Yep. Here I go again.
Rigidity is the technical term used in psychology to describe an obstinate inability to yield or a refusal to appreciate another person's viewpoint or emotions characterized by a lack of empathy. Or it can also refer to the tendency to perseverate, which is the inability to change habits or modify concepts and attitudes once developed.
We all have these moments. Every last one of us. After constantly being told by people that I was obstinate and stubborn - I decided I'd do well to research to truly empower myself with as much knowledge as possible. After all there was a lot of finger-pointing in my direction. I had no problem owning up to it, though. Recently, I find when people start pointing fingers, they often need to look in a mirror themselves. Sometimes it's hard to notice our own issues if we're always focused on others. We love to find fault in other people, but most of us struggle to admit our own faults.
Since I began this journey towards self-improvement - I didn't want to leave anything to chance. I truly want to be a better person. That means covering all bases and getting to the heart of certain things. During this process, I realize I'm not at all alone. It's comforting, while also disheartening when I examine everything and find that sometimes the very people pointing are just as guilty.
Anyway. The research on this behavior dates back more than a 100 years. Charles Spearman referred to as mental inertia. Kurt Goldstein stated, "adherence to a present performance in an inadequate way". And Milton Rokeach said, "[the] inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it". The research is fascinating. The material and how each of the psychologist over the course of 100 + years determine categorization and definition is different and ostensibly contradicting, yet somehow very much alike. Did that even make sense at all? Perception when applied speaks to us individually. So we may all walk away with a different take.
"Mental sets represent a form of rigidity in which an individual behaves or believes in a certain way due to prior experience. In the field of psychology, mental sets are typically examined in the process of problem solving, with an emphasis on the process of breaking away from particular mental sets into formulation of insight. Breaking mental sets in order to successfully resolve problems fall under three typical stages: a) tendency to solve a problem in a fixed way, b) unsuccessfully solving a problem using methods suggested by prior experience, and c) realizing that the solution requires different methods.[5] Components of high executive functioning, such as the interplay between working memory and inhibition, are essential to effective switching between mental sets for different situations.[6] Individual differences in mental sets vary, with one study producing a variety of cautious and risky strategies in individual responses to a reaction time test.[7]"
Rigidity is the technical term used in psychology to describe an obstinate inability to yield or a refusal to appreciate another person's viewpoint or emotions characterized by a lack of empathy. Or it can also refer to the tendency to perseverate, which is the inability to change habits or modify concepts and attitudes once developed.
We all have these moments. Every last one of us. After constantly being told by people that I was obstinate and stubborn - I decided I'd do well to research to truly empower myself with as much knowledge as possible. After all there was a lot of finger-pointing in my direction. I had no problem owning up to it, though. Recently, I find when people start pointing fingers, they often need to look in a mirror themselves. Sometimes it's hard to notice our own issues if we're always focused on others. We love to find fault in other people, but most of us struggle to admit our own faults.
Since I began this journey towards self-improvement - I didn't want to leave anything to chance. I truly want to be a better person. That means covering all bases and getting to the heart of certain things. During this process, I realize I'm not at all alone. It's comforting, while also disheartening when I examine everything and find that sometimes the very people pointing are just as guilty.
Anyway. The research on this behavior dates back more than a 100 years. Charles Spearman referred to as mental inertia. Kurt Goldstein stated, "adherence to a present performance in an inadequate way". And Milton Rokeach said, "[the] inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it". The research is fascinating. The material and how each of the psychologist over the course of 100 + years determine categorization and definition is different and ostensibly contradicting, yet somehow very much alike. Did that even make sense at all? Perception when applied speaks to us individually. So we may all walk away with a different take.
"Mental sets represent a form of rigidity in which an individual behaves or believes in a certain way due to prior experience. In the field of psychology, mental sets are typically examined in the process of problem solving, with an emphasis on the process of breaking away from particular mental sets into formulation of insight. Breaking mental sets in order to successfully resolve problems fall under three typical stages: a) tendency to solve a problem in a fixed way, b) unsuccessfully solving a problem using methods suggested by prior experience, and c) realizing that the solution requires different methods.[5] Components of high executive functioning, such as the interplay between working memory and inhibition, are essential to effective switching between mental sets for different situations.[6] Individual differences in mental sets vary, with one study producing a variety of cautious and risky strategies in individual responses to a reaction time test.[7]"
The concept of rigidity has been at the center of controversy for years. Empirical data was gathered and supports one or both of two theories regarding the enigma of rigidity. There's an assumption that rigidity is a personal factor and the perspective is that it's task specific, while other psychologists believe that it is a behavioral phenomena only observable under specific conditions. To me, this sounds so relevant to the other, how can they not be tied in to the same thing.
It falls in the cognitive basics under psychology, but there's nothing basic about it. The fact that doctors and counselors alike struggle with the fundamental principles behind this behavior is a blaring example of just how much of a conflict there is within the medical community.
There's also the phenomenon of obstinacy. Freud says it's a derivative of anal conflicts or a component of 'anal character'. It's referred to as development for the ego-psychology and important to note that this is considered a struggle for the ego and any outside forces threatening from within and from without. The obstinate individual seeks out to fight but not for any real gain except to feel superior to others. Freud goes on to say that if the obstinate individual should actually win the fight for some aim based on reality, said individual loses interest and moves on. So essentially, this person fights with characteristic persistency and stubbornness for the unconscious need to feel secure through superiority. This 'unconscious need' will be never be satisfied. Is this obstinacy or neurotic behavior? If I could draw my own conclusions from this, I would say I don't fit either category.
Yes, I am stubborn. I can be obstinate - but not for any of these reasons. I just don't like to take advice from people that don't walk the walk. Unsolicited advice drives me crazy!! For me, it's more of an insult that people (people I love and care about) find me incapable of making choices for myself. I see it as condescension. Right or wrong, it's how I envision unsolicited advice. Where does that fall based on the information above? I keep reading. It doesn't even matter at this point if it's relative, it's exciting.
I find an article, "When Obstinacy is a better (Cognitive) Policy". This is getting good. There's evidently Two Information Response Policies. One is 'The Naïve Policy' and the other is 'The Obstinate Policy'. Allow me to expound. The Naïve Policy is based on the foundation that we can only process a limited amount of information at once. We lose too much information and there's no way to immediately prioritize the information, and the more information that becomes available the less likely we are to process more options. We immediately begin to limit the information coming in and going out. The Obstinate Policy disregards any available information as it begins to come in and bears any resemblance on the proposition at hand. Once we've already begun to process our own substantial response with information, we essentially tune out any information coming in. Though they each sound similar, they're not. I don't see how this is a behavioral phenomena, but maybe the fact that I immediately tune out when someone starts with unsolicited advice is just that.
Why do I do this? I'll leave that to the psychologists to figure out. Point is, unless you're a psychologist, stop diagnosing me. In the interim I'd say I fit in more than one of these theories and not truly one theory, at all. I guess I'm a walking contradiction. Still, if we are empowered with all this information and human nature being anything but basic - I can push forward and continue on my path to self-improvement. I know a little more than I did before - isn't that improvement? More than anything I wish friends and family would stop putting the M and D after their names.
I'll gladly accept any real medical advice that's free, from a qualified doctor or counselor, should any of my readers care to assist with this head case...
No comments:
Post a Comment