The Instinct To Get Around Stuff

I seem to do a lot of “pondering” these days.  Sometimes I get SO deep in thought that this house might easily be renamed, the “Ponderosa.”  Anyway, a number of recent events made me begin to wonder what might be causing this world to be such a screwed up place.  So, I began a cursory review of what makes people tick, and why that ticking is more often than not, the sound of a time bomb ready to go off.

Psychologically speaking, there seem to be certain innate forces which make people behave in particular ways.  Sometimes these are called, “instincts.”  Freud said there were both life and death instincts.  But whether you concur with his categories or not, most psychologists seem to loosely agree with those in the following list:

-  The instinct to reproduce, to survive, to strive and compete, to be liked and accepted, to form groups, and to provide for the group‘s needs and protection.

Now, it’s obvious that each activity on the list can lead to positive and uplifting human behavior which makes society better.  But it’s also easy to imagine how some of them, (sex and competition, in particular), can morph into situations that end up destroying individuals and those around them.  After all, you only have to watch Jerry and Maury on daytime television to see that’s true.  No matter, I personally think the traditional “instincts” get far too much credit for creating the terrible condition in which the world finds itself.  And in my ponderings, I may have uncovered one that’s much less recognizable, but far more dangerous that the rest.

I call this instinct, “circumvoidance.”  I coined the word blending both “circumvention” and “avoidance” together.  In its simplest form, it means, “getting around stuff,” or “getting over on someone or something.” I think I first recognized it as a kid, when I used to spend time trying to block the paths of busy ants with a twig.  Each and every time I obstructed their way, they made an immediate direction change in order to continue to their desired destination.  It didn’t matter what I did.  They didn’t hesitate to change direction, go over or around, or employ evasive action for longer than I had the  patience to stand in their way.

People are no different.  We live in a structured society of rules and boundaries, a world with established “does” and “don’ts.”  And those limitations, no matter how benign or well intentioned, are just like a twig blocking our life path, and thwarting us from doing exactly what we WANT, right or wrong.  Circumvoidance, then, is as normal and spontaneous an instinct as breathing is in a physiological sense.  But its danger is that it colors our decisions each and every moment we’re awake.

So what does it mean?  In a simple sense, it’s when someone decides what he wants to do, then finds a way to do it regardless of all impediments.  In a negative sense it makes us all “bend” the rules, especially if we think we won’t get caught.  And it’s why we lie, cheat, and breach moral and ethical standards to reach our goals, however worthy or unworthy they might be.

Circumvoidance functions to make a mockery of laws, treating them as mere roadblocks around which we will steer if doing so satisfies our needs.  In the simplest sense, it’s the reason a Second Grader looks at his neighbor’s paper during a test, hoping to bring up his score by a few points.  It’s why citizens “adjust” the numbers when filling out forms, trying to reduce their tax liability or enhance social benefits.  It’s why folks cut into line at the checkout counter and tick everybody off.  And it’s the reason we all eat that extra dessert, then rationalize we’ll walk around the block an extra time to make up for it.  

In the most vile sense it’s why clerics molest kids within the walls of God‘s house, then rationalize they’ll be forgiven because their God is merciful.  And it’s why politicians find devious ways to begin undeclared wars, killing their citizens in the name of patriotism.  And it’s the reason that things like gun control bans will NEVER stop senseless killings.  Such legislation simply becomes like that pesky twig I mentioned.  And, when someone really wants you dead, they’ll smash your head in with a loaf of stale Italian bread when they can’t find a gun.

Circumvoidance, then, means there are no absolutes other than death itself.  And no matter how airtight a law or rule may seem, or how restrictive a given circumstance may appear, the impulse to get around it and reach a desired goal will never subside.  That’s what’s screwing up the world, in my opinion, and we all might as well get used to it.  It’s never going to change, because that’s how the human species is wired.

That’s what I think, and I’m sticking to it!  And I’ll bet if you disagree with my conclusion, you’ve already got an answer to get around it…… don’t you?

Children and Self-Esteem

Back-in-the-day before educating the whole child was supplanted by manipulating high test scores out of them, the building of self-esteem was a focus and priority of all good teachers.  Of course, as happens with anything, while everyone tried, some of us were better at it than others.  Nonetheless, it was an honorable goal that if achieved, had lasting and valuable benefit for every young student.

There was an era when the whole thing got out of hand, however.  So much emphasis was focused on making kids feel good, that it began to resemble hype more than substance.  Comments like, “You’re doing very well, Johnny,” began to ring hollow when it was obvious that Johnny was failing miserably.  “You are all wonderful children,” almost brought snickers from those who had regular brushes with the adult staff.  So, what seemed to make this goal of getting kids to feel better about themselves, ineffective?  One was that much of it was basically bologna posing as steak, and the kids recognized the difference.  Also, the majority of this “encouragement” was done verbally, leaving out more subtle techniques which ended up proving far more effective.

From some college psychology class, I remember one line which seemed to lodge in my brain during one of my conscious moments in the lecture hall.  It was this:  “You learn about yourself through the eyes of others.”  Simply put, as you watch the reactions of others to what you do, you slowly build an image of who you are as a person.  It’s subtle, non-verbal, but deadly efficient in establishing one’s self-worth.  Fortunately, I guess that’s how I chose to deal with my students when I began teaching.  And though I said many positive things to them each day, my verbal comments were always honest and descriptive of something they had done.  “I like the patience you showed,” or “Your handwriting today is some of the neatest.”  “That drawing makes me feel happy,” or “You should be proud of how you improved on today’s quiz.”  Whatever I said, then, was a reflection of what they actually knew they had done, and not simply a patronizing comment that could be disputed by fact.

