AMAZING ARTICLES #34: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY -
"there is no better tomorrow if we do not learn today."
All people like to see things. Take an Afghan person, an USA citizen, a French, a
German, a Nigerian, a Chinese, a . . . well, anyone: they all like "to
travel" and "to see new things" more than anything else. We could say
Homo Sapiens species appears to be more like "Homo Traveler"! Psychologically, that
is a particularly interesting, general,
common-behavior characteristic feature; therefore, the
question is, "Why?"
I was fourteen or,
possibly, fifteen when I had a contradictory argument with Captain Giga.
At one moment he got very angry and said that I should better keep my
mouth shut because he had seen the entire World.
I replied that "seeing the World" means absolutely nothing if someone doesn't have "the eyes" to see it.
Of course, my remark freed a torrent of invectives, then Captain Giga ended
by asking, what
did I mean with "not
having the eyes to see the World"; was it my intention to insult him by insinuating that he was blind?
explained that the World, or our Life, may be "seen" ONLY with the "eyes of the mind": if you have
those eyes, then you can "see" a little something of it; if not, physically seeing
"things" is not going to
help anybody achieve anything.
Unfortunately, those words of mine have enlarged and deepened the rift between Captain Giga and me to an
irreversible . . . Well.
Human individuals have a specific mode of psychological development, particularly interesting. First, children are
born into our World, and each has the brain completely clean, psychologically, except for
a few basic instincts.
Whatever a child learns, and the mature individual he is going to become one day, that is the
end result of a very complex
set of social efforts named "education". For each nation--better said, for the entire
born child represents our future, our hopes, and the promise of a better World tomorrow; in other words, each child is the
most precious "value" our Civilization has.
Mountains of gold, oceans of oil, trillions of dollars, endless lands or
many atomic weapons mean absolutely nothing compared to a child. [Note
that we used the indefinite article "a" deliberately ahead of the noun
"child"]. Of course, there is one in a billion chance--or even
less--that a child would become "someone truly great", but that doesn't
matter a bit: any child could be THE ONE.
A child is born with all the basic instincts: milk sucking; mother recognition based on smell at first, then on
sight; hiding; plus learning. All mammal babies are capable of learning, though for
the Homo Sapiens species, today, learning
takes about 35 years--in normal conditions. During the first three or four years children are able to learn any
language, regardless of how difficult it could be; for example, the English one. That is a stunning performance! A mature,
East European nuclear physicist is not able to match that skill not even after 10 years of intense efforts!
Further--and in normal conditions--up to the age of 25 children go through the official education system: the
school. That is the most important learning period, in which children learn--psychologically--to be
social individuals. However, that is also where our society fails catastrophically.
Next, up to the age of 35 each
individual fights his way up in society, and that implies more learning efforts. Between the age of 35 and 45 the
individuals struggle very hard trying to "accommodate psychologically" in society. The great 45 years
limit is--generally--the time when some individuals begin to understand
our society, and they "know exactly what
they have to do". Psychologically, 45 is the "social maturity
age" for us, today.
The way people
continue to evolve psychically after 45 is very important: for most comes the decline; for
a few, however, they
become the theoreticians of our Civilization!
Psychical maturity is the apex, and a limit. Once reached, then that's it: there is no more psychological/mental
development. People still learn, but they do not understand and they do not believe anymore because they
"know". The scenario outlined in the paragraphs above represents "normal development",
"normal" is the ideal for us. In real life, things are far from being even close to normal; for example,
psychological maturity may come even at the age of 7, for some.
Each adult person was a nice, little child once. However, in most instances children are strange, and difficult to
understand to their parents. Why? The general idea is, "life is changing,
therefore different generations do not
understand each other"--which is entirely wrong. Regardless of how much is the fashion-culture changing,
or human psychology remains the same. The idea that children are "different" is just an excuse for
Two thousand years old documents reveal that parents, at that time, also had
great problems understanding their children.
For thousand of years social-fashion has changed with each new generation, and each change appeared to be more vulgar,
provocative, and of worse taste.
However, what children and parents alike do not know is that cultural/social-fashion is--and it
was--controlled by mature, smart individuals having precise goals. Further, if your child
follows the fashion trend "to the letter", that is a clear indication the child has some
psychological limitations--unfortunately, most of them do, only that
increased percentage reflects natural distribution of
intelligence in society.
