad your getting more comfortable with your group.

Hmm good points. I have found that many people who do identify as liberal have very different ideas about morality than I do. Might I say, more liberal ideas, vs my more conservative ones? lol.

But, yes, I do want to talk more about what changes we can actually make in our world. Our group does tend to care about social justice issues, and yet, a lot of time is spent complaining about the obvious problems our country has (like the New Jim Crow laws) and virtually no time talking about how to effect some real changes.

And just as I am willing to acknowledge that they are liberal and accept that fact, I would hope that they can acknowledge that I am more conservative, and accept that fact, instead of insinuating that conservatives aren't welcome, without even attempting to find out exactly what it is I mean by conservative, or telling me why people who consider themselves to be conservative are to be viewed with suspicion.

"And just as I am willing to acknowledge that they are liberal and accept that fact, I would hope that they can acknowledge that I am more conservative, and accept that fact, instead of insinuating that conservatives aren't welcome, without even attempting to find out exactly what it is I mean by conservative, or telling me why people who consider themselves to be conservative are to be viewed with suspicion." quote shakesphere

And that has been why conservative leaning individuals don't last long in their group. That is what I don't care for about how "some" Liberals tend to question or be dismissive of any individual that has "some" conservative views but also is moderate. And you are right in that there comes this internal " negative block" that presents in them where they tend to need to look "down on" instead of showing any interest in the way an individual has "some" conservative views. What I personally don't like about that is often the tactical response expresses no respect for the individual as well as using all the things to put that individual down, in this need to defend against which doesn't "see or consider" the individual. For me, that is a biggie because I prefer to focus on the "individual" and consider their needs, as there is often some very complex reasonings behind whatever an individual gravitates towards ideological opinions/beliefs.

I think one possible solution, something I do have control over, is to refuse to label people as "conservative" or "liberal". People are just too complex to be defined by one word.

It's probably better not to label people at all, IMHO. It tends to dehumanize them, and leads to that 'ol "us vs them" mentality.

I totally agree with you shakesphere. Actually, in my own life, I rarely if ever discussed politics with people and my father and mother did not do that either. It was considered a private thing to people when I was growing up. Yet my father did talk about "why" he chose to be Conservative verses a Democrat like his father was. It had nothing to do with not giving/helping others either. What my father did not like is how he saw the Democrats earning their living off of organizing help and he felt it often took the dignity from individuals in need too and even teaching individuals to be "dependents" instead of becoming "independent".

Given your own history with growing up practicing a very strict religion for example, well what that did was actually take away from you learning to be independent and forming your own personal sense of faith. As an adult you are recognizing the dysfunctional way that specific religion worked and how that has affected you in some negative ways as well. When things are "organized" where a person has to follow along with or else, that takes away from how each individual is in fact unique and needs to figure out a path they can take in their own life that offers that person a way to "experience" life, rather than have to live their life according to "measuring up to an ideal of how their life has to be lived".

My father told me about Igore Sikorski for example. He grew up and lived where he did not have the "freedom" to develop and explore his ideas. He wanted to develop a way to fly people, groups of people/passenger planes to different locations. That desire was considered very undesirable and he was arrested and was going to be executed. With some luck he had some connections and escaped and came to America where he did set out to develop his idea of developing passenger planes which he did with sea planes, and that is where my father's father met and worked for him and did fly these sea planes. They chose sea planes because back then there were no air ports like there are today, but, by using sea planes they could land and get the plane into docks where passengers could exit the plane that could land and be next to a dock. We all know how Sikorski and his ideas grew and how that actually was a "benefit" to this country too.

My father grew up learning ways to become "independent" and has shared with me many ways he learned how to support himself, even when he was very young. What I grew to understand about my father in what he shares with me is how he was free to "EXPERIENCE" his life and at the same time have freedoms to experience his life and become "independent" without having other individuals dictating to him how to live his life and become dependent on someone elses idea of how to experience his life. So many things he did, especially when it came to helping others, was to encourage them to learn to do the same. He wanted others to have a sense of personal "dignity" and feel "respected". He did not like how he saw the Democrats take over, add structure and bring in the politics and the kind of individuals who earned a living off of "providing" and then setting up a system of "dependency" and much of the funds that were aquired went towards providing a good living for these "politicians" and then "some" funds went towards a group of individuals that were encouraged to become "dependents" and learn to not only be "dependent, but encouraged to believe they were entitled too".