Intertwined with that objective commentary, however, was the less obvious use of non-verbal messages that many teachers never realized were so potent in developing positive self-esteem.  Making direct eye contact with every child, and smiling at them was one of the easiest.  It still works today, as some of my biggest fans at school are kids to whom I’ve never said a word. Because I smile at them each time our paths cross, however, they think they’re special and likeable.  After all, they see it on my face.

In the classroom other non-verbal gestures worked wonders, as well.  A simple “thumbs up” and wink when someone was working hard, conveyed I appreciated their industrious attitude.  A smile and pat on the shoulder as I passed their desk, let them know I valued their presence as a member of our classroom family.  The silent pointing of my finger to a sentence they’d written or math problem they’d solved, while nodding my head and smiling, told them I liked the quality of their thinking.  And a smattering of single words descriptive of how I feel about whatever they were doing, academic or not, went a long way towards making them feel good about themselves.  “Great… Funny… Love It… Nice… Yessss,” (accompanied by a smile, of course), always made them feel capable and special.  And a simple, “Thank you,” when I caught them doing something nice, always served to make them want to do it again, and more often.

Everything said, then, perhaps the whole subject of helping kids feel good about themselves, is less a psychological pursuit than a human one.  Summing it up for ME, it would be as simple as this:  “More smiling, and less patronizing talk.”  And taking it one step farther, I’d add this admonition:  “Never forget that kids can read you like a book!  Their eyes are like a truth filter, that seldom interprets what’s in your heart, incorrectly.  And always remember, they DEFINITELY know the difference between steak and bologna.” 

The Slippery Slope Gets Slipperier

There are many in this country that are concerned that slowly, almost imperceptibly, our basic freedoms are being eroded.  It’s my opinion that one does not have to be a conspiracy crackpot to arrive at such a conclusion.  All it takes is a moment of clarity to observe what has now become the accepted rationale for our government making such incursions into personal freedom seem perfectly reasonable

The whole process is based on FEAR.  Whenever something tragic happens in this country, reactionaries come out of the woodwork with a new law that promises to protect the public.  Usually, however, they never stop to concede that this “perceived” safety comes at the expense of some small personal freedom.  And few citizens seem to understand or even care, that in a cumulative sense, the following equation becomes true:  “Small + small + small + small, = LARGE.”

There are many examples of what I mean.  The fiasco of 9-11 spawned the Patriot Act with gave the government sweeping powers to snoop on citizens.  One idiot with a makeshift shoe bomb caused every airline traveler to have to take off his or her shoes before boarding a flight.  Another malcontent with an underwear bomb made it necessary for me to walk through a machine at the airport and let TSA agents get a glimpse of my family jewels.

And whenever shooting tragedies happen around the country, gun legislation becomes the effort of the day, with almost matter-of-fact claims that it will save our children and stop indiscriminate violence.  Of course, on slow days, pain-in-the-ass Nannycrats come out of the woodwork and begin pushing personal limitations, such as trying to mandate the size of soft drinks we can buy in order to save us from ourselves.

Concurrently, when specific “safety” statutes are codified into law, certain practices expand and become commonplace in the name of public safety.  The recent Boston Marathon terrorism and ultimate identification of its perpetrators, for example, highlighted the wide but unregulated use of cameras in public areas.  While such surveillance DID serve law enforcement after the fact, it did nothing to either stop the bombing, or make sidewalk spectators more safe.  That said, however, cameras will most likely become the unspoken “heroes” of this whole sick event, and when the next legislator suggests they be mandated every fifty feet in public areas, most people will quickly agree, then feel like they’re going to get a better night’s rest because of it.

There is a small minority of Americans who are usually branded as reactionaries, whenever they ask this question:  “If we allow THIS, (some reduction of our freedom), then what next?”  A recent news story makes me think that they’re asking exactly the right question.  In a new discussion of the legality and/or propriety of using drone aircraft over this country, the rationale of  government proponents, of course, is again, “safety-based.” Bureaucrats admit to nothing negative in the purposes such drones would serve.  Well, guess what?  Even before a lick of legislation is penned on the issue, along comes PETA stating that when drone use becomes legal, it’s going to purchase and use its own to snoop on hunters, insuring that they’re treating animals in a legal and ethical manner.  Then what?  The “slippery slope” analogy makes it a possibility, that the Outdoorsman Lobby will trump PETA’s move and employ drones, as well, to alert hunters about the location of PETA drones that are snooping on them high above the forest.

In short, the erosion of our freedoms is easiest understood by the old folktale about how to cook a frog.  You put it in a pot of cold water, over a very low flame.  As the water warms up the frog adjusts, and unconcerned by the slowly rising temperature, doesn’t jump out of the pot.  The flame continues to be raised in small increments, and inevitably the water begins to boil and the frog is doomed.  It’s a simple but effective way to accomplish just about anything… if you have the patience, that is.

I have one immediate fear, then, based on the recent terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon.  To artificially allay our fears  about another such tragedy, and to generate a false sense of safety and security among us all, pressure cookers may well be the next object legislated out of the American lifestyle.  Now how in the heck am I going to cook artichokes when that happens?