10 March 2009
What is it that drives a human being to kill another seemingly without support or justification?
In the case of a psychopath there need be no reason at all. Outside of such medical conditions the answer is the same in all cases of close combat death; from crimes of passion to premeditated murder and killings on the battlefield the cause is always the same. It is emotion. A person cannot carry out these acts without ‘feeling’ like it is the right (or only) thing for them to do at the time.
No sane person enjoys inflicting pain or loss
Paychopaths on the other hand don't care. Their behaviour simply has to be self serving for it to be justified; it's as simple as that. However when non-psychopaths do it they do it because in that moment of pulling the trigger or pushing in the knife their emotion compels them to do so. In the case of war, that emotion is most likely fear. In the heat of passion it will be anger or frustration. In murderous killings like those in Ireland this week, those perpetrators will have experienced some strong emotion that allowed them to carry through their horrible deed. It may have been the desire for personal significance, (to be seen by a few comrades as somehow heroic), or to drive home some sense of emotional certainty (that everyone engaged in the delivery of peaceful and prosperous society are wrong and that they are right). Whatever it was probably had something to do with the ‘Brit’s out’ mentality that still lives on with those who have been left behind as the peace process moved on.
Any self justification they experienced is just a form of emotional certainty. While from a distance we can’t get inside their heads, we can be pretty sure that anyone prepared to take such extreme action to provide certainty is likely to be experiencing an equal and opposite level of personal ‘uncertainty’. Acts like this are not the product of intellectual evaluation; they are an outlet for emotional response. Therefore any attempt to intellectualise the reasons for the killings is pointless. Any intellectual attempt to prevent future attacks of this kind by radical outlaws like these will also be pointless. This is not a trading situation or a negotiation. It is the cultural management of high emotions in an armed and dangerous small (but significant) part of the population. Emotional problems need to be addressed by the management of emotion. Any effective action will change the way they feel, it need not address the political argument.
Any control these people generated from this act needs to be wiped away. Any connection these people hoped to get by committing this act must be prevented. Any stimulation they might have gained from their outlaw status needs to be undermined and any personal significance any of them might have got from being part of this band must be completely eroded. Their community must be encouraged to stand up for what they believe; they must demonstrate derision rather than fear and turn their backs rather than give attention. Cries of outrage and calls for harsh punishment will add to their certainty and significance; it will fuel their flames. The heat of reflected anger will give them certainty that they have achieved something. This isn’t politics; it is the psychology of tantrums made important by the use of deadly force. Any parent will tell you that to negotiate with a tandrum is to prolong the bad behaviour and ensure that it happens again. A tantrum is dealt with by inducing a change in the emotional state of the child. That is what must happen here: Imagine instead of national emblems, streets full of banners and flags proclaiming 'We Believe In Peace'; fuel stations promoting bumber stickers with the same message; supermarkets doling out lapel badges emblazened with the same simple message. Imagine a community determined to quite the tantrums rather than prolong them.
Harsh economic conditions, high cost of housing, lack of opportunity and (imagined or real) lack of care from authority figures are more likely real causes than some sort of political ideology. Political angst rarely causes any major issue when life is good. In different circumstances these same people may have vented their spleen by cocking a snoop at society; become hippies or held sit-in’s at University. It just happens that their fall back position (shaped by their elders and senior peers) is the use of extreme violence in support of their ‘cause’. Recognising this won't stop the psychopaths but acting on it may well change the behaviour of ordinary folk who just feel pushed to the limit.
In most businesses there are situations and behaviours that appear not to make sense: Why did that person do that when clearly it is wrong or damaging, is a question regularly asked. Thinking about the answer in terms of what might be motivating the action is a more fruitful approach than simply apportioning blame.
If you are a business owner who wants to thrive rather than survive, I recommend joining the ‘Business Success Strategies’ monthly audio coaching programme from BusinessCoaching.co.uk . They are offering £800 of FREE material just to take a RISK FREE trial. Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/yhh6zjb
07 March 2009
The papers have reported that his business empire is in trouble
His behaviour, language and aggressive tactics on TV have been roundly condemned by commentators in the press. His family life may well be hanging on by a thread after revelations of an adulterous affaire, and recent interviews with Glasgow Rangers officials suggest that his background as a professional footballer was also a fabrication. Now he is on the ground, he can expect to be viciously kicked. Hopefully the ‘injuries’ will not be fatal; after all it was his talent as a great chef that qualified him for the opportunity to become well known, and that has not changed; he’s still a great chef.
There are two aspects to this situation that are interesting; Ramsey’s own behaviour and the untruths he was happily prepared to repeat on record, and the vitriolic attitude of his attackers. Why would a clearly intelligent man say things about his past on a show like Desert Island Discs that could so easily be disproved? And why is there such apparent ‘joy’ at tearing him down?
I don’t know Gordon Ramsey (although I have tasted his food and it is good), so I have no idea about his off screen personality and if he is prone to exaggeration. I have however shared some small experience of working both on screen and behind the scenes on TV shows. That means I can at least empathise with the ‘flexibility’ of approach that is necessary to turn out a TV show. Often viewers forget that what they are watching is a piece of entertainment, created and designed for the single purpose of keeping their attention. No ‘reality’ show sets out to be a true reflection of everyday ‘normal’ life ‘as it happens’ because it would be as boring as someone’s home movie. What you see has been at least shaped (if not scripted) to be an entertaining show; nothing more and nothing less. It may therefore have been suggested that a harmless ‘embellishment’ of his past as a footballer would help the storyline of the show. In that context I’m as sure as I can be that most people would be reasonably content to ‘go along with it’. The trouble is, if this new story is then repeated over and over again, it’s really easy for the human brain to play tricks and for a person to unconsciously accept this new version of events as the truth.
Studies have shown that eye witness testimony can often be unreliable
The countless examples of eye witnesses giving conflicting testimony in court prompted psychological investigations to figure out why. Some conclusions suggest that memories are actually overwritten each time they are recalled; thus the new memory is not actually of the event itself but of the last time the event was remembered. Think of an argument you may have had with someone who goes away and shares the details with friends…over and over again, constantly retelling the events. You may have done something similar with your friends, defending your position more strongly each time you go over it again. Before long you will find that your version of events and that of the other person will be significantly different.
The interviews with Glasgow Rangers officials are probably the equivalent of you seeing a video tape of the actual argument; it would stop you short. In an instant you would be brought back to a new version of events, and probably feel a little silly as a result.
As for the pack mentality of those laying into him; this has much more to do with their own self esteem than it has to do with the events surrounding Gordon Ramsey. Their actions are driven by emotion. When this emotion is anger or vitriol that is way out of balance with the crime (after all, apart from his infidelity with his wife, who has he actually hurt), it suggests that a personal meaning is being attached to events that are actually not personal at all. Emotions like jealousy, envy and frustration at not being fulfilled are more likely causes.
Gordon Ramsey, just like the rest of is, is responsible for the path he takes in this world and is therefore of course responsible for whatever comes his way. He is also responsible for how he reacts. Situations like this can either break or make someone. There is no reason therefore why this should be his downfall. It is just another step on his journey through life. Just like the rest of us, his business and his personal actions are inextricably linked.
If you are a business owner who wants to thrive rather than survive, I recommend joining the ‘Business Success Strategies’ monthly audio coaching programme from BusinessCoaching.co.uk . They are offering £800 of FREE material just to take a RISK FREE trial. Take a look at http://tinyurl.com/yhh6zjb
First 1 Last