Any cultural/social-fashion is good only if it brings some benefits to the people:
many times the mentioned cultural/social-fashion does, but
there are instances when it doesn't. For example, mutilating the body with all sort of "piercing" or
tattoos cannot bring anything better to natural beauty. However, that is a clear indication the subject has
a limited intellectual capacity, and that works just like an indicator: the more piercing/tattooing, the less intelligent is
Intelligent children sense they are different, and they try to avoid becoming "one of the herd" or "like
everybody else". Note this: society is characterized, first of all, by the "average", and
that "average" represents in fact the zero level of intelligence. Anyway,
to make this short, human psychology needs to be studied as:
1. individual psychology
2. social psychology
What we care most, as people living in society, is that all individuals
have good, strong social instincts/behavior: a strong
social morality. However, it happens that some people become our leaders, and in those instances
individual psychology is far more
important. For example, we are very fortunate that Mr. George Walker Bush
is the USA President today, not 40 or 30 years ago, because he has a
"trigger happy" complexity. If the had been the USA President 40 years
ago, the Third (Nuclear) World War would have been a reality today--and we would
be all dead/nonexistent.
Not that it is Mr. Bush's fault: that is the way he is, and that's it. Should he be offered the chance to live his
life 100 times, again and again, Mr. Bush would do exactly what he does today, because he is certain he
performs to the
best possible as the President of USA. Mind this please: Mr. Bush does only what he thinks is best for USA!
Even more, regardless of the arguments, Mr. Bush would never understand that "there are better
alternatives"--attention please: this "never" refers to ETERNITY!
As an individual, Mr. Bush is a very nice person--even charming--and he truly believes he is an ordinary USA citizen
just like anybody else: what is good for him, it has to be good for USA also. Even more, Mr. Bush is a strong
honest believer and supporter of Democracy--of course, that is "his Democracy". Personally, we like Mr.
Bush a lot, and we write about him only because he is a well known personality in the entire
World; should we
present here the honorable Prime Minister of Canada, nobody would care a bit--well, almost nobody.
So, there is nothing wrong with Mr. Bush: that's just the way the man is. The truly sad thing is the USA voters: the
most recent polls indicate that they do not support Mr. Bush's leadership lately. This is similar to a marriage: two
individuals like each other a lot, and they rush to get married; a few years later, they discover they made a
mistake, only breaking that "marriage" is (almost) impossible. Who is to blame? Not Mr. Bush for certain.
You see, Mr. Bush will end his leadership one day, and the USA voters will be asked to elect someone else. If they
will continue electing "nice people", as Mr. Bush, then it may be there will be no more USA in the future, and
nothing else left of our little, beautiful Planet.
Now, social psychology is extremely important for the health of any
civilized society, therefore countless armies of psychology doctors are needed. However, the great question is:
"What do those thousands of psychology doctors actually do, because 'social things' go from
bad to worse continuously?"
Civilized societies rely on three social institutions/organizations for health and protection.
1. The Police: this "force" works for society just as doctors work for individuals.
First of all, the police is needed TO HELP THE PEOPLE with whatever is
needed. Secondly, the police force is
needed to clean and sanitize our society of bad individuals, because one single rotten apple in a basket is
capable of destroying all other apples--try this if you don't believe it.
2. The Government: this social organism ensures the proper
management, and the prosperous development of a certain society--in
theory, at least.
3. The psychologists: they are needed more and more, due to technological development. The more advanced a society
becomes, the stronger is the need for good psychological advice to "regulate" complex social problems.
However, all three social-organisms above will not function correctly if there are no means to control and punish bad
behavior at any level, including the Presidential one. Yes, but who could punish the USA President, for example?
Nobody. Take the case of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton and his congressional impeachment attempt: it proved
totally fruitless due to political maneuvers. However, the need to control anybody, including the USA President,
MUST BE THERE. Now, the only way to control any level of power in any society is MORALITY; better said,
Should Mr. Clinton had any trace of morality in his character, he would have resigned "his good job"
after the "Monica affair" in no time. However, Mr. Clinton is not the only one hanging
teeth and nail on a
tarnished job. [By the way; Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon is an example of a towering morality, compared to
Mr. Clinton, despite all his "weaknesses".] More and more managers and CEOs
today refuse shamelessly to
resign, and they hang on their good jobs--of doing absolutely
NOTHING good!--as for dear life.
Democracy has no means to deal efficiently with imposture, corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, theft--or even
worse--at very high decisional levels. Only MORALITY could help us out. However, MORALITY is degrading steadily,
despite the fact that we have armies of psychologists: their first and THE ONLY DUTY is to protect
since it is the only viable instrument of correction at any level.
Our life appears to be a chaotic amalgam of events, chances, misfortune,
and accidents. Should we know how to use it,
social-psychology could become a precise, mathematical instrument to help us "see"
the reality of
today, and of tomorrow.
First published on October 01, 2006
© SC COMPLEMENT CONTROL SRL. All rights reserved.
» BACK TO TOP