This is http://www.essayz.com/a9005101.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %CHILD EMOTIONALLY POOR ADDICT SCIENTIST INTEGRITY 900510 The child who grows up in an emotionally poor family with poor demonstrations of interpersonal coping skill has foundations for the development of later addictive patterns of thought and behavior. Due to embarrassment in interpersonal relationships the child may be drawn to objective studies where it appears that inter-personal coping skills are not so essential. In the laboratory the embarrassments of intimate personal relationships are less frequent and it is possible to avoid the personal failures which might occur in more intimate contexts. The professional training of the scientist does not compensate for the poor demonstrations of interpersonal coping skills which were present in the childhood of the young scientist. The established scientists who are responsible for the training of the young scientists went through the same sifting process when they were young, and they themselves have poor inter-personal coping skills. The mature scientists do not have the qualifications to help the young scientist become skilled in intimate inter- personal relationships within the context of professional training which will be the basis for certification to teach the next generation. Thus the process of sifting young people who are emotionally poor into the scientific professions becomes more refined with each passing generation of technocrats. In the absence of an adequate language with which to talk and write about healthy intimacy in inter-personal relationships it is nearly impossible to draw the distinctions which need to be articulated in order to distinguish between truly healthy/integrative affective and emotional intimacy on the one hand, and diseased/ disintegrative affective and emotional intimacy on the other hand. Appropriate language and criteria for making distinction go hand in hand, but are not identical. In addition to a vocabulary of descriptive words with communally understood meanings; there is need for communally agreed upon criteria, ideals, values, principles, etc. in terms of which to distinguish between integrative and disintegrative personal relationships. If the distinctions are based upon compulsively legalistic considerations; there are bound to be disintegrative consequences associated with judgmental relationships. If the distinctions are based upon compulsively objective considerations; there are bound to be disintegrative consequences associated with depersonalizing approaches to each other. If the distinctions are based upon rigid traditionalism; then creativity and imagination are stifled and the new generation becomes alienated from the stuck-in-the-mud older generation. If the distinctions are based upon the exercise of coercive power and manipulative skills; then there is disintegration due to the alienation between the manipulators and their victims. If the distinctions are made to help protect the collusive paradigm of a community of addicts and their supportive codependents in a professional network; then the dishonesty which is essential to the survival of such a network is disintegrating the lives of the participants and their communities. It is important to see whether or not the distinctions which are drawn are honestly drawn to promote personal and communal integrity in some balanced way. When they are not so drawn, it is important to be free to be engaged in open and honest communal dialogue regarding the possible presence of dishonest distinctions, and the consequences which may be flowing from their presence. In the absence of such freedom disintegration progresses. The freedom to engage in essential dialogue is based primarily upon emotional security which flows from healthy family life and integrative schooling, religious life, and work places. If family life and schooling encourage a sifting of young people into contrasting professions where distinctions are made in unbalanced and dishonest ways, then the community and its members are disintegrating. No amount or degree of technical sophistication can compensate for the absence of healthy affective and emotional relationships in families, schools, places of worship, colleges, universities and graduate school science programs, and places of work. To the extent that this is NO accurate perception of the dynamics of the process of the alienation of scientists from the majority of humans, it will be impossible for the leaders of the alienated scientists to cope effectively with the alienation of scientists. They are not experts in coping with the dilemma which faces them. They perceive the dilemma as a technical problem, and they try to deal with it as a technical problem; which it is not. Leading scientists' technical initiatives offered in response to the dilemma of alienation are inappropriate responses and do not address the roots of the dilemma. Initiatives will need to be taken by non-scientists to offer scientists the possibility of choosing to recover from their collusions, addictions and codependent games of depersonalization and objectification of all relationships. Professional efforts by scientists are almost all tragically misled by mis-beliefs which are characteristic of their paradigm. It is thus essential that personable people who are not trapped in scientists' paradigm take initiatives and interact honestly with scientists who are trapped in the objectivity/analysis paradigm. There will be difficulties in communication in such interactions. The scientists may not be particularly interested in dialogue with people who are bound to threaten their unlimited confidence in their paradigm. The personable people may not be particularly interested in spending their time with depersonalized scientists. Yet in the absence of such essential interactions the global community will disintegrate. Even if meetings take place and participants earnestly seek to communicate; there are additional problems and dilemmas which may not be recognized at first. The various languages of the participants use many of the same words and concepts; but with significantly different meanings. The scientists often do not have words which they can use and/or understand as pointing to differences between various kinds and examples of intimate personal relationships. When personable people use words to make such distinctions, the meanings may be lost on the scientists; or entirely misinterpreted. The scientists trapped in collusions may not want to understand the meaning; for the meaning will threaten their collusions. Similarly when scientists use words which personable people might take to point to aspects of intimate personal relationships; the meaning may be confused because the scientists may have had only abstract and objective meanings in mind when they used the words. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================