Owning tragedy

[loveofreason]

Ok... as much as I avoid news, it hasn't escaped me that bushfires burning here in Victoria, Australia have caused many deaths and massive personal loss.

There are appeals everywhere to 'help the victims'.

I might be peculiar, but I watch the reactions of people in the community with a sense that I just can't join in the sorrow fest. There is something obscene to me about people wanting to own the tragedy of strangers.

If I personally lost anyone or anything of my own I would have a legitimate right to mourn. But what 'right' do we have to mourn what we have not lost? If my daily life is not lessened in any way, then what have I to gain by rolling in someone else's ashes? Aren't I in fact 'stealing' from the legitimate mourners if I want to take their event for the purpose of feeling something.

I see this vicarious sorrow regularly, along with many other vicarious emotional experiences and it seems to be a kind of social glue, yet it repulses me.

If I (and other INTPs perhaps?) have this essential difference in psychological function and/or attitude... where does that place us within society? Within the psychological spectrum? Is it perverse to regard a thing as unhealthy that actually permits human society to function?

Could society function if we were all 'non-vicarious'? Could we in fact be a healthier society? Where would victims of tragedy find their solace and the means to rebuild?

What triggered all this was walking past a fundraising stall for the fire victims. It was that great Australian social leveler... the sausage sizzle.

Need I say what passed through my mind?

 

[Melkor]

IRONY?


Well...
I for one, don't see any harm in sharing sorrows.

I'll admit, it might seem silly, and a tad illogical, but really.....

I do occassionally get depressed from collosal events which I had no part in, was not affected by, and could do nothing about.


If you say that such events can't depress or affect us, or at least shouldn't affect us, then it's like saying that the greatest peices of literature have no right to turn our hearts.

Think of it...


If we all paid no heed to, and did not share any of the feelings we derive from the news and the like, then it would be much the same with reading.

Aren't novels simply just tragic stories from afar?
In fact could I not argue that being for the most part lies, that novels have less right to evoke feelings than true incidents, which you, seem to think have none?

 

[loveofreason]

The difference is one between fact and fiction.

In great works, whatever the medium, the object is to move the participant emotionally. That is not only legitimate, it is sublime.

Real world tragedy belongs to someone.

I guess depending who that someone is, they can either feel validated by a stranger's sharing of their emotion (which is 'normal?'), or violated.

Obviously the first reaction helps create the bonds that bring people together in a sense of ....communion? solidarity? And it must have some good for the species as well as the individuals...

But I get the most peculiar sensation from watching these events and the community aftermath. As though I am watching emotional feasting, vampirism - some players the feeders and others the victims. Doubly so. It disturbs me.

Perhaps the whole shared human emotional milieu disturbs me. At what point does one being know to stop feeding from the emotions of another? Or is it indeed giving something back that I can't see...

actually... I can see where this human quality called 'grace' could emerge in this transaction... theoretically.

The victims of tragedy accepting the grace of the community...

hmmm...

yes. I see it is legitimate to say the same mechanism that allows us to partake of literature permits us to share the suffering of our fellows. We would be ...not human? without it?

 

[Anthile]

I think mourning and crying is all about compassion. When we see someone mourning we are more willing to help that person because it is usually caused by a serious loss.
I guess this is a remnant from old days, when such a loss could decrease your chances to survive dramatically. When you help someone, this person will help you more likely than any other person when you suffer. Rational altruism. I see nothing bad or perverse in that.

 

[Melkor]

Anthiles put it nicely.

Humans are most concerned with themselves, but in a odd loophole, concerning yourself with others you can sneakily help yourself.

 

[sagewolf]

I would be surprised if you hadn't heard of that, Lor-- it's on the national news bulletins here in Ireland. Last I heard it was about... 20, 30 dead? I tend to tune things like news out, but it's a pretty bad number, right? (Just don't go disappearing off the forums any time soon, or we'll all get a whole lot more invested in those news bulletins all of a sudden. )

I agree with you, for the most part. I respect the fact that lives were lost, I respect that those fires have caused huge losses in life and property, and that the victims have undergone a huge amount of emotional strain and that they have hard times ahead of them. If the opportunity arose, yes, I would contribute money to help those who suffered, although I wouldn't go very far out of my way or inconvenience myself to do so.

