Posted 7 years ago on April 29, 2013, 12:36 a.m. EST by cubedemon
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Attitude is a position of the body indicating a particular mental state as the oxford dictionary states. There is a circular nature of attitude and this is what is accepted in our American cultural, society and our body politic. The circular nature is as follows my outcomes can cause my attitude and my attitude can cause my outcomes and problems. Many people in our modern day society focus on one of the components to an extreme at the huge disregard of the other. My position of my body and my mental state is looked at first before anything else.
In order to illustrate what I am conveying I am going to narrate an event from my personal life. I was pulled over one time for reckless driving because I panicked when I overslept through my alarm. I was taken to the holding cell for eight hours. They told me I would be released within the hour. A few months later I had my day in court. A fine had to be paid and I had to go to a driving school. Before this time, I had major problems driving and switching lanes. I did not know how to do it that well. As I was taking the class, the instructor Mr. James Brock, told us all what to do.
He said and I am paraphrasing that before I switch lanes I need to look in my mirrors and make sure I can see the car’s full bumper and headlights. He said to speed up a little to see if anyone was in this lane. This was the instruction I was missing. I was able to incorporate this in the way I drive and I was able to improve my driving in a profound way. Mr. Brock even said he would tolerate no nonsense and anyone who fell asleep would be kicked out and anyone who didn’t take notes would be kicked out. He was very detailed and he told us word for word what to write down. It was very concrete. It was one of the easiest courses I ever took. This is one event in many that has led me to my path to challenge the extreme focus of my attitude causing outcomes.
Modern society focuses on attitude more so than the problem itself. I kept trying to tell my loved ones and others that I had major problems driving because I am not able to switch the lanes that well. I felt like I was endangering myself and others. This is one reason I had others drive my car in the past. No one including my wife would tell me what I was supposed to do. They had the answer but would not tell me. All they kept focusing on was my attitude and being more positive. They truthfully believed that all I had to do was believe in myself and my ability and I would be able to which was false. Once Mr. Brock gave the instructions and I was able to incorporate them into my driving habits I was able to function with and drive the vehicle a lot better. My confidence to drive went up and true positivity showed through because of this positive experience with Mr. James Brock and the Taggert Driving School.
Attitude is the emotional reaction to a stimulus. A stimulus based upon the oxford dictionary is a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue. This stimulus causes certain chemical reactions and certain endorphins to be produced in a Homo Sapien Sapien’s Brain. How do you stop the chemical reactions or certain endorphins from happening or being produced? The stimulus has to be removed or conquered. Those who believe in the attitude doctrine seem to say the converse. They want the Homo Sapien Sapien or human being to automatically turn off his chemical reactions and stop these endorphins from being removed. It is treated as it is as voluntary as moving a finger. This is false. In laymen’s terms the issue has to be solved before one can change his attitude. For me, my lack of knowledge was my stimulus that produced my negativity of my ability to drive. Mr. James Brock removed this stimulus by telling me the knowledge.
It is the same thing with employment. Unless it is blatantly obvious to me, I do not know how to conduct my behavior in certain situations that may crop up. Some of the employers give a battery of tests like the personality tests and timed tests that have mathematical word problems. For the personality tests, I do not know how to interpret the questions in the way they’re supposed to be interpreted. For example, a section of worktec before funding was cut helped me to apply for a job at staples. This counselor walked me through the personality test and even she had major issues interpreting the questions. One question that was asked of me was “did I believe life was unfair?” I went by two definitions that I thought fit the best. Somehow I was able to memorize the definitions over time.
Here are the definitions. Fair means that something is free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge and it is legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. This created a logical paradox. If fair meant these two definitions then at the time is life being unfair a proper rule unto itself? The counselor told me that I was over-thinking and over-analyzing the question. She told me to put yes and did not really explain what they were asking.
Another question I was asked was “Do I believe in order to obtain a job it is who I know and not what I know?” This was from a different personality test. I did not understand this question because it is factually true that in order to obtain a lot of jobs it truthfully is who you know. Why would they ask if I believed it? Believing it means it is my opinion. This is fact though. Fact means that this is provable and it actually is true. I can ask other people and small talk with other people and they can describe to me how they got their jobs. They knew someone in the organization. What was the intent behind this question?
Besides understanding the subtext and context of the questions I do not understand some of the formats they have out there. For example, I still do not understand strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. If I strongly agree do I not disagree but in a very weak manner? If I agree then do I not have disagreements and my agreement and disagreement is balanced? If I have a strong disagreement do I not have a minor or weak agreement? What if I think my agreement and disagreement should be 50/50? How do I represent that and how do I give my reasoning? What are the formal logical formulas for agreeing and disagreeing?
As you see, I do not see nor understand by what I have stated here how it is logically and biologically possible for one to change his attitude. In order for a person’s attitude to change his or her stimuli would have to be changed. Like the Taggert example, I would need my stimuli changed or removed. For this to happen, I would need intricate instruction on how to interpret not only the interview questions but these types of tests as well. I would need to know how to do a word problem test when it is timed. There are certain identity and philosophical problems I have as well. How does one be true to oneself and know thine self be true and still conform to the employer’s standards? Overall, one can’t change his attitude unless his stimulus is changed or removed.