Why we are noncritical? False and true
I Will begin authority with history from life.
Meeting of country cooperative for an occasion of purchase of the electric transformer of public use. There is one of summer residents:
- And why we bought it? On the TV the Minister of Energy acted and told that to thirty five the transformer is optional.
The initiator of purchase answers (by the way, the electrical engineer, in life - the chief engineer of the enterprise):
- Forgive thirty five what?
Pause and resolute answer:
- To thirty five!
- What thirty five? Kilograms, houses, years?
- I do not know, but the minister told - to thirty five not necessarily.
- Sorry, - the electrical engineer carefully continues, - you as who?
- Piano teacher!
- And I am the chief power engineer and that it “thirty five“ - though kill, I do not understand.
- But the minister told: to thirty five it is not obligatory...
Here it, extreme degree of backwardness of critical thinking. The heroine of history (really absolutely real) in principle does not realize what occurs. She does not hear questions and arguments of the interlocutor and persistently bends the line, despite obvious absurdity of a situation. On the TV spoke, so to comprehend not necessarily. Perhaps, she also heard something, only forgot, how exactly it sounded.
In the people it very precisely is called: “heard a ring yes does not know where it“. And all right her would express the opinion, let it be illiterate. The problem is that it just and has no opinion, it should be formed on the basis of the selected information during its analysis and critical evaluation. It is much better to take something ready and it is desirable “authoritative“. And what at us now the main authority? Of course, TV. Nature abhors a vacuum! Foreign opinion is accepted to own, filling emptiness where the normal adult has to have a worked system of values and the flexible mechanism of thinking with the developed criticality.
The inability to estimate information works in both parties, taking the form of blind trust, aggressive rejection of everything that proceeds from a source, “insufficiently authoritative“. Here and our heroine continues to insist on the, even when with evidence pointed by her to delusion. (As - the minister told! Also me for a ride have nothing to take foolish questions here!) Besides, categoricalness of the heroine can be formed and be maintained partly it by professional accessory. The hypertrophied “self-confidence“ often passing reasonable limits is peculiar to many teachers.
Indisputability of own opinion, a habit to direct often develop into line of the personality and are shown far outside the professional sphere. The right to learn, to bring up, direct those who are younger and already owing to age is more inexperienced, in combination with obligatory responsibility for brought up form deceptive conviction in own infallibility always and in everything. It fixes the person in strongly accented role of “Parent“, and already he begins to see “unreasonable children“ in all people around. And such person is inclined not only to impose the opinion to those whom considers less expert, subordinate etc. He also so naturally submits higher or to those whom considers as authorities (and even identifies itself with them as he in the given history, - acts as if as voice of the authority).
Similar we see something in other history. Mother wants to restore old photos and asks the daughter to process them on the computer. Daughter: “All right, give the daguerreotypes here!“ Mother immediately rushes in attack: “You to me do not philosophize, took a manner, in eyes to me the education to prick. You assume airs, and the dishes are not washed!“
Situation in many respects similar. The daughter - “subordinate“, according to mother, does not show to her sufficient respect as she uses unfamiliar “too clever“ words and in general encroaches on wisdom “Eggs cannot teach a hen“. Categoricalness and authoritarianism in this case grow on the same nutrient medium - in a false manner the understood role of “Parent“ which can be played in the relations “parents / children“, “teachers / pupils“, “chiefs / subordinates“ in the same key: “I am more main (stronger, is more senior etc.) so by definition it is cleverer“. The widespread mistake when direct link between superiority at age (education, situation, and sometimes and life experience) and superiority in wisdom is established is so made.
And it is not always fair. Not only that is important, what is the time the person lived on light, but also as he lived - how “qualitative“ (various, filled, and, above all, comprehended) was his life. Twenty years of life of one person sometimes can cost to forty and even sixty, lived by other person “by inertia“ because he managed to see, test, experience more. Moreover, life experience is not the simple sum of vital impressions. Important and as far as these impressions were apprehended, processed, acquired, estimated. What conclusions were drawn. Only then they will lay down in a moneybox of the personality.
Meanwhile in reality this fact is seldom realized that is shown in all interpersonal interactions promoting occupation of a position of “Parent“. We are ready to believe any nonsense “from the TV“ or from “aunt Nyury“, but for anything, under no circumstances we do not recognize what “subordinate“ (on age or a social status) can really teach something us. As though this recognition will beat out from - under us a lame stool of our confidence in the authority!
Subconscious fear for the authority predetermines one more common feature of the described transaction - hostility of both heroines. It is usually expressed in social interactions by phrases of type: “Do not try to confuse me the leading questions!“ In family it is more and more rough and simpler: “The snivel is green, painfully clever became!“
A also begins with it formation of noncriticality. If parents impose the authority as firm, in children the habit not to call in question everything that proceeds “from above“ is gradually brought up. Later the place of parents is taken by teachers, the government, at someone “science“, and at someone God - or the cruel and punishing, or closing eyes on prank of “child“, but in both cases the figure of God will play not constructive role.
And, at last, the most terrible authority - unwritten laws of society which are drummed from a pot and are perceived by the personality as a fruit of own mysletvorchestvo. By impartial consideration and the critical analysis very many of them will prove the absurdity. And the main thing - already nobody remembers from where they undertook. But just we lack impartiality and criticality usually also so it is possible not to be afraid of the impartial analysis.
All this brings us to wider perspective - about a world picture, that is about what the person sees the world and himself in it. But about it is in the following article.