Why Insults Bring People Together

Insult

It’s such a truism that wherever you go in life, whatever you achieve, you will invariably meet a few people who are callous and sour, who seem to want to insult others for no good reason. Whether you’re in the dregs or the gods, someone is usually liable to start lobbing vitriol without cause.

I’m not referring simply to a lack of social tact, but to those who speak with the obvious intention of hurting another; that special brand of human that evidently derives pleasure from seeing another become upset.

In conversations relating to social interactions, one of the most difficult things to discuss without bias are these types of abusive people. It’s so easy to turn into a bitching session, because the easiest (and most satisfying) way to look at them and their comments is to simply demonize them.

Because, really, just how difficult is it to follow The Golden Rule? Yes, it’s a cliche but one that remains self-evident: Isn’t it just… easier to be good and polite to people? In a purely practical sense, doesn’t it lessen the burden of social responsibility, of being mindful of others? Doesn’t it make life simpler and more carefree?

Maybe these traits are just habits of thinking, or maybe there’s something more to it. When I discussed this with others, we found ourselves referring to those who have made kindness and compassion a habit as having “figured it out”. It’s not something that necessarily comes with age, either. I know teenagers who seem to have it “figured out” and people of middle-age and older who are very difficult to deal with.

So then, what is the point of putting someone down? Something happened recently that gave me a little perspective on it. Anyone who keeps an eye on the news will know that the world is going through a huge economic crisis. My native country, Ireland, which had been until recently been experiencing an unprecedented financial boom, is now officially entering a recession.

Hearing about this on the news, it does bring a sense of despondence; things are going to get a bit rough.

Recession

But at the same time, I found myself experiencing a definite feeling of satisfaction; a sense of, “Well, it’s about bloody time we copped on to ourselves and stopped wasting so much money”.

I realized that this thought was not so much an objective view; rather, it was a feeling that all these politicians and property tycoons who had spent so much money, all those people who had borrowed ridiculous amounts of cash to purchase huge new houses and cars, were getting their just desserts. I couldn’t help but feel vindicated that those of us who had had financial responsibility drilled into our heads since childhood had come up trumps.

And yet, that’s still a generous description. Because basically, all it boils down to is that satisfying feeling that more people have been brought to your level, that your social status is somehow more justified because more are now there with you.

And isn’t that type of thinking basically a more abstract version of insulting someone outright? It just remains contained rather than spoken. It’s still taking someone down a notch; not because you actually dislike them and feel that they deserve it, but because your own ego needs validation. It’s basically insecurity, and insecurity is very lonely. It causes us to seek out company. And which is the faster method of getting it – – working on oneself in order to remove any neuroses and foibles, or throwing a terrible insult at someone in order to make them feel insecure and lonely too? The personal development could take years, the insult, seconds.

So the person who casts that mean-spirited jibe is actually trying to bring the victim closer to themselves; Misery loves company. It can often be painful to witness the success or happiness of someone who was once in the same boat as you, while you’re still stuck in that boat. That’s why it’s often difficult to see someone you know get a promotion, go on a long trip abroad etc. It’s not because it affects you directly, though your ego may tell you so, but rather because the relationship between yourself and the person leaving has changed. And it’s always easier to leave than to be left behind.

If you look at any Internet chatroom that relates to a psychological condition, such as anxiety, bulimia etc, you will find that they are peopled almost entirely by people who seem to have the condition perpetually, rather than any who have recovered and want to offer help. Is this because people don’t want to help others once they’ve recuperated? No. It’s because the misery of these groups feed off themselves, love the company, and loathe the one who makes the move to leave the nest.

Those who say they are recovered are not immediately praised; in fact, they are regularly vilified and regarded as pariahs in the community. That person no longer meets the standards of sickness and misery necessary for acceptance, and are now considered a dangerous interloper.

Sponge

Indeed, the drive to surround oneself with peers with whom one feels equal is a basic animalistic trait; it even occurs on a cellular level. In his book The Lucifer Principle, author Howard Bloom describes how, when you run an aquatic sponge through a sieve, it will liquify into a muddy substance before its cells regroup . Run two of them into a bucket, and the cells from each will manage to recognise their own kind and reconstitute themselves into their original forms.

