A message about Tammy Faye and facing our human, fear-full nature...

[IndyOp]

The "just world effect" is a concept in social psychology - it occurs when we explain bad events in other people's lives in terms of their internal characteristics - their bad choices, their immoral actions.

The original research on the just-world effect looked at how family members explain child abuse - a situation in which the victim is clearly not at fault. Nonetheless, most family members say that the child did something - they had it coming - the baby cried too much, the toddler grabbed something they weren't supposed to have, the kid smarted off and so the bruises and broken bones they received were their own fault.

Why do we tend to do this? We explain bad events in other people's lives as being their own fault because it reassures us that it won't happen to us. The world is basically fair and the good things that happen to me happen because I am a good person. The bad things that happen to other people are because they did something bad or they are just bad people.

Where do we see the just-world bias?

In rape cases it is worse for the prosecution to have a majority female jury than it is to have a majority male jury. Why are women less likely to convict a rapist? Rape is more likely to happen to women so they are more likely to believe that the woman who was raped did something that allowed the rape to happen. The majority female jury is most likely to blame the victim so they believe it could never happen to them.

The death of a teenager last year elicited no response from a community that has recently been outraged by the burning of a kitten. The community can see the kitten as an innocent, but most suspected that the teen was somehow at fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Hurricane Katrina. Why didn't those people (the poor, the vulnerable sick/old, the tourists) get themselves out of there? Why is anyone so stupid as to live in a place where a hurricane (earthquake, tornado, flood...) could wipe them out? We blame the victim so we believe it could never happen to us.

Since World War II there have been people who blamed the Jews for having been victims of the Holocaust. Why didn't they see it coming and leave the country? Why didn't they refuse to get on the trains? Why didn't they...? The bigger and scarier the event the more likely we will blame the victim.

Tammy Faye's death is eliciting comments along the lines of "she is getting what she deserved." People blaming her for her cancer and death reinforces the core belief/illusion that if something bad happens to someone it is because they deserve it. I don't think that people who are attacking Tammy Faye are attacking her because they specifically fear getting cancer, but I think some who are "pissing on her grave" are doing so because they fear dying alone, isolated, ridiculed.

In my opinion, you can't stop people from taking refuge in the illusive security they get from their just-world beliefs by telling them they are bad people and they ought to snap out of it. Criticizing them just feels like an attack to them and it reinforces their fear-full beliefs about the world.

We all need to get in touch with how often we feel fear, how overwhelming the feeling can be, and learn to withstand or even embrace fear when it comes so we can see and think clearly even when we are fearful. If we can do that, we could end war for all time - a population that is fearful can be lead to lash out even when that is the very last action that will really bring security.

Good parenting, good community-building helps people recognize their emotions and understand how powerful emotions can distort thinking and behavior. When we learn these lessons, as a community, then we will be better able to think and act more morally.

Namaste.

[ezgoingrl]

1. Well spoken!

eom

[IndyOp]

2. Thank you for reading and for the kind words. :-) (n/t)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Horses, dogs, cats and just about everything else gets cancer, and

I don't think a horse ever bilked anyone out of any money, much less a dog or a cat. Sh*t happens and it happens to everyone at one time or another.

[datasuspect]

4. grief ninnies and grave pissers share a symbiotic relationship

on the one hand, you have people who clamor to outshine the next in moral piety and outrage, on the other hand, you have people who seek to incite them and make them squirm and lash out.

[IndyOp]

5. Wow - the grief ninnies are working out their fears about bad things

happening to them by outshining others in moral piety and outrage because then, for sure, nothing bad will happen to them.

Damn, datasuspect, that's interesting - I had never thought of it that way.

Bad event happens to someone else and...
Grave pissers denigrate the victim to feel safer while grief ninnies dramatize their own piety in relation to the grave pissers to feel safer.

Wow.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[datasuspect]

8. i haven't given it that much thought

but what you propose is interesting. i cannot know anyone's true motivations unless they verbalize them.

still, i was more or less commenting on the results that i see.

[buddhamama]

10. please define a grief ninnie

some of us just grieve. i don't hold myself above anyone if they do not. it is empathy, perhaps you have heard of it. i cry for the people of Iraq, too. if that makes me a grief ninnie then so be it.

