The Avoidance of Trouble

Don't cause trouble.

How much trouble is caused, thanks to the hesitancies of people that say "don't cause trouble"?

In the DiSC inventory of personality styles, the "S" category is in the clear majority. Something like 60-65% of the typical population is comprised of these "High Ss", which stands for such qualities as Steadiness, Sensible, Security, Sincerity, Stability, Safety, Specializing. 

The S group definitely keeps the world running. Give them a job to do, and they will give it 100% effort, with a focus on quality and excellence. They are dependable. They will be at their job station on time, and will leave on time. They do not like surprises, and do not like to rock the boat. 

It is hard to avoid the influence of an S. They're everywhere. They will give you advice, with words like "You don't want to . . . " when they have no idea what you want. But to them it is so crystal clear: Do what makes sense. Don't take chances. Don't rock the boat. Try to keep everything around you peaceful and predictable. 

They are overly cautious, but they keep all of us out of trouble, and we owe them a lot. 

The downside is that, someone's got to point out wrongdoing when it happens. And it will happen. Unless it's metaphysically obvious that a wrong has been committed, evil will never be consistently challenged, because the majority, the Ss, keep urging us "don't get involved. It's not your problem."

Hitlers are inevitable, because there are so many Ss (please bear with me here. Ss tolerate potential Hitlers for good reasons, to a fault). As long as the violence and injustice doesn't come too close to them, too early, of too great a magnitude, they will put up with it. They are the ultimate frog that can be cooked via slow heating of the water. 

And so, the advice: Don't cause trouble . . . works very well, because its advocates are in the majority, and we have an innate approval for whatever the majority wants. But the majority does not take chances, which means the majority usually is not very creative; and not much able to deal with unexpected developments.

There's a reason why the road to wisdom always ends on a mountaintop, at the feet of a single, solitary guru.

I wonder how many people in our society are risk-takers and innovators, but never try, because the dominant nay-sayers are simply too numerous. It seems more than plausible: a person that would normally act decisively and assertively may be brought to bay, by a culture that marginalizes and intimidates such attitudes. 

How many people, so treated, end up retreating into a shell, where they become of less value to society. Indeed they may even become a liability, if their will to advance great things is crushed by the prevailing culture. Hitler may be the expected result of forcing a creative risk-taker into a corner, and telling him to stop causing trouble. 

Today, this very day . . . look around, and see if there are problems we could solve, or prevent, if the environment wasn't so discouraging towards people that might actually see the problems. Make a note of the words people use, to get others to just shut up and sit down. 

Putting Boundaries on Boundaries

I think the boundaries thing has about served it's purpose. It's run it's course. We've driven it into the ground, and broken it off. We started talking about boundaries, say, probably around 2004. It slowly came into vogue. By the end of the 2010s it had gone mainstream and drawn in all the margins. It gave us such meme seeds as:

• Know when to say no. 
• You have to take care of yourself first (like in air travel emergencies).
• Give yourself some "me time."
• You deserve to (fill in the blank).

In reality, there are times when we had better say "yes," even if it's what we don't want to do. Life isn't a Delta passenger flight - we are social creatures that wreck ourselves if we don't take care of others. All things being equal, the human race actually probably needs more "other," than "me" time. If we're being honest, we really don't "deserve" anything. 

"Boundaries" is not consistent with The Golden Rule.

Now, understand that I am not opposed to boundaries, per se. We go crazy if we take on too much. And we're no good at all to others if we're crazy. But like so many other things, too much of a good thing is bad. Too much water, too much oxygen, would kill you. The pendulum of human life swings back, and forth, through history. First we're big on justice. But then we swing over to being big on compassion. And then we swing back to justice; but we swing it further out, to include "social" justice. But then, we're back to making the streets safer. Back, and forth. 

The mature approach to the pendulum problem is to find the balance. How to maybe limit the swinging of the pendulum and get to a point where these competing, and incompatible impulses are both represented. For that is the true human condition. I will never have it fully my way, and you will never have it fully yours. We're going to disagree. The key is to finding a spot that is our way, while covenanting with each other, to protect each other, even when we disagree.

The 1980s were the "Me Decade." This wasn't something to be proud of. 

A generation later, it's the "Me First, Last, and In-Between, and Me Only Decade." You got a problem with that?

Here is an example of the type of meme in vogue today, in The Era of Extreme Boundaries:

Don't change yourself so that other people will like you. Be yourself so that the right people will love you.

The sentiment is boundaries on steroids. But it has a set of problems.

First: Changing, when it comes to yourself, isn't a bad word. The openness to change is necessary for growth. We must change, or else we die. But the boundaries ethic has come to mean, don't change at all. (It should be noted that society does, indeed, endorse some categories of change that represent existential change to one's real, true self. This is delusional and neither healthy to the individual nor to society at large. )

Second: It places the emphasis on whether or not to be liked, or loved, or both, or neither. Regardless, the focus is on self, and that is narcissism.  I know plenty of people that stand against the crowd, even if it means being disliked. But in 2022 we don't find it within our cultural mores, to celebrate people like that, if only for their courage. 

Third: Who are the "right" people. The ones that "love" you? And what is our definition of "love"? Being treated in a way that makes us "feel" good . . . or gives us a chemical rush? Real Love has everything to do with serving people we don't particularly love, or even like. It is not a feeling. 

Finally . . . the meme actually creates boundaries. Big boundaries. Series, hateful boundaries. Boundaries that cause divorce, fighting, crime, and even war. If you don't love me, I will dump you. 

I know that I am exaggerating. It may appear that I don't get it, or that I am over-analyzing it. 

But something is wrong with the world, and to trouble-shoot the problem, we have to be willing to examine, critically, the popular mores and trends. What books are people reading? What are the popular memes? What gets the most "likes" on social media?

In 2022, the pendulum has swung way to far to the extreme end that is about self. Me first. Love me. Notice me. Accept me. Me. Me. Me. 

Why? Because I have boundaries. 

Our course needs correction. 

Lies

If I say it, it is true.

If I write it, it is true.

If I blog it, it is true. 

If I get likes, it is true.

If I get arguments with evidence, it's still true. Oh wait, I take that back. If I get arguments with evidence, it may not be true, but the person challenging my statement is a racist, or misogynist, or fascist. This will make my statement true. 

If I'm running for an office, from the Presidency down to local school board, and I have an opponent that seems to be gaining traction, I can claim that he or she cracked racist jokes, wants to ban books, or wants to marginalize some group or the other. 

I do not need evidence. It's true. Or wait . . . whether or not it's true, it must not be challenged, because I must not be challenged. And if I am on the side considered more "progressive," more "hip," more "cool." If my side has celebrities, athletes, college professors, and wealthy corporate-types on the team; then anything I say might as well be true, whether or not it is . . . especially if I have supported it with lies that demean my opposition. 

Ethics are gone. Honor is gone. Integrity is gone. 

Make it stop. Please.