"You didn't want to talk" vs. "I would have liked to talk"

In the middle of an short email, a friend of mine wrote to me "... but you didn't want to talk to me :)" Ouch. My friend had been insulted by my actions. First reaction: guilt. I should've called, sms:ed, sent email - something. Second reaction: I should write or call my friend now, although then it wouldn't be because I wanted to, but because I was told to do so. It wouldn't feel right. Third reaction: Protest. I don't like to be pushed to around, I write when I want to write. You write me if you want to be in contact!

What just happened here? All these feelings blew through me half-consciously in less than 10 seconds.

This is a vicious circle starting right here. Something in it self small but unfortunate happened, and my friend felt neglected. My friend wanted to communicate the feeling of neglect, but not make it too heavy - thus the smiley at the end - although the hurt feelings were obvious. My reaction to it is easy to predict: denial, protest and the feeling of being treated unfairly. And the result, no improvement in the situation, but more hurt feelings.

So, what would be the alternative? Moving the focus from my error, to the desire of my friend. "I would have liked to talk to you." It is a positive feeling. Desire. It is a flattering statement. I would jump on the chance and call my friend immediately, or better yet, go visit my friend.

In this example, both parties have a lot to learn. My negative reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted, although understandable. I should learn to faster recognise the vicious circle before it starts. And most importantly, I should learn to take my friends better into account.
In my opinion, my friend would benefit from trying to, instead of confrontative statements, find supportive and constructive approaches. Confrontation is sometimes useful, but most often it is not an effective approach. A constructive nudge can, according to my experience, often be pivotal and highly effective.

Taboos and -ism's

Everyone knows it is a taboo to criticize religions and faith in general. That is precisely why faiths have survived so long, because they say that questioning them is bad manners. If it wouldn't, the inherent implausibility of faith and contradictions of the simplest logic that religions make, would have made the whole phenomenons crumble and disappear.

Interestingly, I recently discovered another taboo that works in the same way, although it is much more mundane. Namely, I noticed that to criticize the idea "hey, let's go for a beer" is a taboo. At least in one of my circles of friends, there is a strong social stigma associated with not-drinking-alcohol. People seem to assume that people, that do not drink at a party or dinner at the local pub, would destroy the mood, that such people are boring people. It seems that drinking is associated with group cohesion in such a way that non-drinking is perceived as a threat to group unity. As if, "If you don't drink you're not one of us."

While I see group cohesion as a positive force for happiness, it also robs us from the freedom of choice, which impacts happiness negatively. The absurdity of the situation is easily revealed by asking "Am I not good enough as myself, but only if I drink?" and "Why is it a problem for you if I don't drink?".

Another aspect is that people encouraging you to drink, with a "C'mon!", implicitly assumes that everyone will have more fun when drunk. Personally, I have lately found that drunken small-talk is just devoid of any real value. In this sense, I feel that people become boring when they get drunk, not the other way around. There are many exceptions to this, though, in the sense that many people that are interesting sober are interesting also when tipsy.

What this leads me to is that group cohesion is a strange animal. A sense of unity with peers is generally a positive force. However, generally all ways of maintaining cohesion can destroy all the positive effects and, worse, bring unhappiness. By design, most tools for maintaining cohesion are exclusive through "You have to be X, or you're not one of us." Here the "you're not one of us" -part is meant to be (and it is) a severe punishment.

This principle seems to apply in all cases where I recognize group cohesion as a strong force, including all theism/religions (infidels should die!), nationalism (you're not patriotic if you oppose, say, the war in Iraq), racism, criminal gangs etc.

The question that then remains is, is group cohesion possible without the negative effects? I would argue "Yes." People united by common goals, aspirations, attitudes or character, will often experience a feeling of unity without need for external maintenance of cohesion. In this perspective, positive group cohesion appears only when the group has a solid and well-founded purpose. Groups with only a weak purpose and weak motivation for unity are the ones who need to punish straying sheep. Positive group cohesion is then also an inclusive phenomenon, where all those whose internal motivation is the same can be included in the group, whereas negative group cohesion is an exclusive phenomenon, where all those who don't fulfil the external requirements are excluded from the group.

In essence, it follows, that the motivations to maintain theism/religions, nationalism, racism and criminal gangs are weak. The sense of inner purpose that these groups carry are so weak, that they must punish dissidents, otherwise the groups would fade away. What I find striking is that so many of these weak groups are known as -ism's. Is there a pattern? Perhaps this is also why many feel that the word atheism so badly represents the phenomenon.

Personally, the lessons I have to learn from this are then:

1. As a tutor, mentor, teacher and employer, I must strive to generate a common internal sense of purpose in my students and employees so strong, that group cohesion emerges.
2. As an atheist, I have to avoid partisan thinking, avoid construction of a them (theists) against us (atheists) -spirit, and openly participate in constructive discussions. By accepting all people as themselves, could prove to be pivotal in opening the minds of people.
3. As a person, I should strive to accept all people as themselves.

Edit: As an afterthought, I just realised one more pattern: In countries where religions are most accepting, most inclusive in their character (and thus follow their own teaching the best), are also countries where religions are fading away. For example, in Scandinavia, there is a very accepting atmosphere overall in the whole society, including religions. There, also churches are very weak. On the other hand, in the US, which is infamous for its exclusionist attitudes (esp. with respect to religions and patriotism), churches go strong.

The Power of Possibilities

During the last year, nothing has changed on the outside, but everything has changed on the inside. Suddenly, I've begun to see possibilities. I could apply for this or that job, I could go skiing, I could train climbing, I could this and that. Objectively, it is a small change. Yes, I suddenly have received some new job opportunities, but objectively it is not much more than what I had before. These options are not likely (as in the competition is/will be hard). But there is hope.

I have regained the feeling that there I have possibilities, which gives me the feeling that I can make choices. While I already knew that the feeling of being able to influence in your life's choices is important for happiness, the forces with which it hits you is awesome. My emotional state has risen from "ok" (50/100), to almost "happy" (80/100).