The title of this post is a word with which you may not be familiar. It designates the personality trait that renders one unable to identify or distinguish among emotions in oneself and, usually, others.
Maybe I have a problem but I don’t think so. I don’t see a lot of fear here in Chicago in response to the various Islamist terrorist attacks that have taken place recently in San Bernardino, Paris, Texas, Boston, and so on. The emotion I see is anger.
I think we’re nearing a tipping point I would prefer we not approach. I don’t think the incumbent is reading the American people correctly.
Alexithymia — interesting word.
There is actually a relationship between “fear” and “anger.” They are the flip side of each other. For instance, oftentimes, when people are fearful it will be expressed in angry, hostile tones.
The deepest flaw in the “community organizer”/political agitator mindset, IMHO, is an unshakable belief among many of its holders that disruptive chaos is a tool that can [always] be steered [by them].
But that is only true _within_ the boundaries of an established power structure, which makes targeting the workings of that structure a dangerous proposition…
It works like cheating. When only a few cheat in an otherwise ordered system, then the cheaters can prosper at the expense of everyone else. But when everyone cheats, the system collapses as people opt out, sometimes suddenly and violently. Worse, the accompanying loss of trust makes it much more difficult to rebuild.
Business as usual at the top is not going to solve the approaching crises, and I am afraid that recognition will come too late.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
jan:
Yes, fight vs. flight. A major difference between the two being that if someone is afraid and you tell them “don’t be afraid” there’s at least a chance of calming them down. If they’re angry and you tell them “don’t be afraid” more likely than not you’ll just make them angrier.
And merry Christmas to you, Piercello!
Dave, didn’t you me “Dont be angry” in the last sentence?
No, I meant “don’t be afraid” although telling them not to be angry might make them angrier, too.
This is not the time of year for “Do not be afraid.”
Merry Christmas everyone.
You’re right, PD. It is. However, if the shepherds had actually been angry rather than frightened, when the angel said “do not be afraid” they’d’ve thought the angel was nuts.
Hmmm. In my readings it has seemed that everyone is angry about the killings. It has seemed that the right is angry and afraid. (Actually, the right just seems angry all of the time.) I suppose I could be wrong, but I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fear assumption. Remember that it has been the right which has opposed the Gitmo captives from going to US prisons at least partially since they believed those communities would then face attacks or that the prisoners would get free and terrorize the community. Reading the hard right blogs, it seems pretty clear that fear is really there, and not just anger.
Steve
Yes, fight vs. flight. A major difference between the two being that if someone is afraid and you tell them “don’t be afraid†there’s at least a chance of calming them down. If they’re angry and you tell them “don’t be afraid†more likely than not you’ll just make them angrier.
Particularly when the “you” who says this refers to the person who heads up the national security apparatus. People are angry in large part because we feel that our security isn’t being taken seriously, so it is galling to then be told that we shouldn’t worry.
Or, to paraphrase some conservative blogger, the American people aren’t afraid of terrorism so much as we’re afraid of Obama’s reactions to it (thus the anger.)
Most people aren’t fools. It’s pretty difficult to believe that a guy who’s surrounded by bodyguards 24 hours a day actually understands our personal security concerns.