Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a crystal ball that told us who’s likely to go
ballistic when cogjam-related topics enter conversation? It would definitely be handy for helping us know when to heed the advice of “don’t go there.” Unfortunately, we don’t have such an asset on hand, which would help greatly during Act I of avoiding cogjam moments.
However, science and common sense give us clues that help us take educated guesses, based on how we’ve seen people behave in other social situations.
Unreasonable People
I hesitate to label anybody with any term. In this case, it’s really their various beliefs and behaviors that are unreasonable, not the people themselves. There is much more to people than how they measure up in one area. Individuals we describe as unreasonable can also be quite skilled or gifted.
Nevertheless, certain beliefs and behaviors raise red flags regarding how reasonable you can expect people to be, no matter what the situation. Chapter Twelve of my upcoming book, The Cogjam Effect – and the Path to Healing Divisive Community and Fractured Science, highlights these red flags:
- Major difficulties with emotional regulation: Their anger or anxiety is both extreme and poorly handled. They go way overboard in comparison to how most people live with those feeling states. Others may refer to them as being a “hothead” or “Chicken Little.”
- Reactive and impulsive: They often speak and act without thinking. They also may believe their impulsive acting out is only being “who they are,” rather than something for which they have choices and control.
- Do not anticipate potential consequences: Considering what might happen with a certain course of action requires input from the logical brain. Immediate gut reacting does not allow adequate time or opportunity for consulting the relevant knowledge base. Thus they o
ften find themselves becoming victims of their own poor choices. - Poor social judgment: Effectively interacting with others requires more than identifying good guys and bad guys, fighting/fleeing the bad guys, and mindlessly glomming onto whichever herd is doing something agreeable. Therefore their morals and moral behavior are often challenged. They may construct and live by their own moral standards, which largely serve their own gut brain interests. Or, as happens in the case of the psychopath, the moral compass is nonexistent. They end up doing things that hurt or offend others, unintentionally or otherwise.
- Do not learn from mistakes: When poor choices do not work out, they do not step back and evaluate what they could have done differently. Instead, they view such misfortune as someone else’s fault, which feeds into becoming masters of the blame game. They have extreme difficulty recognizing or examining core beliefs or thought distortions that may lie beneath the surface of their ill-advised choices. Change, and learning itself, are extraordinarily difficult for them.
Compassion to the Rescue
Steering clear of controversial topics while with such individuals is not only healthy for yourself. It is also an act of kindness and compassion. You know how they will react during such discussion. Why burrow down to the cellar and purposely punch their hot buttons? What do you hope to accomplish?
And imagine how much better both of you will feel, if you successfully avoid creating yet another cogjam moment.
Going along with the surrounding flow is a major force behind how we’ve found ourselves stuck in political cogjam.
Impressive collectives like Mr. President’s are likewise more than he could ever need. But for some reason, he and those like him have no need to hide their continuing pursuit of wealth. The approach is the exact opposite of the philanthropy mindset. And they’re quite open about their seeking more.
others. You may also have picked up on changes in how you yourself feel, or how you interact with others.
“What makes cogjam a mental health ‘disaster?’ For that matter, why is anything defined as a disaster? We hear those ruled by black or white thinking use the term to describe anything they find at all unfavorable.
That’s what cogjam is about: a man-made disaster, but for the most part unintentional. Yes, there could be abusive sociopaths out there who purposely try to perpetuate it. It would certainly be a good way to keep others sufficiently traumatized so as to be able to manipulate them.
which the fight or flight response was intended. We’d never know it, though, considering how politicians so often let gut reasoning take the lead. But look at it from their perspective. As far as their careers go, opposing political opinions may well represent life or death. Given the complexity and expense of election campaigns these days, our representatives no longer simply look out for the interests of their constituencies. They are in the unenviable position of also needing to satisfy those who finance their campaigns, which usually isn’t individual voters. Plus, they need to walk the line of party affiliations.
The needs and aims of these three factions may not coincide. The resulting conflicts of interest hack away at politicians’ increasingly precarious stumps. It’s a no-win situation, and probably terrifying for any elected official who values staying in office. The temptation to give in to gut reasoning must be profound, indeed. And as long as the status quo for election campaign practices continues, it’s a safe bet that cogjam will always be riding shotgun. 
th fear-based behavior, interpretations and conclusions drawn when we’re all worked up may or may not be our best. When battling through the heat of the moment, the temptation to accept a logical hypothesis as reality rather than something to be checked out can be powerful indeed. But putting the cart before the horse in this manner is actually a form of rationalization.
Chapter 13 – “Healing the Herd”: