All models of teenagers’ bringing up and social order in schemes.
From literature modern people know about different ways of teenagers’ bringing up. For a long time but to no purpose multi-volume works of authors try to compete with each other with their methods. What is the cause of such disagreement, why are there no recognized authorities, which would become the basis of learning at the lessons of ethics and psychology of family life at school and college? In the countries with different cultural traditions and social conditions, the process of bringing up can be different, that is why even a powerful generalized experience
is not suitable for others. The situation is worsened with the fact that upbringing of children has begun in the ancient times having opened numerous schools, but psychology is a very young science. The author recommends the reader to be no longer interested in reading a pile of contradictory literature, but to think about the fact that if there is no general algorithm, formula or scheme, the academic work can be someone's life experience and nothing more.
Before starting the explanation of the fundamentals of groups psychology it is necessary to remember that the entire modern logic has resulted from the transition of the horizontal system of animals orientation in the environment: I, goal, guideline for search for food, sleep and rest, the basics of decision-making - into the vertical system of evaluation of the hierarchical importance of objects, social status of the person or profession. That is how we choose what to do in life, with whom to make friends and work with; we compare and conclude.
wishing to go into the kitchen and put the kettle on the stove with your eyes closed, we combine a lot of incentives with another guideline and goal into something unified. This is the way an engine mechanic is trained and works professionally, dismantling or assembling an engine, moving only his hands but not the entire body.
at work people unwillingly come into contact with an individual poorly versed in the subject, although at the same time they do not like those who are cool professionals – to be a debtor for life.
For example, being different in our professions, in everyday life we easily communicate with those who have reached the acme of skill, not considering being worse, as everyone chooses his career himself, not knowing in advance where it is easier, more alleviated and profitable.
All groups differ in their quantity. Why is this such an important element, that everything depends on? Being in certain relationships, we define our hierarchy in relation to all others. If the group is numerous, a more or less significant growth requires passing a multi-stage "corporate ladder" which is unattractive because of the duration of the process. It is difficult to draw a confession from the "chief" with a relevant remuneration, because of great competition; it is difficult to attract attention of the "governing body" (Fig. 500a - 3). Moreover, the actual state of things does not change anything.
A small number does not only result in noticeability, but also in constant demand, and the difference between the "subordinate" and the "chief" can not only completely disappear, but there happens a kind of role reversal – the one, who is more active and vital, for a certain moment begins to dominate over others.
for kind parents a minor child who wished to do something on his own turns from a follower into a "hero" – saying no word everybody wait, then praise and admire (in the schemes the waiting of others means a slight rise from the lowest point in the hierarchy of an ordinary member of the "ideal family" because everybody understand that he is going to do something "extraordinary", and start to pay some attention to him.)
in a numerous group an ordinary member of the flock from the very bottom is not only invisible to the governing body, but in case of any failures he becomes a "whipping boy" due to the common work: he is bawled at and punished. Those, who are close to the governing body, are on the unattainable height, really competing only with a small group of immediate subordinate and colleagues. Only occasionally an employee, who is indispensable by rarity of his profession, can work equally or with some ambition, for a short period becoming "above" everybody.
if, in a very numerous group,
an ordinary member almost does not care what a particular person thinks about him, the nomination of his own candidacy for leadership and obtention of something desired requires rudeness and deceit. This is impossible in a family and unacceptable to all others because of possible successors of such a "feat."
it is difficult to "rise" in a flock not only because of low interest of the "life-long chief", but also because of "colleagues’ malicious joy" who use the knowledge and skills of the "heroes" with great pleasure and that is why do not forgive them every mistake.
occasionally performing "feats" and preparing for them, people willingly share the profits with the same, like a kind of patronage. In a very big group those "at the bottom" live a half-starved life being not only indifferent to the productive labor, but for “justice” to be served, even can harm.
Becoming a "hero" even for a short term, in memory of the brain takes place the unification of all the vital incentives under the auspices of a single one, dominant over the others (as proved by the experiments of Pavlov with a dog and a lamp). As a result, due to the unification of different senses
into complexes, takes place the transition to the higher nervous activity. This is what determines the complexity of our conscience: the duration of sciences learning, propensity for profession and love to a certain type of personality.
comparing the schemes of rural and urban families, it becomes obvious that in one case children dream of becoming adults just like their hierarchically higher
father and mother, in the other case, they try to be heroes from games and movies, life examples of other people who have succeeded in life. As a result, some have no propensity for a particular profession, they do not care what to do in their unenterprising life, while the "urban" are ready to spend years of hard work in order to achieve the desired.
The schemes of different families and flocks demonstrate not only the model of communication in a particular group, but because of the importance of children’s upbringing they also demonstrate this or that social order of the society.
For example, love for many children and family,
as it traditionally happens in China, leads to a long hierarchical chain of career development at the workplace. There is practiced strict subordination in any life cases and subservience, whereas in the countries with harsh climate in small families each individual is brought up an independent "hero", as evident from the mountain peoples, the inhabitants of deserts or the Arctic coast of Scotland.
Concluding the material specifically simplified by the author, it is possible to notice that some of the schemes were not included because of their application only to such degenerative communities like American ones. There, a family and a flock, because of multinationality and thus inconsistency of dwelling peoples,
are deliberately and cunningly united into a single unit with the help of specially fabricated laws and "public opinion" (Fig.192).
degenerative unification of a family and a flock into a single society leads to two simultaneously diametrically opposite models of behavior: subservience and ambition coexist in such proximity between the people nearly equal in social terms, that deception, bluff and betrayal are considered the natural processes of communication.