The ideology of encouraging "everyone" to contribute to the pot encourages a very different "mindset" where individuals are all taught to be a part of a bigger picture, rather than encouraging a portion of a population to develop a mindset of "they are less than and learn to live their lives being dependents".

Most of the individuals that I meet that are immigrants from other countries like this country because they can work hard at whatever they "can" do and earn money and own things they cannot afford to own in their "socialized" countries because of how the taxes are so high on everything to have these socialized systems in place that having something of their "own" is just not doable. Typically, there are still "only a few" that actually aquire the needed wealth to be able to afford their own home and acquire property. Pretty much EVERY immigrant I have met be it from Germany, France, or any other country ALL SAY THE SAME THING. They all do work hard and are enjoying OWNING THEIR OWN HOME AND GOODS that they could not achieve in their own country.

What the Liberals tend to do in reaction to anyone who talks about being "conservative leaning" is present all the ways individuals developed businesses and used child slave labor or had workers that were poorly compensated and worked long hours in bad working conditions. That is a far cry from how my father learned to become "independent" and how I myself developed my own way of making my own money as young as age 10 where I had a following of parents that I babysat for and then later on did clean some houses and was allowed to keep and manage my own money. I was encouraged to work and learn how I could work and earn my own money and as I worked I also learned how to establish a sense of "independence', nothing wrong with that. I encouraged my own daughter the same way and she has learned to be very independent and use the skills she has developed to earn money which she does really "well" at. I also did my best to emphasize the importance of "experiencing" life rather than just focusing on "winning for me or others". It is not unusual for my daughter to set goals and work at a few things at once to make that happen either.

For example, she has a passion for horse showing and competing which is a very expensive sport. She has a job that she can work that actually pays well, while at a big horse show, then after she does that will work making money braiding show horses as she learned how to do that well, she will even exercise some difficult horses for individuals that need it done but don't know how to actually do that themselves. Then she has her own horse that she trained a great deal on her own, as she put in the time learning how to do that as well, and she has slowly developed a sense of "ability and confidence and focus" learned to "enjoy the experience itself" and often as a result, she has actually performed so well that she has literally many times won a competition against many other riders. However, her mindset has been a desire to find a way to "experience" these very competitive shows, not just having to win, but to do her best to "experience" the learning, the training, the showing, the horse gaining in understanding how to perform, her learning how to slowly understand each part of the competitive challenge itself and improving her skillset. But also learning how to find different trainers she can work with rather than settling for being stuck under the control of one trainer who may not give her what she needs to move forward. Which is much like being stuck in a "low income neighborhood" by a group of politicians who claim to have "good intentions", but instead tend to put these individuals in a mindset that they are "less than". And that is what triggers me about many of the Liberals, they do tend to be "condescending" as you have discribed, but after all, they are entitled because they seem to "know better" now don't they?

What I said aside from my long involved post is that for the majority of my life I rarely if ever asked a person what their political preference was. I never asked any of my customers and even friends tbh. I think it has become much more "in ones face" with all the technology we have now tbh. And now I rarely read the comments after an article either because the comment sections are full of the us verses them mean comments.

I still have issues with my interactions with the first group on our secret facebook page from time to time. Basically, it's because I let them know that even though I'm an atheist, I don't have an issue with religions. In fact, I think most religions are interesting. Another national group, the CFI, that some of them are also members of, has this in their mission statement,

and also fights for the right of religious people who are being persecuted.

I do find it offensive when members of our group post offensive anti-religion material on their facebook page. And that is yet another reason to spend less and less time with them, and on their facebook page.

It's bad behavior, you are right, they are not being respectful of others when they partake in that kind of interaction. I don't care to spend time with that type of individual myself tbh.

I plan on going to our group tonight, but I'm not looking forward to interacting with R?

I think my biggest complaint is that he just doesn't play fair, in that he expects me to listen to his views, but doesn't find it necessary to take mine seriously. I'm going to work on getting him to explain himself in public, like just where he got his ideas about the Nazarene denomination.

He also has read some philosophy, and is trying to convince me that he knows he knows more about the topic than I do. I suppose it's possible, but that remains to be seen.

There is something rather insidious about the he is interacting with me. I find myself feeling defensive because he talks like he knows something is true, and that my views are incorrect, without really even making an argument, so it's virtually impossible to catch him doing anything "wrong". He did make it a point of giving me (lending me?) some books on philosophy in front of the group, subtly putting himself in the position of authority (insinuating "I know you need to read these books").

I really don't need to make more of this than it is. And what it is is that a guy I barely know thinks he can school me in public on some topics that he may or may not even understand very well himself.

He appears to be subtly trying to put me in a position where I must vie for the respect of the group (like it's him or me). Something I'm not all that interested in doing.

It appears we just both have different views on a variety of topics. He has let me know that he doesn't like certain current popular figures (in some circles) that I respect, and I don't have much respect for his some of his favorite people. The 2 people in question (Massimo Pigliucci and Jerry Coyne) tend to go after each other in public (blogs and podcasts).

I also find him to be inconsistent in that he has criticized postmodernism and its relativity and yet now he is trying to convince me that relativism is a fact and that there must be something wrong with me because I believe objective truths exist. (To deny this involves a contradiction).

Id like to understand his point of view, But I'm afraid he's just into rhetoric and sophistry. I find it difficult to believe he is being straightforward with me.

He sounds like a person who likes to "bully" shakesphere. Their entire game is the challenge and they like to pick individuals they know will fight back too, that is their game.

I didn't have very high expectations, and I wasn't disappointed. There were some interactions that suggest that there is a common belief among some, that although their views are beyond reproach, mine are in question, and that was made known by a few people with varying degrees of disrespect.

It is a rather disappointing group, in that it is called a Socrates Cafe, but there isn't much talk of philosophy, and no real deep thinking going on, as far as I can tell. It's mostly just reactionary emotional opinions being expressed.

Our question last night was "What living person do you admire?" I still have no idea who some of these people admire, or why.

He's definitely playing a game, one where I am being forced to react to him. But, it's more insidious than bullying. It's more like he is talking with others in the group and poisoning their opinion of me.

Some are making it very clear that my views are not appreciated, but it's not clear why. A few weeks ago he said "well, you would believe that" after I made some comment or other. I still have no idea what he meant, and I didn't have the presence of mind to ask at the time.

I think I may have to steer clear for a while, and reassess my continued attendance at a later date.

I did have a conversation with N? about JH and R?

She's helping me to understand where they are coming from, as she has known both of them for over 10 years.

She and I spent about an hour last night in an intense conversation she called an "intentional conversation". We basically shared our most in-depth thoughts about what makes us who we are, what angers us, and our goals for the future. She's an older woman (about 70) and something of a grandmother figure, so it was very comfortable.

Oh, I am glad you had a presence like N to spend time with you and give you some things to think about when it comes to these individuals that tend to test you so much.

Can you share what she told you?

This is what she said.

So, basically, they want me to accept their view of reality. She also suggests that R is a proselytizer.

I see them as people who are more interested in rhetoric vs truth, reason and rational thought. Rhetoric being language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable.

So, they're big on converting others to their point of view, but not so concerned that their POV is true or reasonable, or that their methods are honest or reasonable.

Hmm, very interesting shakesphere. A lot of people are like that shakesphere, needing to "think" they have the answers and are "above others" who still question or even just have an opposing view. You have customers that have shown these behavior patterns too.

I think the "key" for you is finding a way to distance yourself "emotionally" and be more on the "observant" side. That is what that woman N has learned to do and having "that" kind of person around you is always "good" because as you have noticed, she is actually "genuine", which is why you "like/feel more comfortable with her". She, is worth staying in that group for because she is the "true" leader mentor type individual that is worth your time to be exposed to. You need someone like that to be around, it's good for you.

I'm honestly trying to remember why I need to attend the group in the first place.

S? is okay, and N? is okay. and K? may be okay.

Well, I think that conversation you had with N made your venture worth it. Don't you think so?

I think I'll ask R? why he made the comment "you would think that" a few weeks ago. He made it in regard to my views on morality.

I can think of a few possible reactions if I do ask him.
1. claim he doesn't remember
2. refuse to answer/pretend he didn't hear the question
3. use it as an opportunity for further insults
4. actually talk about it in clear terms

I suspect he will do either 1 or 2. Most likely he will claim or pretend he doesn't remember. Although I can also see him doing 3.

Hmm. I'll put my money on the line and bet he will actually do 2 and refuse to answer or acknowledge I asked him the question. I'll give $5 to a charity of your choice (whoever chimes in first) if I'm wrong.

I got this idea about making a bet from someone who suggested it is a good way to test one's critical thinking skills.

shakesphere, the problem is that it sounds like this R individual "is" a critical thinker but only being critical of others he can't convince to think his way. That is actually what N was saying to you about him.

Right now the main issue is that although we have a yahoo groups page, all members save one, S? are refusing to acknowledge my posts, and are instead taking verbal potshots at me in person at our meetings on Monday nights (it appears to me that several people are in the know, and they have no plans to let me in on the conversation). They're basically letting me know they are talking about me behind by back, and then sniping at me in public, with no clear indication of just what the issues are.

Something, IMHO, that could be cleared up on the yahoo groups page, if they would engage with me in a meaningful discussion with clearly defined terms (or at least clearly lay out just what the disagreements are).

So, again, it makes me wonder what it is I ever saw in this group.

But, yes, N? is very cool. We've had some very good discussions online on the yahoo groups page (although she is having issues and can no longer post) and on facebook, and by email and in person. She sees me as an honest searcher, always willing to deal with new evidence. Not so with the others. Except perhaps S?

I'm being assaulted with setups (forced to deal with potshots with no context or issues stated) and mindgames, as far as I'm concerned. I've got better things to do with my time.

I find it difficult to imagine any response I choose to take not being met with some sort of derision. (Even my not attending). But, I suppose that is their issue, not mine.

Well shakesphere, when it comes to "groups" of people often the group will like to come to a certain "comfort zone" where they can form a certain belief system and some of which can be even an agreement of "denial". It may not even be a "conscious" decision to be in a "denial" either, it's just that whatever forms becomes "safe" to them.

An example of that is that I got to know a woman who was a bit of a socialite and had horses and was involved with social groups of people with horses. She always had a "sweet" way about her, yet her philosophy was "get to know people who have things you want so you don't have to buy these things yourself but instead use theirs". I could not believe her teaching her daughter this philosophy either, and yet she actually did do this and was very successful at it too. She was getting to use a lot of other peoples things all the time.

It got so that she was neglecting her own horses, and it was not unusual to see them standing out side in extreme heat around a water troft that was bone dry. People around her began to be upset by this and other ways she was neglecting her horses. So, they came to me because they knew I was the type to not be afraid to say something, which ofcourse I did. Now, once that "problem" that brought them discomfort was out of the way, they went right back to being part of her social circle now being able to "deny" the person they did not want to see her as. I on the other hand was ignored because I affected their ability to go along with "the denial".

This can happen in groups shakesphere, however often one can meet one individual that can become the type of individual worth getting to know that can actually be supportive with worthy advice.

The other thing to learn about "groups" of people that Mandela learned and practiced, is that you don't have to agree with "everything they aspouse or believe" yet you can do your best to pick out something you "can" agree with in what they say and focus on that so you are not just putting that other person on the defensive, but finding ways to "include" them instead. One has a much better chance at negotiating and getting people to come together that way because they will feel there is a "respect" for them that will be taking place rather than feeling they will be going to a gathering where they will be "put down" or even ganged up on somehow.

If you go to this gathering, and you insist on arguing every point others make and don't find something that helps the others feel "included" somehow, you will always be pushed out.

From what I have heard of your history, you have been exposed to dysfunctional individuals that never heard or validated you and expected you to just fall in line with the "group beliefs" which in your experience was "extreme" too. So, any time you get involved with a group anything that reminds you of that "will" trigger you and any individual that reminds you of that like R will trigger you. You have gotten away from a group "dysfunction" and you have every right to EXPLORE different philosophies. However, you will still encounter others who can trigger you as they want to hold onto whatever they have decided is "their philosphy.

There is actually always "something" in any philosophy that has a truth to it, if it was not that way then people would not become loyal. It's always ok to see whatever "positive or truth is there", yet add in your own ways of keeping your mind open instead of taking the whole thing as the "only way or truth". Some people can't do that, for those it is just better to recognize that talk about the truth you can see and try not to threaten what these others "need to deny or feel safe with". That can be a challenge.