[datasuspect]

13. a grief ninny is someone who makes a public spectacle of what should be private

in an attempt to shame others.

i am not speaking about true grief. i'm speaking more about the unabashed "holier-than thou" attitude of some who seek to draw people into the fray by showcasing their moral piety.

like i've said before, i will never understand how someone has severe emotional reactions to the deaths of celebrities.

i might be somewhat hard-hearted, but i am very parsimonious with my emotions. i don't feel anything regarding the death of a celebrity. I DO NOT KNOW THEM.

when my grandmother, who was like a mother to me died, i didn't really cry. i was more relieved for her, because she didn't have to suffer any more.

and of course, i had grief. but i shared that with the people closest to me. and that even sparingly.

but i understand that each person is different. some people wear their hearts on their sleeves and that's understandable.

but they shouldn't come down on people who aren't so emotionally fragile. many people are indelicate. i know i am and will comment on things in a way that seem like grave-pissing. but i don't enjoy the fact that anyone dies.

i'm indifferent. everyone dies. it's a fact of life. the difference is how they die. more important is the way they live, what they lived for, and that they didn't die in vain.

a grief ninny is someone who expects to condition or expect others to conform to their idea of what is appropriate in conversations or understandings of the deceased.

[buddhamama]

17. i simply feel sadness

i know death is a fact of living-

but the fact itself does not stop me from feeling.

Tammy's celebrity meant nothing to me but the lives she touched do.

thanks for explaining.

[datasuspect]

18. i understand the sadness part

it's completely natural.

i feel sad because she suffered. what a horrific way to die.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. I'm parsimonious with expression of my emotions, but I have more understanding of grievers than

grave pissers. I think that the OP's musings hit the nail on the head about the latter. The former includes many who are just more emotional than some of us.

Your last line defines your term "grief ninny" as someone who has an understanding and respect for the social etiquette surrounding death, so I guess that means me even though I am not one to wring my hands and mourn dead celebrities. I do understand the value of refraining from pissing on the still-warm corpse out of respect for those who do mourn the person or the public persona. It's a respect for the living rather than respect for the dead. I'm not about to say something that increases their grief and that's why I respect the expectation that saying nothing is better than speaking ill at the time of someone's death. It's a small kindness that I can offer to the grievers.

[datasuspect]

24. i use these terms loosely

i think someone who articulates a position that doesn't display what another person deems an appropriate level of grief or respect being labeled a grave pisser isn't being very fair.

similarly, i don't think someone who displays reactions that are proportional related to their grief (and let's be honest, how does someone "grieve" the death of a stranger, the death of someone you don't personally know? is grief really the right word?) shouldn't be labeled a ninny. that's not fair either.

everyone is different. i just cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone can develop strong emotional commitments to someone they don't personally know sufficient to trigger a bona fide grief cycle similar to the grief and sadness one might feel if a relative or close personal friend had died.

[buddhamama]

33. everyone is different; agreed.

i can't find one point in your post that i disagree with.

i have/do like and respect you. when you pass, i'll be sad.

will the sadness equal that of a close friend or relative, no.

as with my sadness over Tammy's passing, i am sad for the people i love who will feel her loss personally.

i understand their loss.

i'll recognize your passing and will be sad for those who have lost you.

[IndyOp]

15. You have grief, you are not a ninnie. Ninnies hold themselves above others

in regards to the grief they feel. I was just responding to the other poster - who first used the term "grief ninnie."

I do think it is an interesting thought that some people may deal with fear they feel at other's being hurt by dramatizing how very, very good they are for not criticizing the victim.

[datasuspect]

16. it might be as simple as a lack of emotional security

on the part of both camps.

[IndyOp]

23. A lack of emotional security on the part of both camps...

What does that mean? I would argue that it means that they lack confidence, practice in allowing very strong emotions to be as they are - to acknowledge and honor the emotion, but to not allow their thoughts and behavior to be clouded by them.

I see someone else who is hurt and that makes me think of myself being hurt which causes me to feel fear - what do I do with that fear? Do I recognize it and think and act with wisdom or do I take a quick action to distract myself from my own fear - attack someone else with thoughts or words so I don't have to feel my own feelings?

