Elements of a Curriculum on the Psychology of Living 5: Three Laws

Introduction to the series

How is it that children spend a thousand hours a school year in classrooms, but over the course of a dozen years come away with having learned so little about themselves -- practical knowledge about the psychology of being human.

The following series of blog entries explores the elements of a curriculum on the psychology of living, with the aim of providing children a toolkit for understanding themselves and their relations at a deep level.

There is nothing novel in these ideas; none belong to me. They are, I believe, generally accepted concepts from cognitive, social and clinical/counseling psychology, and deserve to be as much a part of the pedagogy of schooling as math facts and decoding skills.

I've shared these ideas with students and parents in recent years, typically in the context of a parent-student conference, or in response to unnecessary dramas associated with managing a classroom of two dozen or so diverse children.

The entries are not referenced, but the concepts can be found in an entry-level psychology text. The bibliography may be developed at a later date.

Imagine that we are studying life on Earth through a very large telescope from a distant world. What patterns might we observe in the lives of humans? What might we conclude about the nature and organization of their minds, their so-called psychology?

* * *

Three laws: the Law of Multiple Is, the Law of Opposites, and the Law of Invisibility. While they can be simply stated, their implications are complex and deserve reflection over a lifetime. They are not referred to as such in psychology texts, but do, I think, distill down many big ideas in the psychology/counseling literature.

We use language to communicate ideas and understandings. Consider how often we refer to ourselves by the personal pronoun I. The word connotes a singular, permanent individuality, but the Law of Multiple Is asserts that it is an incorrect attribution: we are neither singular nor permanent. Being creatures of habit, we respond to the environment in conditioned ways, always and everywhere. As the milieu shifts, so does our response, by association.

We are a constellation of worlds, some larger, some smaller; some are present when we're at school with other friends, some are reserved for mom when we're feeling overwhelmed. All are conditioned, all are patterned, all recur by association when the precipitating context recurs. It is the reality of our lives, and reveals the importance of observing ourselves over a very long period of time, taking snapshots of our moods, so as to recognize patterns, and thus achieve a little separation.

The Law of Opposites asserts that what we observe on the outside often has its inverse, its opposite, on the inside. With exception. It is a law of compensation: what we observe is compensating for its opposite, otherwise it wouldn't be there. Over-confidence compensates for insecurity; fearlessness compensates for timidity; bullying compensates for being bullied. It is a general psychological dynamic that deserves to be commonly understood and practically applied, with discretion.

The Law of Invisibility, related to the Law of Opposites, states that we are able to observe others much more clearly than we can observe ourselves. It also suggests that we tend to attribute to others, or project onto them, qualities that are, in fact, our own. Simply stated, fantastic implications, calling into questions our most basic and deeply held perceptions.

Addition (1.30): In connection to these ideas, and irrational beliefs, E. refers to the work of Byron Katie, whose method has been used with children. She writes:

As I began living my turnarounds, I noticed that I was everything I called you. You were merely my projection.

"He should understand me" turns around to:
- He shouldn't understand me. (This is reality.)
- I should understand him.
- I should understand myself.

"I need him to be kind to me" turns around to:
- I don't need him to be kind to me.
- I need me to be kind to him. (Can I live it?)
- I need me to be kind to myself.

"He is unloving to me" turns around to:
- He is loving to me. (To the best of his ability)
- I am unloving to him. (Can I find it?)
- I am unloving to me (When I don't inquire.)

"Paul shouldn't shout at me" turns around to:
- Paul should shout at me. (Obviously: In reality, he does sometimes. Am I listening?)
- I shouldn't shout at Paul.
- I shouldn't shout at me.