Similarly, if a person, dissatisfied with their selves or circumstances, finds themselves in amiable, happy company, they may feel desperately out of place. But who would up and leave their social stratum to seek out unhappier contemporaries? No; since they cannot recognise their kind around them, the abuse they hurl and misery they induce are an attempt to create their own kind.

Yes, it’s true that throwing insults at someone could be construed as little more than a socio-Darwinistic attempt to weaken others and drive them out of the social circle, gene pool, etc. But then, why do these exchanges happen so frequently between couples, siblings, people who should have no interest in gaining an evolutionary one-up on the other? Because to slight someone can have an alternate purpose. If the insulter feels troubled and insecure, the insult can create a similar state in the victim. In spite of all the drama and tears, at least both are back in the same boat.

It’s warped, but the most cutting aspersion can actually bring people together. And if disparity is so often the reason for the discharge of unwarranted malice, then, hopefully, maintaining one’s awareness of this fact can defuse its power completely.

f

Why Constraint Is Good

The amount of information available to us on the Internet is limitless,but how often do we actually take a look at a totally random site? When do we ever go on a trawl through hundreds of disparate pages, unless it’s for the purposes of research? On the other hand, sites like StumbleUpon and Digg are hugely popular, and becoming moreso.

Why are these filtration sites so popular? Don’t they somehow fly in the face of the random beauty of the Internet? Well, maybe from a technological perspective. But true chaos is not generally desirable to the human experience. We enjoy being held back, and it works in our favour.

Illustrations are readily evident in the creative arts. For example, the first Matrix film was a hugely ambitious project that drew in discrete elements of Manga, existentialist philosophy, martial arts, technology etc. It should have been a total mess. It wasn’t. The second and third Matrix films, however, used the exact same elements – and were total messes ( Come on, what the hell what going on in the third one?). The difference? Personally, I think it may have been the lack of constraints on the directors (the Wachowski brothers) after the monumental success of the first film. With their debut, they were taking a huge gamble and absolutely had to at least make it a little audience-friendly to guarantee box office returns. After that, Warner Bros said, “Hey guys, do whatever you want.” And the Wachowskis indulged, throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the sequels. Filmmaking with no restraints resulted in films that made no sense.

“Donnie Darko” is one of the most beautiful, rich films I’ve seen. The director, Richard Kelly was given a much bigger canvas and budget to make his second film, based on Donnie’s success. The result was “Southland Tales“, a free-jazz-on-film film that makes very little sense and, to my mind at least, is intensely boring.

Indeed, constraint is a wonderful thing when applied properly. It gives you something to prove, something to rail against.

Every self-help book worth its salt tells the reader that they absolutely must set out their goals. This may be via a process of writing them down, of intensive visualization, of telling your friends and family of your deadlines so that you will adhere to them. The common element with every goal that is set is that is immediately enforces a set of constraints. It focuses the mind like a laser, pushing out other, irrelevant thoughts. If you have one thing to do, and one thing only, the chances are that you will do it.

Constraint often equates with brevity, which can be a wonderful tool for effectively conveying information. Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code“, which was an international publishing phenomenon, was notable for its concise chapters. Readers loved that; it made for a fast-paced read, which, though it heavy with religious and historical symbolism, was sectioned into easily-digested portions. One of my favourite books, The Lucifer Principle, does the same with an elaborate theory on the relationship between science and religion.

I think that’s why someone like Kurt Cobain or Bob Dylan will always be more appealing to the masses than guitar virtuosos like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani. Cobain and Dylan were and are much more restrained in terms of their musical ability, and that can be a good thing. There’s a scene in the Nirvana film “Live, Tonight, Sold Out!” where a music journalist described Nirvana’s music as being like nursery rhymes that you can’t get out of your head. I always thought that was very insightful; for example, “Come As You Are” is based on a slow riff that consists of 5 notes. Vai or Satriani, on the other hand, could easily play 10 notes per second on one of their tracks. Which is a fantastic ability, but complexity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. And it’s those nursery-rhyme, 5-note melodies that invariably seep into public consciousness and convey their message most effectively. I guess that’s why it’s ‘popular’ music.

I suppose the ideal is to have all of these creative tools at one’s disposal, but to still be able to maintain that popular sensibility when you want to use it. A great example of one such musician is Jeff Buckley; his technical abilities were second to none, but he was consistently able to distill them down to something subtle, refined and accessible.

