Being rigid or open minded
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 05:28 PM
Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:41 PM
Your right I do hold my vows as sacred , & I have no regrets . I'm actually proud of having stayed true for over 20 years >:]
Posted Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:31 AM
The following is predicated the topic being "cheating" as opposed to polyamory.
Think of it like this: Lets say I magically gained this same mental flexability you referred to. (I currently lack this "flexibility") Would it be okay if I were equally "flexible" when it comes to cheating people in other ways?
I mean, is it ok how mega corporations cheat working people and tax payers?
Is it ok that health insurance companies cheat people out of healthcare they pay the insurance companies to provide?
Is it ok that banks lied to thier customers about the terms of their mortgages leading them to foreclosure?
Is it ok that Bernie Madoff put untold thousands of workers' pensions to sleep with this ponzi scheme?
Is it ok that Enron cheated thier employees and investors by cooking the books?
In each and every one of the above examples, people are being treated unfairly and unequitably...and they're not being dealt with honestly.
Are people who think these things are wrong "extremely rigid in thier beliefs, as if there were sacred principles of right and wrong"? Why is only sexual cheating ok?
And aren't those who insist that those who are like Q are wrong equally rigid? Does accepting cheating and rejecting polyamory AND monogamy any more open minded?
Edit : Why is this in a mental health forum?
This post has been edited by ilyushin79: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:48 AM
Posted Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:55 PM
Well Suzi, I like the type of questions you make, but I figure you're not going to get a lot of answers on this one...
The way I look at this is that people tend to create their own problem-solving styles. This is probably a very human trait, we tend to find shortcuts whenever we're in front of a problem or question. So, generally, what happens is once we've figured out a way to solve a problem, we get predisposed to solve similar problems in the same way even if there are other more efficients ways of solving it. This is basically the result of inductive reasoning of which most of us are prone to. Sometimes, we are shown that our "usual" solution doesn't work, yet we insist in sticking to it possibly because we have seen how it solves a particular problem the greatest number of times.
Now, there are some people who are prone to thinking in a more "fuzzy" way, meaning that the way they reason when solving a problem is by approximation instead of trying to provide an exact answer. Fuzzy logic as a way of reasoning is mostly associated with mathematical problems, but there are people who function this way and have a more "plastic" view on how to solve a problem... This has been labeled neuroplasticity. Basically, what this means is that some people can adapt their responses a lot easier based on the interactions between their nature, the way they grew up and the amount of experiences they have been exposed to, and even their nutrition patterns.
One example of adaptive thinking is the one that people who speak more than one language have... With this I'm not talking about people like me who learned other languages as an adult, but about bilingual children (i.e. Los Angeles, Montreal). When you speak more than one language, you tend to code switch, meaning you move back and forth between two or more language systems that more often than not are attached to their own cultural systems, their own belief systems. You bet that individuals who grow like this are better able to prioritize information in potentially confusing situations.
Of course, you can never underestimate the effect of culture when solving a problem. It's interesting to see, from my own perspective, how people attitudes reflect on their preferences even when the solution they choose goes against their own interests. This can be reflected in attitudes towards authority, so for instance, you see people, say working class, who might reject a beneficial health care package because of their anti-authoritarian attitudes even though that package would benefit them in real terms. Now, I'm talking hypothetically here, and please don't discuss Obamacare or whatever it is because I have no idea what that is. I'm just trying to explain why some people tend to stick to their guns with an issue.
Also, there is the ambiguity factor. In general people prefer to take the well known route of simple, well-ordered unambiguous solutions to the problems of the world. I suppose this is a rather happier way of thinking if there aren't events that rock your world in a significant way. Why would you, after all, start thinking about every possible nuance in a situation if you can just make it fit in your A, B, or C slots, and have a ready made answer to the problem? I mean, your answer might not be as precise, but it's a lot easier to handle that way. Some people can't, after all, tolerate too much ambiguity in their lives.
This post has been edited by Olive: Sat Nov 12, 2011 01:12 PM
Posted Sun Nov 13, 2011 02:59 PM
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2011 01:32 PM
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:15 AM
Posted Thu Dec 01, 2011 02:15 PM
Posted Mon Jan 02, 2012 09:37 PM
I think people who have been cheated on don't understand how it happens. That most people don't plan it. This makes people rigid.
This post has been edited by n2kinky: Mon Jan 02, 2012 09:40 PM