I do want to challenge what you seem to think of as emotional security. You said in a post somewhere on this thread that many people are "delicate" - cry easily. The strongest people in my life cry easily and feel emotions intensely.

Courageous people feel emotions intensely - including grief and anger - when they see others being hurt and those emotions motivate them to take action.

It is perfectly okay - even good - that we vary in the intensity and style in terms of how we respond to events. I don't want to paint people with more introspective ways of experiencing their emotions as any worse than people who express emotion more publicly. I also don't want people who publicly express emotion to be considered more "delicate"...

This picture is very nice:


I like this one better - keeping in mind that anger is no more powerful a motivator than grief, IMO...

[datasuspect]

25. i think i meant maturity

and wrote security instead.

but it still might work. this actually is rather complicated. i think you are on the right track though talking about ideas, causes, and conditions. a very rare breath of fresh air.

[xchrom]

6. what an interesting -- perspective.

:eyes:

[datasuspect]

9. thank you for sharing

i don't have any shortcuts for actual communication in my stockpile, so i'll spare you any passive-aggressive smiley-age.

[xchrom]

12. oh please -- like shortcuts to communicating are so enlightened or enlightening.

displaying low wattage humanity and offering that as some legitimate critique? :rofl:

there's your passive aggressive.

[datasuspect]

14. i know that understanding is truly underrated

thanks for the disparaging remarks. what did i do to you personally?

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Great post. You made a lot of important points for

us all to remember.

[aikoaiko]

11. can't it beexplained simply enough with gloating. or schadenfreude

[IndyOp]

20. What is the underlying explanation for the gloating? That is what

the just-world bias tries to get at - the emotions and motivations that cause to people gloat about someone else's pain, to decide they must have deserved it. If you say that the behavior is just gloating or noticing a case of schadenfreude, then I would ask what motivates the gloating, what motivates us to point out the schadenfreude?

Cancer is a grim reaper that shows no favoritism. Did Tammy Faye and Tony Snow deserve their cancer? If so, then Elizabeth Edwards must've done something awfully bad and she deserves her cancer, too.

Of course, there can be more than one motivation, emotion underlying a behavior. I could help my elderly next door neighbor because I want that person to feel secure and comfortable in their home (pure altruism) and, simultaneously, I could be helping them because I am afraid I will one day be old and alone and need help and my helping my neighbor now will earn me some good karma so I will be deserving of help in future (not so pure altruism).

Being as honest as I am capable of being about ALL of my emotions and motivations helps me to grow, to better understand myself, others, and the world we share.

[aikoaiko]

30. Just world is a cognitive heavy explanation -- too much so IMHO

Gloating is simple to explain -- when bad things happen to people you dislike/hate then it feels good.

Just world beliefs are superfluous. You could just as easily believe that the world is unjust or uncaring and still feel good about someone you don't like/hate experiencing bad things.

[IndyOp]

34. Entirely legitimate point. I am still interested in the feedback loop though -

to the extent that I am happy that someone I don't like was hurt, how does that impact my thoughts and feelings about other people and/or about myself when bad events occur in future?

Peace!

[Annces]

19. Very good points

It is a natural reflex to want to distance yourself from bad things happening.

I would also add that life is meant to be lived, and there are all kinds of hazards with no guarantees.

[Maraya1969]

21. You make a lot of sense. And maybe that is why people are so horrified

when a child or and animal is abused. There is no way you can blame the victim in this one.

[IndyOp]

27. Agreed.

People can and do still blame children and animals, though - especially if they too are at risk of being abused in the same home, same community. Siblings of an abused child will blame the child. Even the mother of an abused child will blame the child if she feels she cannot be safe without keeping the abuser in her life - because she will be cut off from financial support. :(

But, sometimes the light shines through and people realize the child/animal is innocent and the horror of the abuser is experienced at full blast.

[distantearlywarning]

26. Nice summary of the Just World Effect.

A little Social Psych is always appreciated.

[IndyOp]

28. Rock On! I see the world through the frame of psychology -

it certainly isn't the only useful perspective, but it is mine.

