Conflict Addiction
A thread on the Middle East conflict may have opened an interesting can of worms, or at least that's how I see it.
The arguments presented in that thread from all sides are mostly just a recitation of points already made countless times over decades, since before most of us were born. So the on topic arguments themselves weren't all that interesting.
However the thread may have demonstrated an important factor that fuels the Middle East conflict, and other such real world conflicts. Let's observe a few things about the thread.
First, the title of the thread made entirely clear what the subject was to be, and anyone who has used the Internet for more than a month undoubtably knew before they entered the thread that it was going to be a conflict zone. It's possible there has never been a thread on that topic that wasn't.
Next, anyone with half a brain would also know in advance that nothing in the real world would be accomplished by such a thread, given that world leaders probably aren't reading this forum in search of our advice. We knew in advance that the thread would make a bunch of noise, and then sooner or later it would end, having made no meaningful contribution to the welfare of humanity.
Many members of the forum wisely sidestepped the MidEast thread, much to their credit. So we will pause to applaud their rationality here. Woo hoo to you!!!
But some of us, like this poster for example, saw a thread that they knew in advance would be an exercise in pointless conflict, conflict for the sake of conflict, and we dove right in with enthusiasm. Combat, whoopee!!!
Upon entering the thread, at first we may have acted in a reasonably mature intelligent manner. But as the engagement loop unfolded some of us were pulled ever deeper in to a cycle of attack and counter attack. We could have left the thread at any time, we could have simply regained our common sense and moved on. But once the cycle of combat began we found it hard to let go. What the evidence suggests is...
We liked the conflict.
This is NOT another thread about the Middle East, because a perfectly good shit show on that subject already exists.
What I'm hoping to discuss is the phenomena of conflict addiction. Philosophy forums seem an appropriate place to explore this subject, which may have rather a lot to do with real world conflicts all over the world.
The arguments presented in that thread from all sides are mostly just a recitation of points already made countless times over decades, since before most of us were born. So the on topic arguments themselves weren't all that interesting.
However the thread may have demonstrated an important factor that fuels the Middle East conflict, and other such real world conflicts. Let's observe a few things about the thread.
First, the title of the thread made entirely clear what the subject was to be, and anyone who has used the Internet for more than a month undoubtably knew before they entered the thread that it was going to be a conflict zone. It's possible there has never been a thread on that topic that wasn't.
Next, anyone with half a brain would also know in advance that nothing in the real world would be accomplished by such a thread, given that world leaders probably aren't reading this forum in search of our advice. We knew in advance that the thread would make a bunch of noise, and then sooner or later it would end, having made no meaningful contribution to the welfare of humanity.
Many members of the forum wisely sidestepped the MidEast thread, much to their credit. So we will pause to applaud their rationality here. Woo hoo to you!!!
But some of us, like this poster for example, saw a thread that they knew in advance would be an exercise in pointless conflict, conflict for the sake of conflict, and we dove right in with enthusiasm. Combat, whoopee!!!
Upon entering the thread, at first we may have acted in a reasonably mature intelligent manner. But as the engagement loop unfolded some of us were pulled ever deeper in to a cycle of attack and counter attack. We could have left the thread at any time, we could have simply regained our common sense and moved on. But once the cycle of combat began we found it hard to let go. What the evidence suggests is...
We liked the conflict.
This is NOT another thread about the Middle East, because a perfectly good shit show on that subject already exists.
What I'm hoping to discuss is the phenomena of conflict addiction. Philosophy forums seem an appropriate place to explore this subject, which may have rather a lot to do with real world conflicts all over the world.
Comments (80)
The ‘conflict addiction’ in all cases comes down to a compulsion to address a perceived injustice.
No, that's wrong, TOTALLY WRONG!!! What is wrong with your brain??? Are you on drugs? Is your mother in the world's oldest business??? :-)
Pardon me?
I'm questioning the degree to which the commenters, this one included, were invested emotionally in the actual topic.
Quoting Joshs
Questioning this too. I'd made possible exception for one poster who seemed to know people in the real world conflict zone. The rest of us, this poster included, questionable. How does participation in a meaningless activity demonstrate compassion for victims?
Quoting Joshs
Except that none of us in that thread are in a position to challenge those committing the atrocities, however we might have defined them.
Thank you, and sorry. My humor is so advanced that, um, I'm the only one who understands it. Or something....
Is it because of this? Quoting Foghorn
Maybe yes maybe no. But giving you the benefit of the doubt I will attribute that to the wind you have been exposed to lately, and perhaps in the past. IMHO a better option is not get too carried away. Some things or some people can be too big, if they start coming closer. It's good to look at them from far away. :-) I meant to say this to others but i have been enjoying the fun, as they don't know where they stand. Humor doesn't have to be in bad taste.
