When I was learning electrical engineering in college, the concept of ‘the black box’ was used to illustrate how to recognize that you didn’t need to know exactly how something was built in order to understand how to work with it. Complex circuits were then built from smaller building blocks of standalone circuits. The concept was simple … if you put some signal INTO a black box with an unknown electrical circuit in it and every time the same signal result came OUT OF the black box, you could create your own electrical circuit that did the same thing, and replace the black box with it. The circuit you created would likely not be the same one that was in the black box, but that didn’t matter … because yours still WORKED the same, and you could use it.
I use the same concept to help me understand people, and what they do. The obvious problem with that idea is that people are NOT like electrical circuits in that they are NOT as predictable, NOT as reliable and definitely NOT consistent enough to count on the result always being the same, given the same input. That is why I only said the concept HELPS me understand people; because as far as I can tell, beyond basics, some people are more like random number generators and we have no business expecting them to be any other way.
Still, there are people who do react more predictably than others. You find someone who is passive-aggressive? You can learn to narrow down their responses into a very small set of actions that they most often take. Someone in your life who is insecure? I bet you can figure out what they are going to say and do most of the time, too. So how about a different country with people different from you? They have knowable customs, traditions, beliefs, etc.
So what? Well, if you are looking to slide through the day with a minimum of stress, tension and anxiety, you learn how to navigate the minefield of human nature and figure out where all the psychological buttons are that if pushed, start the nearly thermonuclear response that characterizes how some people behave. That works for people you work with, family, neighbors, strangers and even people in different countries. And THAT is why I like the black box analogy, even though it takes a little effort to think.
As an extreme example, take suicide bombers. If you believe that the majority of all people want to continue to live more than die, then you might think that a suicide bomber really WANTS to die. And maybe some really do believe in the promises told to them about what happens once they die in a self-initiated explosion, so maybe with some they really did ‘want’ to die. Maybe they think the tradeoff is worth it … that the end justifies the means. Still … the will to live is generally an incredibly strong force in people. How does someone get to the point where self-destruction is an option?
Apply the black box analogy. When certain inputs are applied to some people, the outcome is that they will indeed accept the self-destructive option and try to take as many other people with them as they can. It is the basics of S-R-O … Stimulus, Response, Outcome. The outcome is based upon the stimulus. Of course, the response is the variable, and is obviously dependent on lots of things, including how the person was raised. The response is also situational … what is going on around them to influence what they are thinking? Are unusual or drastic things happening?
You might think I’m just talking about the so-called terrorists of today, but I am not. Remember the Kamikaze pilots of Japan in World War II? They would crash their airplane into a ship and die in the process. What makes such a seemingly desperate act become the acceptable action taken, given all the other possibilities? In this case, those actions took place with regularity toward the end of the war and were relatively scarce at the beginning. The black box analogy shows that something changed in the input, and therefore the output changed.
This isn’t really about labeling others into groups for convenience; it is no kind of profiling. What I am stressing is that the INPUT to the black box, given that the black box stays the same, determines the output. People are NOT black boxes, and it is not fair to try to categorize everyone into stereotypes.
Regardless, if we are careful about what we provide as input, we may be able to avoid certain outputs … especially if we pay attention to what has happened with similar inputs in the past. Doesn’t that just seem reasonable and logical? And if that is true, what does it mean if someone (or groups of people) instead uses inputs that will result in known and highly predictable responses that are generally considered hostile or bad or evil or any other ‘negative’ label you want to use? What does that say about the instigator/creator of the input?
To me, it says there was intention only, without empathy … that the creator of the input either wanted the known outcome or didn’t care if they were so incredibly ignorant of the black box that they didn’t realize that they would get that outcome. It seems both of those possibilities have some merit at times, especially if the source of the stimulus is arrogant and egotistical; they basically think their way is the BEST way, and that they are always ‘right’. The interesting thing about both possibilities is the indicated lack of concern … in the first, they expect the result and don’t care that it is going to be trouble; in the second they DIDN’T expect the result but still weren’t concerned enough with consequences to keep from proceeding anyway.
It doesn’t matter if this is the manipulating relative or your boss or a government or anyone else … selfish intentions by default discount the needs and consequences for everyone else involved.
Every time you interact with someone, you are helping to create outcomes. While it is true that other people … the analogized other black boxes … theoretically possess the possibility of changing their contents and thus change the outcomes, generally they don’t. Few people change themselves very much, short of what is called a ‘significant emotional event’ in their lives. In that way, I feel that we create the world we live in. We are always creating outcomes, just as our politicians and government are, though their outcomes are generally much more visible when they create war, fear and divisiveness. Some people call me cynical … I don’t know how much truth there is in that, because I see a fine line between cynical and realistic and I go with what ‘works’ for me regardless of what you call it.
If the intent is merely to get honey from a beehive, it doesn’t take long to learn that there are ways to do it that keep you safe, don’t annoy and antagonize the bees into a fury, and still allows everyone to get what they want. At least, that’s how it seems to me. (Of course, there are always fascinating exceptions to generalities, aren’t there? The so-called ‘killer’ honey bees attack everyone and everything with equal ferocity. While much more challenging, it is still possible to collect honey without mutual or one-sided destruction.)
With this holiday season already at hand and the New Year coming, I felt compelled to mention that it seems clear that we have a huge role in our lives and what happens around us. At all levels we create physical reality and we should not take our responsibility in that lightly. When we really think about what we do, and what we get as a result, it should start to be obvious that we are not powerless. We are capable of harmony, productivity, happiness and self-esteem as we share this planet … but we have to think about how we do it, and focus on what we do in order to get what we think we want from others.
Music this week is again one day only … Friday we have Bill Smith, solo ... he plays cool jazz and easy listening music that keeps you warm in this winter weather. Stop in for some fabulous jazz and singing from this great musician ... he brings all the nostalgia and soulful sounds to Genoa that only jazz can do ...help us melt all the snow with warm greetings, fabulous music and happy smiles!
0 comments:
Post a Comment