I was reading about Mel Gibson’s anti-semitic rants, and his apology about being drunk* when I remembered this meme. I agree with the meme, that our brains tend to feed us what we’ve heard from our environment, but our conscious mind overrides that with our processed thoughts.
People use “he didn’t mean it, he was drunk/high” as an excuse for racist/misogynist/whateverist comments. The response is typically “you don’t become racist when drunk, you just drop your inhibitions and reveal who you are.”
But if you agree with the First Thought meme, what if being impaired isn’t revealing what you really think, but is preventing you from thinking at all, and just getting stuck on your conditioned response?
*Gibson is just an example. This post is not about litigating whether he personally is racist, but about this sort of behavior in general.
I can sort of agree that someone who has to fight their natural inclinations is a better person in a way, than someone naturally “good” who doesn’t question themselves.
But drunk guys I think do show who they are. My ex was a reasonable guy for a long time but when he started drinking it all fell apart. He was mean trailer park dad when he was drunk, racist, sexist, abusive. My husband now, when he drinks too much he is just the dopey “I love you” guy.
So I’d argue that, while I absolutely agree with taking a moment before speaking, part of the point of that exercise is to train your mind to be less of an asshole, so over time you become more thoughtful. Mel Gibson does not get a pass from me, he’s old enough to know better.
Thanks for your POV. Your ex sounds just like my friend’s ex. I also get silly/Fun with alcohol, it must suck to be an angry drunk.
No, altered states of mind don’t stop our own thoughts. In fact, I would argue that a conditioned response is more like an inhibition. As in, I believe getting drunk reduces the likelihood you’ll use a conditioned response, not increase it.
I’ll disagree. An altered state of mind is altered, by definition, so it’s not like people are in their perfect mind. I’m not saying that they should in any way be excused of consequences for their actions, just that an altered state doesn’t fully represent who they normally are.
As for conditioned responses, they are learned, yes, but they become an automatic neural response to a stimulus.
We can become aware of these responses, and actively work to inhibit it, but it’s an active effort to suppress the ingrained behaviour and when impaired, this suppression would fail.
But science says the exact opposite is true. A drunk person has lower inhibitions so they express what they think easily. They don’t sugar coat it or try to hide their thoughts. This picture is a feel good thing which might be true in some situations but is generally wrong and is defending bad behaviour.
I think the point is that we are not what we think, we are not our first thoughts.
How we choose to act despite our initial impressions is what defines us, not the thoughts themselves.