And that’s a difficult thing to do, because having too many options can be crippling. It goes against the classical idea that more choice equates to more freedom, which equates to more happiness – but there it is. In his book “The Paradox Of Choice“, author Barry Schwartz argues ‘why the abundance of choice in modern society is actually making us miserable’. He says that it actually creates a state of paralysis; that having too many things to choose from makes it very difficult to actually make a choice. Not only that, but even if you do make a choice, and a good one at that, but the idea that you could have made a better decision in the first place can make you regretful.

f

Here is Schwartz’ short lecture from the famous TedTalks series:

f

Schwartz makes the example of clothing; when he was younger, buying a pair of jeans was simple. You went into the store and you bought the one type of jeans that was on the rack. And you were happy with them, because there was no other choice to make. Today, you go to buy a pair of jeans and are confronted with hundreds of varieties; faded, stone-washed, designer, boot cut, torn, brand-label etc etc. So while you may find a pair that fits and looks pretty good, the unrealised potentiality of choice still hangs over you. And if you do happen to find something – anything – wrong with those jeans, it can only be your fault. Why? Because the choice was all yours.

This may seem trivial, but if you expand that phenomenon across millions of different products, combined with the incessant psychic pummeling of advertising (which tells us explicitly that we will be unhappy if we make the wrong choice), we can imagine the rate of misery generated growing exponentially. We are told that we need the products to be content; then the range of choice makes contentment, even with the product, impossible anyway.

Henry Ford said about his cars, “You can have it in any colour, as long as it’s black”. And that was coming from one of the most successful industrialists of the twentieth century. That’s not to say that “the good old days” of one choice only were perfect. But having one choice certainly makes things a lot simpler, and seems to promote contentment. Even if that one choice is far from ideal, it still gives the chooser something to complain about and fight against; a goal of sorts. But limitless choice means that the burden of responsibility is totally on the shoulders of the chooser. There is no constraint, the individual becomes a veritable island of personal responsibility – and that can lead to a great deal of misery.

Being Creative Is Not Hard

Being creative is not hard. All of the best literature on the subject tells us that by sitting down and starting to work, we somehow set in motion a chain of events that seem to push the creator towards success. Even when in the dullest of mindsets, when there is virtually no material of inspiration being fed into the mind, that same intellect can generate astonishing insights into itself and the reality it creates.

What is difficult is sitting down and starting to write. There is a line of code built into our memory which tells us that exerting yourself towards any long term goal is pointless. It constantly reminds us that at any given time, there is something more enjoyable and less exhausting to do. This could be an intellectual relic; an evolutionary meme that doesn’t really serve us any more today.

In the time of pre-humans, our environment dictated that we should exist on almost a strictly moment-to-moment basis. With a scarcity of even basic essentials like food and heat, we missed no opportunity to partake whenever they were available. As civilization has advanced, those of us lucky enough to live in first world societies have become immersed in the Westernized ideal of constant availability. We always have heat and food. We have absolutely everything we need, in caveman’s terms, to live a happy life.

However, we have also been given a new part of the brain: the neo-frontal cortex. It is the base of higher thinking; rationalization and logic. It has given us the civilization we know and all the technology that has enhanced our lived infinitesimally. And it yearns to express itself, to be involved in creative acts. It demands to feed into the evolution that surrounds it, that has created it. It longs to connect to its roots and push towards the tipping point of conscious change, on a personal and mass level.

It can be numbed by routine and distraction. In that sense, the western world that has thrived on the fuel of creative freedom is itself the worst enemy of creativity; we are totally surrounded by distractions.

On the process of writing a book on a computer, comedian Dave Gorman says:

“My computer is connected to the internet and the internet contains everything in the whole wide world ever. I don’t know about you, but I sometimes find everything in the whole wide world ever to be a bit distracting. Surely it’s the curse of the modern world that so many people now work at a computer while the computer also provides the biggest distraction from work ever devised by man.”

We have all but lost the advice that all creative people will impart: that once you have begun to work, the muses will work with you. Of course, all of these modes of communication are only distractions if you view them as such. They can also be the greatest tools for linkage of ideas which is the essence of creativity. As with anything, it simply depends on how you think of them.