Mean and Stupid
Image credit: Pauline Baynes
In this illustration from the C.S. Lewis book “The Last Battle”, we can see Puzzle the donkey wearing a lion skin and Shift the ape.
I chose it for this entry because Lewis's book perfectly incapsulates the myth or the mean and the stupid. The last book of the series describes how the world of Narnia ends, and how the beginning of the end was triggered by actions of two characters: a stupid but kind donkey manipulated by a smart and mean ape. Unwittingly, most people support the idea that most damage comes from actions of those who are either stupid or mean or both.
Most of us do not think about ourselves as either (the fact that we can sometimes say "Oh, I am so stupid" when we make a mistake does not mean that we consider ourselves stupid in general).
Lewis most probably did not think about himself as mean or stupid. Most probably, he was not. Ironically, he may have created some damage with his well-meaning stories. In particular, it is noteworthy how his works may have contributed to ideologies of colonialism and racism. In most books, dark-skinned people residing to the South or Narnia are presented as inferior to light-skinned and fair-haired southerners. Everybody speaks English, and newcomers from England come multiple time to Narnia to save it and/or rule in it.
1) Some people are kind and others are mean.
2) Some people are smart and others are stupid.
3) People who hurt others are usually mean and/or stupid.
4) Smart and kind people don't hurt others (most of the time).
5) "I am not mean or stupid so I don't hurt others (most of the time)".
Here is where it connects to the first explanation - that there must be something in the human nature that makes people hurt each other. Dividing everybody into neat transparent categories - mean vs. kind, good vs. bad, smart vs. stupid - is related to the tendency of the human brain to perceive the world through binaries. The tendency to see yourself as one of the "good guys" (see #5 above) can be also explained by our cognitive mechanisms. It's one of the biases that makes us prioritize our perspective over others and ignore flaws of our own thinking. The problem is that, when we strongly believe that only mean and stupid ones (which we are not) can hurt others, we very conveniently ignore how we can actually cause pain and discomfort to those around us.
When we explain the existence of human suffering by referring to intellectual and/or moral deficiencies of some people, what we mean is that these "some" people either do not understand how their actions lead to suffering or are desensitized to the suffering of others (i.e., don't care about it). We often assume that we ourselves do not have these deficiencies: we will not miss when our actions cause harm and will not ignore any harm we may cause. However, this may be wishful thinking. It's not uncommon for people to be consumed with their own emotional pain to the point that they miss other people's unmet needs. It's also not uncommon for people to suppress their empathy and knowingly hurt others for a variety of complex reasons. Even though some of us may be more attuned to feelings and needs of others, or find it more difficult to suppress empathy in themselves, I believe that all of us lack understanding and sensitivity sometimes.
Moreover, the issue of some people being potentially more cruel than others may be impossible to discuss without referring to the complicated topic of free will. In other words, can we really say that some people make conscious choice to be less attentive or less sensitive, while others consciously decide to be more empathic? Note that consciously deciding to take an action that will hurt somebody is not consciously deciding to be less sensitive. It's highly possible that some people are more sensitive than others due to circumstances outside of their control. By the same token, I am not sure I can really give myself credit for being a very empathetic person.
PAGE IN PROGRESS
About this project: Start page
In this illustration from the C.S. Lewis book “The Last Battle”, we can see Puzzle the donkey wearing a lion skin and Shift the ape.
I chose it for this entry because Lewis's book perfectly incapsulates the myth or the mean and the stupid. The last book of the series describes how the world of Narnia ends, and how the beginning of the end was triggered by actions of two characters: a stupid but kind donkey manipulated by a smart and mean ape. Unwittingly, most people support the idea that most damage comes from actions of those who are either stupid or mean or both.
Most of us do not think about ourselves as either (the fact that we can sometimes say "Oh, I am so stupid" when we make a mistake does not mean that we consider ourselves stupid in general).
Lewis most probably did not think about himself as mean or stupid. Most probably, he was not. Ironically, he may have created some damage with his well-meaning stories. In particular, it is noteworthy how his works may have contributed to ideologies of colonialism and racism. In most books, dark-skinned people residing to the South or Narnia are presented as inferior to light-skinned and fair-haired southerners. Everybody speaks English, and newcomers from England come multiple time to Narnia to save it and/or rule in it.
1) Some people are kind and others are mean.
2) Some people are smart and others are stupid.
3) People who hurt others are usually mean and/or stupid.
4) Smart and kind people don't hurt others (most of the time).
5) "I am not mean or stupid so I don't hurt others (most of the time)".
Here is where it connects to the first explanation - that there must be something in the human nature that makes people hurt each other. Dividing everybody into neat transparent categories - mean vs. kind, good vs. bad, smart vs. stupid - is related to the tendency of the human brain to perceive the world through binaries. The tendency to see yourself as one of the "good guys" (see #5 above) can be also explained by our cognitive mechanisms. It's one of the biases that makes us prioritize our perspective over others and ignore flaws of our own thinking. The problem is that, when we strongly believe that only mean and stupid ones (which we are not) can hurt others, we very conveniently ignore how we can actually cause pain and discomfort to those around us.
When we explain the existence of human suffering by referring to intellectual and/or moral deficiencies of some people, what we mean is that these "some" people either do not understand how their actions lead to suffering or are desensitized to the suffering of others (i.e., don't care about it). We often assume that we ourselves do not have these deficiencies: we will not miss when our actions cause harm and will not ignore any harm we may cause. However, this may be wishful thinking. It's not uncommon for people to be consumed with their own emotional pain to the point that they miss other people's unmet needs. It's also not uncommon for people to suppress their empathy and knowingly hurt others for a variety of complex reasons. Even though some of us may be more attuned to feelings and needs of others, or find it more difficult to suppress empathy in themselves, I believe that all of us lack understanding and sensitivity sometimes.
Moreover, the issue of some people being potentially more cruel than others may be impossible to discuss without referring to the complicated topic of free will. In other words, can we really say that some people make conscious choice to be less attentive or less sensitive, while others consciously decide to be more empathic? Note that consciously deciding to take an action that will hurt somebody is not consciously deciding to be less sensitive. It's highly possible that some people are more sensitive than others due to circumstances outside of their control. By the same token, I am not sure I can really give myself credit for being a very empathetic person.
PAGE IN PROGRESS
About this project: Start page