I sympathise, when I think of it; I would not carry that to empathising. As you said, I lost nothing to those fires, and I am not suffering myself. I react this way to almost every death/disaster/accident I hear about. I give the tragedy the respect due to it and move on, forgetting it completely within about a minute.

If I (and other INTPs perhaps?) have this essential difference in psychological function and/or attitude... where does that place us within society? Within the psychological spectrum? Is it perverse to regard a thing as unhealthy that actually permits human society to function?

Well, we can view the disasters and tragedies with a detached eye, and in the midst of all the sorrow, we can maintain an objective viewpoint and evaluate everything with a logical mindset. This, in some situations, could prevent the waste of (possibly vital) resources or labour. It could prevent one community from weakening itself in order to help another community. It allows us to view the actions as something detrimental or beneficial to us, or to our community, without being hampered by empathetic concerns, which on the whole, is a good thing for the community in the long run.

What triggered all this was walking past a fundraising stall for the fire victims. It was that great Australian social leveler... the sausage sizzle.

Need I say what passed through my mind?

...A sudden urge to laugh at the morbid irony inherent in that particular fundraising method?

@Morgoth: Yes, but when you read a novel, you become personally attached to the characters. You invest your attention, your sympathies, and your time in finding out what happens to them. Even the more minor characters in a lot of books are, in a sense, more 'real' to me than are the people who die in accidents and disasters I hear about on the whatever-o'-clock news. I never knew those people even existed until I heard they were dead, so I give them the respect due to them and forget them. The characters in my books, though... They're real people to me, with a past, thoughts, a personality... they inspired me, or disgusted me, or made me think of things I never thought of before. If they die, I lose something too. So I mourn them, as I feel is right.

 

[loveofreason]

OK... yes...

there's a very good reason for this compassionate behaviour. I won't disagree.

But what is happening to participants on an emotional level?

Who is losing? Who is gaining? Is it a fair exchange?

Maybe it's just the media hunger that turns my stomach... that could be it.


edit:

thanks sagewolf..... I'm not inhuman for not feeling like my world has been threatened/torn apart/whatever because someone I didn't know died horribly? Lots of someone's? (over 180 last count.) Which doesn't mean I don't respect the circumstances or the loss.

I show my respect by not feeding from them.

And honestly. I would not barbecue meat in the name of helping their loved ones.

 

[sagewolf]

I don't think that having other people share in your grief lessens your own, and having people rally around you is probably a good way for a lot of people to cope with tragedy. If you lose something, you get a temporary gain to offset the emotional impact of whatever happened. Helping others is also supposed to trigger 'feel-good' areas of the brain, so the sympathisers get a psychological pay-off.

The media are indeed disgusting, you have my 100% agreement there.

 

[cheese]

Yes, I think it's probably the media hunger that repulses you. As though I am watching emotional feasting, vampirism - some players the feeders and others the victims. Also humans have a self-indulgent tendency to wallow in their feelings, something we find distasteful.

Compassionate behaviour is rational from an evolutionary perspective, and this behaviour is prompted by the emotion. I don't think this is your issue.

Note: The media was horrible during the tsunami as well, especially in Asia where there is even less respect for privacy and decency. They turned these people's tragedy into a spectacle. But perhaps that's what the average human needs in order to help.

RE empathy -
I am not sure how far you've gotten with this, but empathy is something that is now quite accessible for me. It was one of those emotions that I professed to feel as a social necessity but understood more on an intellectual level than anything else. One year it just switched on. I think it's useful for authenticity, compassionate behaviour, and feeling like a "good person". However I don't think it's of any real worth unless it translates into action. At the same time I think it's important to remember that we don't have all the facts at hand. Perhaps the cumulative effect of 10 years of passive empathy will lead to very effective action taken - at this point in time we have no way of knowing, but if it doesn't adversely affect our lives we shouldn't immediately discount it.
I've decided (for now) that emotions shouldn't be completely discarded in decision-making because they may be indicators of the most beneficial path to take, only on a level that's subconscious and not susceptible to rational analysis. Our reason-based arguments may be valid but our data is probably insufficient.

Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent!

 

[sagewolf]

@lor: I would not do anything resembling cooking in the name of helping people that died or suffered in a fire. Not just the irony making me laugh (and feel like a demon), but it brings to mind disturbing thoughts of how those people died. :-/ I do as you do: I respect their pain by leaving them alone and not making a spectacle of what should, in all decency, be private and personal.

