I am reproducing here an email I received in response to this Substack. This individual (001), will never be identified further. 001 sent me the following by email:
— — —
Arnie,
Deploying fancy terms does not enhance their validity.
I am suggesting that Grok forgot to distinguish between stated norms and actual behavior, or tolerated aberrations.
If a presidential candidate declares proudly that he did not pay taxes and calls openly for the beating up of political opponents, and if he then gets elected by a majority of the voters, how do I read this? Is it now cultural-dystonic or is it cultural-syntonic to lie and cheat, and to physically threaten opponents?
Evidently the fact that said individual was elected risks invalidating your favorite argument about the hump of the bell curve and its outliers.
I had a friend who died in a war because he tried to capture a prisoner who supposedly surrendered while using it is a faint to kill. I am fully aware of the complexity of acting morally during what is by definition an amoral context, namely a war.
In any case, regardless of whether deplorable behavior is or is not cultural-syntonic, your own sanity requires you to not lower yourself to the gutter of your opponent, if he prefers to dwell there. It is not only a question of whether a particular killing is required, or may be tolerated, or maybe encouraged, or maybe officially denied while not frowned upon, or whether it is really disdained, and may be punished. I like to also look at the impact of inhumane acts on the actors.
I like to assume that you, as an analyst, must be particularly attuned to the deleterious impact of criminal behavior on the soul of the actor and his/her surrounding. Particularly if such behavior is not typically cultural-syntonic.
I didn’t mean to ‘deploy any fancy terms’ in my Substack. I stole two terms from psychoanalysis because they were handy: ideas about ourselves are ‘ego-dystonic’ when they make us uncomfortable (i.e., if true, we are uncomfortable having them); and ideas about ourselves are ‘ego-syntonic’ because having them makes us feel good — even proud. I applied those concepts to ‘culture’, which I contend is real and very important. Some aspects of our cultural beliefs cause us shame and some are a cause of pride.
It seems to me that a good part of your response basically depends on the fact that Donald Trump was elected President by the majority of the people of the United States. That’s undisputed. (By the way, I left my Presidential choice blank when I was in the voting booth.) You imply that because Trump said he was proud of avoiding taxes and had no qualms about ‘beating up’ opponents, I must be saying that by electing Trump, American ‘culture’ can be seen as avoiding taxes, desiring fascists and proto-kings. Is that dystonic or syntonic?
In reply, I must go back to my psychoanalytic training — (which BTW I always found helpful, but largely irrelevant to my eventual ‘practice’ of psychopharmacology). Sigmund Freud was famously fond of smoking cigars. As he lit one following dinner, a woman guest at the table coyly suggested that a cigar was obviously a symbol for a penis. He is said to have replied, “Madam, a cigar is also a cigar.” In like fashion, I would answer that a vote for a particular candidate is a vote for a particular candidate. It represents a choice; it has nothing to do with ‘culture’, either syntonic or dystonic.
However, I would further answer that ‘voting’, as an open democratic way of choosing leaders, is in fact a strong vital part of American ‘culture’; it’s also a part of Israeli ‘culture’ as well; it characterizes what we consider as Western ‘culture’. I doubt if you will find voting or democracy in any part of the ‘culture’ of Iran, Hamas or the axis of resistance. They have other ways of choosing leaders.
An election has nothing to do with a bell-shaped curve or a particular group’s ‘culture’. One candidate wins; all others lose. In 4 years, there will be a repeat. That process is called the ‘democratic way’. I thank God it’s part of American ‘culture’; and others may disagree, but I believe that even Trump will not shake it, even if he wants to, (which I doubt).
Leaving out all ‘fancy terms’, I simply compared 2 articles found in Haaretz and merely claimed that ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents, (if true and undisputed, which is clearly not the case), would cause shame in Israel; and ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents on October 7th, (definitely true and nowhere disputed), only causes Hamas and its supporters to swell with pride. This is the essence of my argument for the importance of examining our opponents’ ‘culture’ in any of our future plans, either for negotiations or continued conflict. The rest is only commentary.
I think it would be more precise to say: All future Substacks referable to the topic of ‘culture’ must assume that the reader 'entertains as possibly accurate' the logic of my argument.