If those involved in the discussion considered it meaningless they would not have reacted so strongly to each other.
Quoting Foghorn
If we believe the person we are engaged in an argument with thousands of miles away harbors the same reprehensible views as those who are committing the atrocities , then the two become inseparable in our minds. We put ourselves in a position to challenge those committing the atrocities precisely by winning the argument against the commenter who we see as complicit.
I think the experience was meaningful for those involved, but probably not because of the stated topic. I think the stated topic was most likely a prop, which served to help us hide our conflict addiction from ourselves.
The theory here is that if we were actually interested in the topic, we would have taken some action to serve the victims being discussed. We could have, for example, used the thread as an organizational tool for setting up a GoFundMe page. None of us, this poster included, showed the slightest interest in practical real world action.
I'm not condemning anybody here, including myself. This is a philosophy forum. Philosophy is supposed to be about a reach for clarity. I'm reaching, that's all.
Sir: (I'm presuming) You do not understand the function of threads such as the "Israel killing Civilians in Gaza and the West Bank". "Philosophical discussion is the nominal function; the real function is quite different. The Philosophy Forum, and especially its non-participant readers, is composed of many thousands of testosterone-fueled right wing / left wing cisgendered males who, for lack of this noble outlet, would pour into the streets. Arson, rape, and bloody murder would ensue. There are also low-T old gay codgers like me who no longer riot, rape, and pillage but are perfectly capable of mixing a decent molotov cocktail (vodka or gin, as preferred) for the front line men. This is not to mention all of the politically correct, gender-fluid, non-binary thems, thoses, and its who are perpetually pissed off with nature who will throw their delicate carcasses against the hard bronzed statues of the patriarchy.
Without The Philosophy Forum, and publications like the NYT, NPR, PBS, et al to contain this bubbling cauldron of controversy, bloodbaths would be a daily event. That might be a good thing were there adequate ideological oversight and guidance by the Central Committee, but alas there is not.
I agree the topic was a prop, but not because it was hiding ‘conflict addiction’( why do non-political topics on this site normally not generate the same heat?). The middle east was a proxy for issues much closer to home, having to do with our relationships with people in our own communities.
Ha, ha! Sir Foghorn applauds the eloquent artistry of your post Sir Crank! And there's likely some truth to it. What kind of trouble might I get sucked in to if I wasn't distracted, and thus pacified, by the Internutz?
Well, for most of the year I would be in the woods, the actual real world, where peace abounds. But this time of year, next few months, the woods in Florida tend to be a tad unbearable, even for hard core woods addicts such as Sir Foghorn. So it appears I'm on the hunt for young butts to kick, except that I'm too old to kick them in person, so I have to settle for a simulation.
I got a bit of a bully thing going on here. Not that pretty actually.
That's a good question, thanks. Yes, what makes political topics so much more prone to testosterone hysteria? Don't have a ready answer...
Quoting Joshs
Like ourselves perhaps? Dunno. Have anything particular in mind?
Not my circus not my monkeys but just a quick view, perhaps irrelevant. If one looks at auxiliary evidence i will have to agree on the conflict addiction point. And also based on the same evidence disagree on the "non-political topics" point. Like i said in a previous post, i have visited that thread only once and from what i saw, borrowing the phrase from 'bitter crank', it appears in that case the "central committee" was fueling the conflict. And from evidence it seems the central committee or at least a part of it is doing it at other places. Just a cent, perhaps not relevant.
I hear what you're saying, some truth to it, but I just ain't going there. Doing so might interfere with my typoholic addiction. If this is unclear, ok, good. :-)
:-)
I hear you, thankfully that's not a fear i suffer from.
It’s possible that it seems to you that a vacuous ‘addiction to conflict’ motivated the arguments precisely because you were not invested in the topic. If you think about topics where your ‘circus and monkeys ‘ were at stake , would you attribute such motives to yourself?
Ok, that seems a reasonable theory. It's complex for sure.
To counter, why do we so often deliberately seek out the experience of being driven crazy?
That's an incorrect assumption. The truth is i already knew what to expect (human nature) so never even bothered to look at the thread. Had i been proven wrong in my estimation of human nature i would have liked to participate.
I saw only one member of that thread that seemed actually sincerely invested in the topic itself, due to his personal real world relationships with some of those involved in the conflict. And he was generally the sanest and most mature of the lot of us. Go figure?
For the same reason we like thrill rides and horror movies, so we can learn how to cope better with the demons and threats that we already know are out there’s, are always in the back of our mind and infiltrate our dreams nightly.
And by my circus and my monkeys, i meant this thread.
I wonder if his friends, the ones involved in the conflict, are infuriated by his impartiality.
