Arrogance, narcissism and changing the world

One of the primary goals of this blog, as said in the opening post that no one read, is to dig deep into what I think and genuinely present it to you, so you can all laugh about it. One of those things floating around the empty space between my ears is the urge to leave the world behind me in a better condition with respect to the one where I found it. I choose this as the first introspective topic because not only is the only thing that matter, but also because in one way or another is the driving force of almost everyone in doing everything.

So far the expression leaving a better world is just acknowledging the fact that, with the exception of those that just like to see the world burn, we all have good motivations to do what we do and with this mild definition every little action has some reason we believe appropriate, founded on some moral value or some necessity. Therefore, the topic is so generic that is including insignificant actions or thoughts, even those we don't like (like do some shitty job because in that moment is the only option).

So let me try to be more specific. I want to explore those actions that are targeting the behaviour of someone else too. It can be to educate your kid to behave in the right way, or fight against global warming by not owning a car, or not eat meat because you hate your life, or tell people to vote for one candidate.

Or spending your time to write for strangers so they can feel something while reading.

Then there are the obvious one, like doctors, firefighters etc. They are amazing, so we don't care about them here.

All these actions are founded in a never confessed arrogance that everyone has (and should have). The arrogance of thinking that our way is the right way. There can be several different reasons why we believe that: statistical evidence, experience, scientific studies, religious beliefs, superstition, education received, etc. This is such a good set of reasons that makes very hard to see the arrogance in ourselves since it lives in the obvious conviction that my reasons are better than yours. One may or may not prove that one reason is better than the other, but will inevitably fall in the assumption that the interlocutor is sharing the same scale of values, the same education. By being convinced that we are reasonable people, we often forget how unreasonable we may look from the outside.

So for example, I may have (actually I do) solid arguments in favor of building a society more founded on a scientific approach to common problems, supported by a strong challenging scientific education since the very early stages of our life. Some of you may completely or partially agree with me. However, the question is: how effective can my words be for a religious fanatic? Especially when I identify my interlocutor as a fanatic.

Since nowadays the popular culture is founded on TV shows, for the next step I recall a scene in Aaron Sorkin's (praise the lord) The Newsroom. Sloan Sabbith, the expert economist of the show, wants to quit also because in months of hard good work she didn't change the fact that 42% of American citizens were believing something wrong. I found that little piece of dialogue perfect, the character did her job, gave the example of a correct precise worker and she changed nothing. 

On a more real example, in his famous piece John Oliver, to use a vocabulary that works on the internet, destroyed, eviscerated Donald Trump. His voice sounded loudly from his show (that is similar to what The Newsroom presented, sometimes literally) and his YouTube channel to the collective mind of American voters. However, we all know that eventually Trump won the primary election and still has a fair shot for the American presidency.

Why? Both the fictional and the real characters were just trying to make the world a better place, why didn't they sort any effect?

(Yes, I know, I used two HBO's shows as examples and HBO is not that popular, being quite expensive, I am trying to make a point, shut up)

I think the all point is that you will never give sense to a senseless mind. Sloan can't teach to people that think they can't learn, as well as to people that have no reason to believe they are wrong on a notion. John Oliver can make a piece that is a beautiful example of journalism and comic ability, but will never convince a Trump's supporter that Trump is bad. It is basically trying to communicate in different languages.

Trump's supporters will never see what John Oliver wants to communicate, because it attacks the foundations of their belief with a language that in their mind is saying here comes another TV star that wants to make money by pissing on Trump and on America and who the fuck is John Oliver btw.

Terrorists, in a sense, do the same. They believe in something and believe that some action is the right thing to do to achieve what they want. They even succeed in the action, but they always fail in the goal. They don't understand that the method is not going to change anyone else's mind.

In other words, people generically see what they want and what they expect to see. We expect the opposing team to do something and, as soon as our prediction is even partially fulfilled, we shut down our ability to understand what doesn't belong to us. Surprisingly enough, we don't apply the same method when we want to communicate. We are often so concern to be right that we forget the fact that being right about something is pretty much pointless if we don't change what surrounds us. If those that are trying to make the world a better place (pretty much everyone) do not start to understand who doesn't think like them, every action will always be only a narcissistic exercise of a non-provable superiority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with it. Narcissism is what is keeping this society, with less and less human interaction, together. It is the reason behind our Facebook statuses, the politicians' words after some tragedy and, of course, these very pages (and this post in particular). Without narcissism (as well as without arrogance) we would lose a big part of our humanity. I'm not sure if it is a bad thing, but I see that as a probable outcome.

The take home message of this arrogant and narcissistic post is that to live in a better world we should try to really understand what doesn't sound good, what is in conflict with our beliefs and what is speaking a language different than ours. Probably, the way to achieve that is to begin with a very skeptical look at ourselves, because accepting and understanding our own human nature is a necessary step to start convincing other people of whatever bullshit is floating in our mind.