I am waist-deep teaching the social psychology section in my Intro Psych class. Looking at the capacity for human evil revealed by Milgam's Obedience Study and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison study stuns me every time I cover the material. Tomorrow in class I will show a snippet from "Blind Spot" in which Adolf Hitler's secretary (in an interview in 2001) talks about how Hitler manipulated the consciences of the German people - death camp guards said they felt pity for the inmates, but that they had to shake that off and do what was necessary to protect their country, their family.

On edit: Spelling. I need to go back and review my 4th grade spelling book!

[OzarkDem]

29. Americans tend to do this with cancer

Their fear of it pushes them to make bad judgments and choices when responding to it. Its a defense mechanism.

Its much easier to blame someone for getting cancer than face the fact it could happen to us and move forward with an agenda to eradicate it.

That's why its taken so long to begin fully funding research into ways to prevent, detect and cure it, as well as funding the cost of helping uninsured people get good cancer care.

Its the nation's #1 killer, but it doesn't have to be. If we face up to cancer and choose to enact a good agenda, we can get rid of it. Its possible, absolutely.

That's why it has to be one of the questions we ask of our political candidates - as important as taxes, the war in Iraq and impeachment.

[IndyOp]

31. Wow. Cancer as a major issue. How radically different would candidate speeches be

if we all got together and stated the most important issues in our lives and then demanded candidates respond to OUR LIST - instead of them coming up with their own list of what they think we think is important?

Thanks for categorizing the just world effect as a defense mechanism - it is of course a kind of rationalization, but I hadn't ever thought of it that way before.

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

32. Cancer is the #1 killer of people in the US

If will affect 1 in 3 Americans.

Over 560,000 people in the US die from it every year. Thats a lot more than the number of people who die in the Iraq War or the 9-11 attacks. Its not a niche, boutique or special interest issue - its one that affects everyone, directly or indirectly.

You're correct in that your response is also a good example of how Americans remain in denial about it. :hi:

[Heidi]

35. Good job rationalizing poor behavior

on both sides. Look, almost _anything_ can be rationalized: grief ninnying and grave dancing both. But we're all adults here and I can think of absolutely no rationalization for treating fellow progressives with contempt, whatever our personal wounds and fears.

I appreciate the effort you put into your OP, and I do believe that in a broader context your analysis could prove accurate when push comes to shove in our uniquely American culture (i.e. "a population that is fearful can be led to lash out even when that is the very last action that will really bring security") but in the DU discussions of Tammy Faye Bakker Messner's death, I just saw a lot of DU infighting, polarization and contempt on both "sides."

[buddhamama]

36. the rationalizing

can contribute to detachment. it shouldn't replace understanding. well said. :hug:

[Heidi]

37. Hi, you!

I miss your voice of reason, my friend. :hug: :loveya:

[buddhamama]

39. likewise...

our paths don't cross often...:(

i know you're here though, and this is good. :hug: :loveya: :hug:

[IndyOp]

38. I am not accepting or excusing poor behavior -

If I argue that 9/11 was blow back for CIA and military activity abroad, does that mean I am accepting terrorists? Poor, poor terrorists - anyone who does that needs our understanding - therapy, not jail?

You know that trying to understand the causes and context of behavior is not excusing that behavior. It is useful for preventing future bad behavior.

The only ways we can change behavior is to punish bad behavior that has already occurred or change the conditions that will prevent future bad behavior.

What I was doing was examining the rationalization that may have been happening in the minds of people who were attacking Tammy Faye -- if the people who were engaging in either side of the battle found it useful then that is the best I can hope for.

I agree that DU is filled with infighting, polarization, contempt, baiting and bullying. What do we do about these problems?

Posting in a thread that has turned into infighting that you think the people engaged in battle are behaving badly and should stop immediately seems not to get us anywhere -- it just fuels the fire. The people engaged in biting each other's heads off pause long enough to bite off the heads of anyone who intrudes and then return to their fight.

Lots of people would benefit from better understanding their own emotional reactions. The amount of conflict here and in the world at large would be greatly reduced if people took responsibility for their own fears and anger and grief. Me included.