Impartiality is a great quality in my books.But one needs a bit of stature for that. I only took a quick look at couple of pages so have not seen this impartiality. Perhaps when i have some time it will be good to identify it's presence on that thread.
On what page (no.) can i see that evidence?
Come on. You know the Philosophy Forum has a bimodal membership structure. One group, including you and me, are old coots who wonder what's going on with kids these days, because when we were young things were much better and now it's going to hell in a hand basket. This group rarely if ever leaves their houses, apartments, or old folks homes. The other group is depressive, reclusive younger people who live too much in their own heads. This group rarely leaves their apartments or parent's basements.
Whatever happens, the Republic is safe, at least from us.
People have worldviews and strong opinions,and when these are contradicted or threatened people react viscerally. The degree of reaction depends on the emotional investment and the mentality of the poster.
The main fault I see is that when contradicted some get so rattled that all they can do is become abusive and repeat one sided evidence,ergo post hoc evidence.
The central committee here then deletes posts and threatens members with bans. Not quite a debate,but a political broadcast smacking of authoritarianism.
I see many members in that thread virtue signalling and not interested in the human side of conflicts,just broadcasting their political agenda.
Remember for many with little political influence in their everyday life,this is a real venting outlet. A channel for their resentiment. A flag waving for socialists and tinpots. A venue and haven for the disgruntled.
And thus are the vast majority of Internet forums.
Good news is in real life most of these clowns wouldn't say boo to a goose.
Makes them feel better,temporarily.
And for some this procrastinates the actual real work they should be doing on themselves.
For others,they just get enjoy being karens. That is their life.
I don't think it is as much a addiction to conflict that explains the vitriolic nature of such threads, but rather the unconcious realization that a complicated, not yet fully understood issue is being oversimplified. That uncertainty is then translated into loud barking and chestpuffing.
"I still don't care - but I want to ... attack - is that wrong..?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeGECVrclgM
He wasn't impartial, he definitely had a perspective. He was just less hysterical than the rest of us.
Hmm....
The user mentioned was not impartial, just mostly not hysterical. He lost it a time or two, just not routinely.
It's true. I've never booed a goose. Not once. Definitely too scary. :-)
Yes, and yes. But why? Why does engaging in pointless conflict make us feel better?
One member may have, Israel at least. Doubt it for the rest of us. Not me.
I've never been outside of the United States, because those other countries don't really exist, but are just fake news cooked up by the cable news outlets. As example, the BBC is run out of somebody's garage in a trailer park at an undisclosed location in rural Alabama.
This sounds pretty insightful and accurate to me. And I just want to add here that my peacock feathers are FAR SUPERIOR to everyone else in the aforementioned thread!
I am big, and they are small!!
Or, um, I am small pretending to be big, to hide my smallness from myself.
Definitely one of those.
One idea which I think is relevant is the idea of the inflated ego. People may develop grandiosity in the face of feeling insignificant. We all like to feel of value, and have such different experiences. Human identity may involve validation from others, even popularity. Ideas of success and failure are important and how we view ourselves, especially in the competition within social life.
Bang on the money!
What I do believe is that superiority and inferiority are poles, and that a sense of power can easily collapse into the opposite. Most people can probably navigate the extremes, but it can be a fine line for some people at times.
I think superiority or striving for such is a sign of inferiority.
Inferiority expresses itself as hubris and superiority.
Real Confidence. That's a totally different thing.
I don't think we should look at phenomenon as being on continiums or poles. Sometimes we have to say,it is what it is.
I probably think of continuums of superiority and inferiority in relation to how they manifest in bipolar mood disorder. But, in some ways, I do think that these opposites are apparent in some degree in most people. I am probably more inclined to lean to the point of the deflated or wounded ego. I tend to interpret setbacks as a sign of my own failure, and have to work on not thinking in that way. It seems that people have varying degrees of ego strength.
But, I do think that conflict with others is often the outer manifestation of issues with the self, but of course, it probably has a biological basis as well. However, some people fuel anger and aggression outwards, and some beat themselves up instead. I would imagine that addictions, such as alcohol and drug dependency, and self harm can sometimes be a result of conflict turned towards self destruction.
A lot of evil is from evil people. I don't believe we all have an evil side. Nor do i believe if people's issues were resolved we would get no conflict.
This myth of therapy or education or awareness being the key to solving conflict ignores the reality of what human motivations and personalities really are.
I like that. Could everyone here please refer to the mod team as "the central committee" from now on. :up:
Dare I say it, I am a big fan of Jung, and once wrote a thesis on Jung's idea of the shadow. I also studied art psychotherapy, so I am inclined to look at life on a psychological level. It is true that some people appear to be 'evil' and the most obvious examples are historical examples, such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein. But, I do believe that we all have potential for good and evil and it is too easy to point to the evil in certain individuals, such as criminals, especially murderers.
