Tuesday, March 16, 2010

People Always Are, and Do, Opposite of What They Say?

March 16th, 2010

Maybe such is just an idiosyncrasy of human nature, but have you ever noticed that when asked to describe one’s personal traits and demeanor, people often seem to describe themselves differently than how they are appear to everyone else that knows them? That is, folks typically seem to see themselves differently than how they are viewed by the rest of us? Of course it could be that the viewer doesn’t really know the speaker/describer as well as they had thought. But I think the issue is more that we describe ourselves as how we would like to be seen by the world, regardless of any warped perceptions, be it a subconscious defense mechanism or whatever.

Also, have you noticed how often people say they are going to do one thing and then, regardless of intentions, set out to bring about an end that is diametrically opposed to their stated goal? For example, say, when a politician gets elected on a stated goal of trying to end partisan fighting/bickering/squabbling between the political parties (regardless of the actual feasibility of the stated goal), and then nearly immediately that politician personally champions legislation on a subject that has a recent and well-known history of being one of the most partisan issues of our times. I mean, to introduce such a polarized and partisan subject to the divided and polarized leadership of our nation and expect the leadership to come to an agreement is nearly ….. well, anyway…. Let’s just say, maybe such a political pursuit as to push for an agreement on an extremely polarized subject surely could bring about no realistic end other than to incite more partisanship and fighting between the polarized leadership and political powers – especially when discontent runs rampant everywhere.

Is this where the idiosyncrasies of human nature create the absurdities of the bureaucratic government? Or vice versa? Or..., maybe something totally different? Is the championing of a polarized political subject while trying to achieve unity in government an example of hoping for hypothetical ‘result A’ while in reality doomed to only achieving the unwanted 'result B'? Or is the whole thing and goals some form of an oxymoron? Maybe merely a smoke-screen to cover for something else? I suppose one can only surmise from the vantage point of a typical citizen.

Adam Trotter / AVT