@cheese: I'm not saying that empathy is useless, only that it's most useful when applied to those in your immediate surroundings. Sometimes the empathetic decision is the most valid and corect one to make-- indeed, in our circumstances, since we can almost always spare some extra for others, it's almost always the more valid choice. But I would value those near me in my community, over those I have never even met and who have their own community to support them. (I do feel empathy for those I care about and who I am close to, although I almost never know what to do with it. I'm far too private for my own good, and I don't like getting involved in other people's problems in turn. )

 

[Da Blob]

Anthiles put it nicely.

Humans are most concerned with themselves, but in a odd loophole, concerning yourself with others you can sneakily help yourself.

Hey, something human has taken over Morgoth's avatar. It made an intelligent nad insightful comment.

When my mother died the church was full of flowers at her funeral, yet during her long illness, she received no flowers, when perhaps she needed to.
I understand the witnessing of 'ghouls' in action,
but still there are quite a few good-hearted people in the world who suddenly feel empowered by A) dodging destruction themselves
B) being able to reach out and help someone in a time of need.

A lot of these 'little' courtesies would be meaningless unless set in the context of tragedy.. If one can only offer a cup of water to aid another, when is the best time to offer that cup?

Vicarious experience may be one of the forms of the Collective Unconscious that Jung was so certain existed...

 

[Wisp]

Hmmm... they're called wars, and unfortunately we still have them? Why does the communal guilt fade over time? For that matter, why does any sorrow fade in time? We humans are base creatures, and any sorrow we feel is only in order to salve our sense of ethics.

In time, our sense of ethics is restored, and we no longer need to feel sorrow about things that do not affect us. As long as this sense is happy, we are free of sorrow.

But it's late and I hardly know what I'm talking about anymore...

 

[cheese]

Sagewolf:
Yes, that's the impression I got from your post, and I agree with it. I got a bit carried away in my post and was trying to make a point about the possible evolutionary legitimacy of trusting emotions in decision-making, not discounting what you were saying.

I think I understand what you mean about not knowing what to do with empathy, although I'm probably a lot less private. But at least you have empathy! I remember numerous occasions where I stood helplessly by watching my best friend cry. I felt only slightly sorry for her and had no idea what to do, and physical contact was unpleasant to me so hugs were out of the question. I've slowly trained myself to open up, especially physically, and empathy has grown as well. I think if you just start practising the comforting actions of F types in these situations your nurturing feelings etc develop (although from what you've said you don't need help with this) and you become more comfortable with comforting, which is usually the most anyone can offer to a hurting person anyway.

 

[Weliddryn]

@Cheese: I was not going to post on this thread, but your story changed my mind. I have one friend, in real life, who is an ISFP. I have known this person almost my entire life. She has had a complicated past, and, as school progressed, her troubles with her peers became harder. She became..... suicidal... (I don't like saying this, its not my place to say. It is, however relevant, and I will not yeild any personal information on this person. I still feel like this is too much....). I was there, with her, throughout it all. I would always listen to her, but I did not so much comfort her, as tell her what her true problems were from a more objective standpoint. I was not ever sympathetic or anything like that, but I always listened to her. I think it was the fact that I was not very emotionally drawn to her problems that enabled me to help her.
She left the school we both went to for three years, but came back. Upon her return, she told me that the only reason she did not kill herself was because of me. I do not believe this, I am not important enough for that, but the fact that she said it has some value, I suppose.
I do not believe empathy or sympathy is wrong. I believe it is necessary, but it is subjective. It depends on the situation and I do not believe that I have the right to judge because of whether or not they empathetic or not. (this being said, I am still human and will probably end up making foolish and shameful judgements, anyway. I do try not to, however.)

 

[cheese]

Weliddryn:
Thanks for sharing that. I won't quote the post directly but I'll address the essential points (if that's not ok tell me and I'll delete this too):

Objectivity: Yes! This is how I deal with people's problems - I have come to empathise, but still can't help adding my objective evaluation of their situation. I figure a good honest look at the facts can help anyone. (This is more to do with solvable problems though, not unsolvable ones eg the death of a family member.) Often emotions obscure vision so I try to help them "see" their way clear. I believe there is nothing wrong here and applaud you for providing this service. I am also sure that you were a great help - it's difficult to know the extent of our impact on people.