I am reproducing here an email I received in response to this Substack. This individual (001), will never be identified further. 001 sent me the following by email:
— — —
Arnie,
Deploying fancy terms does not enhance their validity.
I am suggesting that Grok forgot to distinguish between stated norms and actual behavior, or tolerated aberrations.
If a presidential candidate declares proudly that he did not pay taxes and calls openly for the beating up of political opponents, and if he then gets elected by a majority of the voters, how do I read this? Is it now cultural-dystonic or is it cultural-syntonic to lie and cheat, and to physically threaten opponents?
Evidently the fact that said individual was elected risks invalidating your favorite argument about the hump of the bell curve and its outliers.
I had a friend who died in a war because he tried to capture a prisoner who supposedly surrendered while using it is a faint to kill. I am fully aware of the complexity of acting morally during what is by definition an amoral context, namely a war.
In any case, regardless of whether deplorable behavior is or is not cultural-syntonic, your own sanity requires you to not lower yourself to the gutter of your opponent, if he prefers to dwell there. It is not only a question of whether a particular killing is required, or may be tolerated, or maybe encouraged, or maybe officially denied while not frowned upon, or whether it is really disdained, and may be punished. I like to also look at the impact of inhumane acts on the actors.
I like to assume that you, as an analyst, must be particularly attuned to the deleterious impact of criminal behavior on the soul of the actor and his/her surrounding. Particularly if such behavior is not typically cultural-syntonic.
No need to reply.
001, thank you for your thoughtful response.
I didn’t mean to ‘deploy any fancy terms’ in my Substack. I stole two terms from psychoanalysis because they were handy: ideas about ourselves are ‘ego-dystonic’ when they make us uncomfortable (i.e., if true, we are uncomfortable having them); and ideas about ourselves are ‘ego-syntonic’ because having them makes us feel good — even proud. I applied those concepts to ‘culture’, which I contend is real and very important. Some aspects of our cultural beliefs cause us shame and some are a cause of pride.
It seems to me that a good part of your response basically depends on the fact that Donald Trump was elected President by the majority of the people of the United States. That’s undisputed. (By the way, I left my Presidential choice blank when I was in the voting booth.) You imply that because Trump said he was proud of avoiding taxes and had no qualms about ‘beating up’ opponents, I must be saying that by electing Trump, American ‘culture’ can be seen as avoiding taxes, desiring fascists and proto-kings. Is that dystonic or syntonic?
In reply, I must go back to my psychoanalytic training — (which BTW I always found helpful, but largely irrelevant to my eventual ‘practice’ of psychopharmacology). Sigmund Freud was famously fond of smoking cigars. As he lit one following dinner, a woman guest at the table coyly suggested that a cigar was obviously a symbol for a penis. He is said to have replied, “Madam, a cigar is also a cigar.” In like fashion, I would answer that a vote for a particular candidate is a vote for a particular candidate. It represents a choice; it has nothing to do with ‘culture’, either syntonic or dystonic.
However, I would further answer that ‘voting’, as an open democratic way of choosing leaders, is in fact a strong vital part of American ‘culture’; it’s also a part of Israeli ‘culture’ as well; it characterizes what we consider as Western ‘culture’. I doubt if you will find voting or democracy in any part of the ‘culture’ of Iran, Hamas or the axis of resistance. They have other ways of choosing leaders.
An election has nothing to do with a bell-shaped curve or a particular group’s ‘culture’. One candidate wins; all others lose. In 4 years, there will be a repeat. That process is called the ‘democratic way’. I thank God it’s part of American ‘culture’; and others may disagree, but I believe that even Trump will not shake it, even if he wants to, (which I doubt).
Leaving out all ‘fancy terms’, I simply compared 2 articles found in Haaretz and merely claimed that ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents, (if true and undisputed, which is clearly not the case), would cause shame in Israel; and ‘shooting to kill’ at innocents on October 7th, (definitely true and nowhere disputed), only causes Hamas and its supporters to swell with pride. This is the essence of my argument for the importance of examining our opponents’ ‘culture’ in any of our future plans, either for negotiations or continued conflict. The rest is only commentary.
I think it would be more precise to say: All future Substacks referable to the topic of ‘culture’ must assume that the reader 'entertains as possibly accurate' the logic of my argument.