Well, first of all, the labels "positive" and "negative" here are just subjective value judgements.
No they don't in paychological terms. There is a clinical measure for negative affect, negative emotions which cause distress and even physical ill health, have a physical effect on the body. We all know that negative stress for example can lead to unhealthy effects on the body including heart attacks.
And secondly, of course people can have different psychological states but hold basically the same beliefs. Heck, one person's psychological state can vary significantly over time while their basic beliefs remain stable.
It depends, there are different levels of belief. But generally I think all beliefs can vary where we can question and doubt our beliefs. Strangle enough the times when we even question our fundemental beliefs even religious beliefs is usually during times of distress and when we are experiencing problems in our life.
Well, that is not an argument being put forward in this thread, so how about we ignore it.
But is it. You linked an article that promoted such beliefs. If we are talking about beliefs and attitudes that society should take to prevent the cultivation of abuse and violence then the ways we promote equality, the policies we use are relevant. If they promote division and inequality then this is relevant.
Well, no, they need all three. They might accept violence, but not have any belief that they have a right to control another person, so they won't use violence in that situation.
If they accept violence then they believe in violence. So they can believe in violence so long as its not used to control another person.
Or they might accept violence, but have no belief in rigid roles and thus see no need to enforce them. It's the three together which underpin abuse.
So if someone believes in rigid roles and doesn't enforce them this is not abusive. Is that right. What if someone believes in rigid roles and enforces them like say with chain of command. Or say with behaviour where people may force others to behave a certain way socially.
No, that's not true. The rigid roles, hierarchy and control, and so on, can be deeply damaging and harmful even if violence is not involved.
They can also be highly benefficial, healthy and normal. So why be biased and only focus on the negative potential. I have linked evidence for how hierarchies are natural and beneficial setups for humans and society. They happen in all mammals and many other species. Nested taxonomy and species behaviour hierarchies.
Chain of command is with rigid roles is a natural setup for many aspects of society from families to organisational setups, to the military and society overall. If we did not have these setups society would be in chaos.
Many of us do not buy into an ideology of hierarchy, control and rigid roles.
The actual ideology is that someone would make an issue about certain setups being unnatural and abusive perse when they are not. One has to then question why. Why such a biased and narrow view being pushed. It has all the hallmarks of ideology.
Whereas the balanced and factual view would be that these societal setups and structures are not inherently abusive and violent but rather can be both abusive and healthy depending on how they are used. Just like everything else in life its the human behind this. Any idea of view that narrows things down to a one sided view of life and the world should be viewed with skepticism as being a lopsides and skewed view.
No, seeing one's parental role primarily in terms of control, and seeing one's parental role primarily in other terms, are not the same basic belief.
But its comes from the same bais that at times parents need to be in control and to control the behaviour of their child. The only difference which is the major difference is that the abuser believes in abusive control even if that becomes the only form of how they bring their kid up.
No, the abusing parent will also typically want to exercise a far higher degree of control than many people will see as necessary. Controlling where others would be quite content to let a child make choices.
Well thats the very same idea as managed and directed control which may cause pain or discomfort or a denial of choice by a non abusing parent except they are applying this all the time.
Which would make sense considering its not something that they are managing well and have lost control of the situation and themselves as compared to a parent who can use this same idea but manage it wthin a controlled and loving parenting..
No, I'm sorry, our beliefs are not based on our mental states. This is clearly demonstrable from the way our mental states can change significantly even over the course of a day, but our beliefs are much more stable.
Beliefs come in different levels, more everyday beliefs and more fundemental beliefs. BUt we even vary in our core beliefs when we question and doubt them in times of problems which effect our thinking. This is just human nature.
The simple fact is that everything goes through the Mind, our mental aspect of being human. So the stuff that happens in our head due to experiences and conditions has to influence our beliefs. Belief is natural human cognition. Even you say that culture and conditions influence our beliefs. So the conditions and thinking of a different culture will be different to our own. How can it not influence our beliefs.
You did. You asked me a question instead of responding to the request for a source. I am not interested in the question, so I am just noting that you did not respond to the request for a source.
Thats because how you answered that question would have saved me having to provide evidence because its logical and common sense. If you agreed that human behaviour can only be understood on a multilevel by individual, family, community and the wider societal factors then you would agree with the
The Social-Ecological Model.
Which supports my claim that we can only understand who people abuse and use violence and control is by understanding the individual, family, community and wider societal determinants. We cannot understand this by just seeing this problem from the wider social aspect such as norms but must include all levels of influence.
Not really. All sorts of people tolerate, accept, and promote, relationships of power, control, and dominance. I've seen you doing some of that in this very thread.
Such as what exactly.
And you expect me to take anything you say after that seriously?
Why, I explained exactly how your reasoning was faulty, in other words fallacious. Claiming that we cannot determine negative beliefs from negative affect and behaviour has no evidence and in fact the opposite is true.
You cannot have positive and healthy beliefs and negative and unhealthy behaviour or visa versa when it comes to socially inappropriate behaviour. Where there is destructive behaviour to self and others there will be some sort of negative affect and destructive thinking and beliefs.
The point is, you cannot look at a list of someone's risk factors and protective factors, and tell me accurately what they believe, from that information alone. There is no direct, clear, causal relationship, and there are far too many other variables and influences in play.
Once again you take an either/or and in fact rigid thinking yourself rather than seeing this as a dynamical problem or varying risk and protective factors. There is no rigid set of factors but rather its individual, Some people handle what others don't, some peoples individual circumstances hinder them while it doesn't for others.
But generally there will be some sort of mix of risk factors, negative determinants that build towards bad stuff happening like abuse, substance abuse, DV, violence in general. These things don't come out of a positive mix of factors but a negative one. So when we see these negative mixes we know that some sort of psychological distress and other stressful and distressful conditions are involved.
It doesn't mean that every single person will be the same but it does tell us that these groups will have a much higher incident. That is the only way we can properly tell human behaviour. There is no other way because its a holistic measure that includes all the factors on the individual, family, community and wider social factors that influence behaviour.
As if people don't actually choose their behaviour.
No people choose their behaviour but these experiences, conditioning and personal psyche influence how they see the world as to making those decisions. We are not a clean slate or the same slate as each other as far as thinking and making decisions. People make decisions based on how they see the world.
A person who percieves threat is going to be motivated and influenced in their deccisions compared to someone who sees the same thing as not a threat. Thats obvious because their base for making those decisions is coming from a completely different worldview. They may not understand the full implications or be in denial when making decisions compared to someone who is realistic and has insight.
But that doesn't mean they should not be held accountable. It just means they have allowed their life to get to a point where they are out of control, in denial and that denial is now causing anti social behaviour. Like I said the evidence shows that to change their beliefs you have to get at whats causing them to be in denial and unrealistic which is usually some underlying issue they don't want to face.
Unrealistic expectations are not only or always or even mainly due to cognitive distortion. People hold unrealistic expectations all the time. It's just part of being human.
Yes but its when those unrealistic expectations get to the point where they are actually effecting your behaviour towards others that its destructful. Most of the other times there is some sort of consequence for unreal thinking as mentioned even if its a mild as just offending someone verbally or missing an important appointment or getting into financial problems.
But the key is when that thinking affects yourself and others to a point being inappropriate or destructful.
Yes, that's why it's called a social norm. It has become normalised within our society and culture. That doesn't mean it's not harmful.
Of course not. But it also doesn't mean we should assume its automatically harmful because its not either. We have to determine this case by case and put in place measures that may minimize opportunities to exploit others. But is life. Every situation is a potential for abuse when 2 humans or more are together.
I will have a read of your link and get back to you. Thanks Steve.