Empathy: I wasn't saying this should take the place of objectivity; emotions should never overtake raw data. My point was more that empathy makes you more willing to help, however you choose to do so - monetary aid, listening, objective analysis etc. My concept of empathy doesn't necessitate agreeing with the stand of the person you're empathising with, just recognising their emotions and becoming aroused to a compassionate state.

Unsolvable problems: eg grief over loss - here I think empathy is helpful. The facts ("he's dead, he's never coming back, stop crying") do not solve the main problem, which is grief. This must be addressed by other means such as listening.
However the behaviour arising from grief - eg not showering, not going to work - can be addressed by objective consideration of the facts ("you'll feel worse, you'll lose your job"). These are essentially 2 different types of problems requiring different approaches.

So my thoughts are: there are some situations as you said where empathy is necessary, and others where it is merely helpful in prompting helpful behaviour.

 

[Weliddryn]

I've decided to keep my post, and don't worry about deleting your's, Cheese.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[cheese]

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Vicarious experience may be one of the forms of the Collective Unconscious that Jung was so certain existed...

I believe the Collective Unconscious exists in the connections between people with shared or similar experiences; it is the conceptual manifestation of people's capacity in society to relate to each other. As an example the shared concept of "god" enables people to relate to each other and acts as a basic source of reference for morality in society. This is why "godless" people (atheists) are often considered amoral or worse when more often than not they simply follow a moral code of their own rationalization. Also this is why the ten commandments from Christian lore if followed to the letter will result in a person who is a good citizen, but not necessarily a good person (Read: The Crucible).
I'm not bible bashing, if anything I'm suggesting the very real and non exclusive existence of "god" as a conceptual entity in the Collective Unconscious of the Christian community.

Now to the issue at hand: Emotional Morality.
Darwinism: Perhaps events like this will make future generations more fire aware.
Humanitarianism: This is a tragedy and we should give any assistance we can.
Nihilism/Hedonism: Shit happens, but be empathetic if it feels good.
Roboticism: Take note, human eradication is made easier with fire based weapons.
Communism: Lets share the cost of rebuilding by giving all our money to the government.
Capitalism: Perhaps I can make a profit setting up and running fund raising organizations.

 

[echoplex]

The funny thing is, despite the insincerity of many who seem to 'steal' the mourning of someone else's loss, they really might be losing someone and simply not know it. It may sound silly, but who is to say that a stranger who dies in a tragedy wouldn't have one day become a friend of yours? or at least an acquaintance? or maybe an SO/spouse? or maybe even someone who will influence countless others through science/art/etc.? Who knows, they may have one day saved your life in some way or another.

Imagine the person most influential to your life whom you've met in the last ten years, and then imagine they died one week before you met them.

Perhaps it's a reach, but my point is that everyone loses a little when someone dies, even if that's not apparent or urgently felt.

 

[Da Blob]

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Dunne


A winter's day
In a deep and dark
December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.

And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.
Paul Simon


Have you ever seen the movie "Harold and Maude"

I think that people welcome tragedy, on occasions because , for a short time, we can discard the US versus Them mentality and realize in the final analysis it is US, the entire species, versus IT, in whatever form IT might take... Disasters, calamities, weather etc.

 

[cheese]

Cognisant:
Fun.

Echoplex:
That's interesting. It seems like your thought is founded on the idea of impact. I assume it's inconceivable in this reality that every single person in the world would have an impact on me. So:

1) For those that don't, do I still lose a little if they die?

2) For the to-be-impactful dead: what exactly is it I'm losing? I'm assuming it's their impact in realities where the only root variable that's changed is their lifespan.

If we're talking all possible realities here I suppose it's possible that every single person in the world would have an impact on me in at least one of them. In this case, there're many actions we take each day that would prevent one of those realities from being realised and hence preclude Whoever's impact on us, thus bringing us loss. If I decide one day to stop buying coffee from a CoffeePlace and that day a possible lover of mine starts work there, my decision has caused me the loss of this man.

3) Should I mourn this? Or is the loss of impact only significant when the changed root variable that precipitates it is a shortened lifespan?

Am I mourning their death because of the loss of their impact on me, or am I simply mourning their death?

4) What about the loss of this reality, where the almost-impactful dead are indeed dead? If they would've been impactful alive, their deaths necessarily alter the course of some part of my life, which presumably opens doorways for others to have an impact. If the dead lived, I would lose this second impact. There is loss either way. Do I mourn it in an absolute sense? Or does it cancel each other out, leaving me free to enjoy solely positive emotions?