Yes good people can make hurtful mistakes and even be a bit nasty at times. But evil is a whole different category.
I've met evil,I know the difference.
So, how would you say describe the 'evil' in the people you came across, and the whole category of this? Do you think that it is a distinct category, completely different from the 'normal' population?
I have known people who have committed crimes and been to prison, but most of the ones I have known have also had a positive, caring side as well. But, I guess that I have managed to steer away from the real hardcore of people who simply don't care about others at all. Saying that, I do come across some people who are fairly controlling, but that is often based on their own beliefs that they know more than others. But, really, I prefer to keep my independence from others views, and I am a bit selective in who I get to know when I am out and about because I used to get to know so many people with a lot of problems, and it gave me a lot of unnecessary conflict.
Those people you met who commited crimes,are we talking murder or other offenses?
I got to know a few people socially and discovered at some point that they had a criminal past. I wouldn't wish to expand on this on an online forum because it is public. I also have some experience of working in forensic psychiatry and I found it an interesting challenge, but extremely difficult at times. But, in the context of forensic psychiatry, I am interested in therapeutic interventions for people with antisocial personality disorder. I don't think that I wish to go further with working in forensic psychiatry because the management of aggression and violence is extremely difficult, and I am not a large person. But, I would like to work in the field of addiction because I am certainly interested in the exploration of psychological conflict.
A lot can be learned in clinical settings,but a lot of the interventions don't address the underlying causes.
Academic psychology is pathetic.
The central committee has decided you need to write properly. Use standard paragraphing, punctuation, spacing etc. Otherwise, you may be "disappeared". Spasiba.
I saw the recent posts where you have tagged me.
I also saw that comment oozing desperation, hate, and fear at the 'shoutbox', mirroring other similarly desperate, pathetic but funny attempts of the small ones, at other places in the forum......
.
......but the point is. it seems to me, now i have be careful who i speak with. Otherwise the above mentioned emotions which yours truly seems to trigger in the insecure, will be directed at who i speak with.
This may bring unintended consequences which i would not wish on others. So please be careful, if you wish. Good luck to both of you.
There are people who absolutely have to argue, no matter what and proof can be obtained after they have been properly treated. So I say conflict addiction is a symptom of mental illness, just an instance of human behavior on the spectrum of all that happens.
It's a human condition that affects all, including the "pill pushers" and the "eggheads/scientists". The resolution may lie elsewhere..
Can you share your thoughts on some of the reasons surrounding the origins of conflict?
It's the same movement within and without, right? Microcosm and Macrocosm. Just like the workings of the central committee in the psyche, and the expression of it out in the society. Does this sound right?
What happened to your post? Seems to be deleted now.
Quoting Baden
Gotcha. I wasn't aware policing grammar in posts where the meaning seems to be coming across crystal clear was another one of your functions. But hey you know what they say, any excuse will do. Like i was saying to another poster yesterday not my circus not my monkeys. Carry on. Thanks.
What was mentioned was paragraphing, punctuation, and spacing not grammar. We actually don't police grammar much when meaning is clear. We just don't want the site looking like shit because some posters are too lazy to present their writing at above kindergarten level.
Btw, there's a reply function you can use rather than @ing every time.
Found it, the reply arrow. Thanks.
Ouch, public disassociation. That’s gotta hurt coming from one of the cool kids.
Well, maybe. It's up to you of course. If I could suggest, consider the worst that could happen. If you can make peace with that, then there's nothing much to be worried about. Smile and be happy. :-)
Why did you even waste your energy trying to clarify yourself on account of that sissy with the hissy above (aka the troll)?
My post was very clear why i was thinking of doing it. It was on account of you and other posters like Trinidad being targeted on account of speaking to me. You saw the evidence of that at the 'shoubox' didn't you?
It's silly of you to respond on account of a troll that's in the habit of following me and other posters around. I am disappointed. I thought you had more gumption than that. :-)
Read that post again, here it is being re-posted and the parts emboldened:
Quoting skyblack
As further assurance, we can chat anytime we want, now that we are clear on the desperate attempt of the trolls at the 'shoutbox' ...
In DBT, there is the concept of interpersonal effectiveness skills. As the name says, they are the skills for being effective in interpersonal interactions.
It's not clear that there is such a thing as "addiction to conflict". There is certainly a conflict of interests that can sometimes be so profound that only a physical confrontation can effectively bring the conflict to an end (normally, by eliminating one party altogether). What seems like "conflict addiction" are prolonged attempts to do away with the conflict of interests without the use of brute physical force, but using less lethal means.
Honestly, it’s kind of creepy to watch you three talk to each other.