Just curious about your idea! Personally I do feel the loss of people I don't know when they die, but this is more a result of empathy for them and the loss of the people who do know them. Finding grounds for personal sadness through personal impact is self-centred on a superficial human level, and removes the need for empathy, which is derived from evolutionary self-centredness. So far the latter makes more logical sense to me.
I suspect I've oversimplified things, for which I apologise. This topic is quite dense I think.

Da Blob:
That is wonderful insight, and I think it's right to some degree. However I also think that the vampirism lor mentioned is real. I think, being humans, these two things can exist side-by-side. I also think that the combination of the two varies from human to human. Some are more capable of the nobler impulse, and some are baser. I truly believe there is a sizeable portion of our race that simply enjoys tragedy as a means to
a) transcend the mundanity of their existence, through indulgent intensity of emotion (explains the emos, the lovesick etc)
b) congratulate themselves on their own good fortune

I liked the poetry. I think beauty is a permissible excuse for indulging in the intensity it elicits. I need to think about this more though.

 

[fullerene]

Unsolvable problems: eg grief over loss - here I think empathy is helpful. The facts ("he's dead, he's never coming back, stop crying") do not solve the main problem, which is grief.

that is why Ti can beat the shit out of Te, when you need to talk to other people. A strong TJ won't stop and consider the possibility that feelings may be a problem (to the person having them) all by themselves. I had a long little discussion with a quite mature ESTJ on personalitycafe (which is predominantly filled with INFPs) to try to get him to understand this, and it still took a while. If you can rearrange your POV so that you consider feelings as an important part of the problem (if you're talking to a Feeler, that is. I tend to do it anyway when it doubt, though, because it's easier to rectify your mistake if you accidentally treat a Thinker's feelings as the problem than it is if you accidentally ignore a Feeler's feelings), not a whole lot of people really seem to need/want much more than careful, objective analysis. I think that what you just said is the key to Feelers.... a solid half the time, they start to feel better while I'm still trying to ask questions to fully understand the problem.

 

[Dissident]

Monkeysphere comes to mind.

I generally don't feel anythingin in these cases, I just don't. I take it seriously, I wont make fun of it or anything but I wont go out of my way to do something about it. Maybe I would try to find out the cause of whatever happened, how it could have been prevented, it's possible effects, etc. and that's it.
It's different whith people who I know or I can see, tho.

I guess that some people do feel for the victims, if they want to do something about it I say great, be my guest. Most people probably fake it or do it just to feel good about themselves, I hate hypocrites but... whatever, the ones who need the help probably don't care about the motive, they just need it.

Little rant:
People usually make me a bit angry when these things happen. For example: They see in the TV the story of a young man who died in a robbery, a fire, whatever and when they tell it to you they stress "he was a hard working person, everybody loved him, he was studying, he had plans, etc, etc. What a tragedy...". Does that make it any more or any less of a tragedy? People die every minute, most go unnoticed, do those worth less? Either mourn for all or mourn for none!

 

[fullerene]

sensationalism at its finest...

*grumbles

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

My own littlre rant here:

I was home on a day off on Sept. 11 2001 and I watched events unfold on tv as the signals were brought to us. While my reaction was "Holy shit!" I didn't feel particularly angry or sad. It was more like surprise that someone pulled something like that off. I spent most of that day thinking "Okay, this country is about to go apeshit on someone" and I started thinking about the upcoming war that seemed inevitable. I figured, Afghanistan, Iran and perhaps Syria and Pakistan were in for it. Never was I thinking, "Oh what a tragedy!" Just military planning mode, strategy, to what extent will the people of this country sacrifice for a cause. Those sorts of things.

At the time, I had already figured Bush wasn't the sharpest nail in the toolbox but thought maybe he had some relatively smart people around him. Little did I know he was as sharp as a ball bearing and the people around him weren't much better. The only time I got angry about events that began on that day was upon watching my president stupidly playing right into the terrorist's hands.

If I had known anyone who may have been at risk that day, I'm sure my thoughts would have been different but as it was I did not. My empathy level was rather low.

 

[cheese]

Cryptonia:
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you meant: were you agreeing with me?

My father is a very strong TJ - he has softened over the years to the point where he's really quite understanding of his F wife, but in the past - whew!

Dissident:
RE your rant: Yes!

IA:
Little did I know he was as sharp as a ball bearing