What makes someone like someone else?
What makes someone attracted to someone else?
What makes a lot of people all like one person in particular?
Subconsciously, our gut instinct and our own personal experiences play a big part in liking someone, falling for someone, or following someone. Attraction can happen before we are even fully aware it has taken root in our mind.
The moment of seeing someone and being attracted to them may be accompanied by various feelings, besides simple desire. We may find them interesting, charismatic, funny, strong, etc. We will want to be close to those we are attracted to and we may wish to emulate them, in some way, too.
When it comes to romantic attraction, our feelings of emotional anxiety may vary from the feeling of already mounting excitement, that our object of desire could be available, to the feeling of already anticipated disappointment, that they are way out of our league.
The one thing that does happen is that we feel ‘entitled’ to start creating our own feelings towards them.
It is at this moment that we start to project our desires onto them, and often imagine that they may feel the same way about us.
Our potential failure, in this phase, is to project our own feelings and then start to believe them, even beginning to imagine what the other person feels, when in reality we have very little idea about them or their feelings.
Until someone connects with us and reciprocates our feelings, we are simply assuming that they will feel the same way about us as we do about them - purely because of the way we feel.
Even when they do reciprocate, it is hard to know if those expressions are entirely honest. Sometimes it is still difficult to understand someone else’s feelings, or certainly to be sure of them, even after years of being in a relationship.
What thoughts live in someone's head are as hard to truly know as seeing what lies at the bottom of the deepest ocean.
Again, we can meet the most attractive, delightful and apparently suitable person and yet no spark ignites, either from us, or from them, or between us.
The enigma that actually creates the romantic spark constantly eludes us. It is not simply recognisable compatibility that ignites the flame of love, but a much more subtle interaction.
Such welcome sparks can also go from infatuation to detestation, over time, as familiarity and being taken for granted sets in and the romance fades.
This fade-out of feelings assumes that the inevitable fight for control of one partner over another, the dance that starts very soon after any relationship has begun, does not turn into a battle for the soul, if coercive controllers, domineers or narcissists are involved.
Many relationships only survive because one person comes to dominate the other, and the more passive partner tacitly agrees, or surrenders, to this set-up.
Some couples wrestle endlessly to control one another, in minor ways, creating constant skirmishes that never fully resolve the question.
Some even respect one another and give each other their own territory to oversee, agreeing that one is better in this area, and another in that area.
Some simply just love each other for who the other one is - adoring them simply for their being.
Friendships are often based on like-minded people coming together, who reflect each other's thinking.
The joy of people who share interests and values, who basically appreciate each other's humanity, is very powerful. These relationships stop at any deep, possessive, emotional connection, yet may be more lasting than any intense emotional relationship we have.
While friendships are usually based on people who like one another and have something in common simply enjoying the same things together, with emotional relationships this often means the mingling of different characters.
A simple test as to which relationship is which can be easily felt. When our friends fall in love, we are happy for them. When the object of our affection falls in love, with someone else of course, we are devastated.
Emotional relationships, having moved on from simple desire, are often based on the attraction of opposites, as nature perhaps ensures that one personality type does not become dominant, over the period of a few generations, by like-minded people constantly producing increasingly like-minded children.
The mystery of many couples, when seen from the outside, is this very strong attraction of what seems, at first sight, to be very opposite characters.
For all the work we can put into becoming close to someone we are attracted to, it may well become completely unworthwhile if they do not have reciprocal feelings for us.
Attraction, between individuals, can be very hard to understand. If someone decides they want us, then perversely our behaviour is hardly important, while if we behave impeccably towards someone, romantically, there is no guarantee they will fall for us.
The reasons why someone else falls for us, or why they do not, is often something we simply cannot fathom.
These thoughts reflect on one-to-one relationships, but what happens in one-to-many relationships?
What makes someone personify the desires of a group, to the point where the followers believe whatever the leader says?
What makes a lot of people follow someone - even to the point of their own undoing?
Human beings seem to have an inbuilt desire to have a tribal leader and to follow that tribal leader with some level of devotion, if they believe in them, or to try and overthrow that tribal leader, if they become dissatisfied with them.
As discussed previously, there are those who push themselves forward to become leaders and those who are chosen as natural leaders. Those who push themselves forward usually have doubtfully good intentions, while those who are truly chosen often have the well-being of the group at heart.
When it comes to politics, an unsuitable candidate with patrician looks and charisma, who we feel somehow drawn to, will often beat a suitable and worthy candidate that we find physically unattractive and dull.
The first moment of attraction towards another person is generally that of our own feelings of connection opening towards them, as our desires are projected onto their canvas, rather than something they actually do to us.
In politics, a candidate can put in huge amounts of effort and yet get poor results, apparently for no other reason than the public have some instinctive dislike of their personality.
After how they look, how they communicate is very important, of course.
Someone who can convey big ideas in simple terms attracts us.
Someone who we identify with, as in someone who can personify our belief system, we will naturally find attractive.
What we also find is that some politicians develop the ability to create feelings that we did not really know we had, until they identified them and spoke to them.
Unfortunately, this type is usually the one candidate who wishes to divide the nation, by creating a mythical ‘enemy’, which the population can then mythically ‘unite’ against, with the would-be leader becoming the mythical ‘saviour’ of the people, people who it seems are now mysteriously threatened by some rather nebulous, dark, force.
Ethnic minorities, racial profiling, minority groups, immigrants, geographical neighbours, forgotten enemies, the rich, the poor - it doesn't really matter who the speaker chooses to pick on, providing they can conjure up a demon that makes everyone, or just enough followers anyway, afraid enough of the created myth to follow the orator, either by voting or by coercion - whichever power they choose to use.
If they get enough votes, they will surely follow ballots with coercion, sooner than later, as they seek total victory.
This is the negative version of leadership, the shadow side of the position of head of the tribe.
The positive position is one in which the would-be leader appeals to the majority. They talk about the spirit of community, of cooperation, of being there for everyone and they speak of a brighter vision, not a dark foreboding.
In the UK, we have even had those who talk of the sunlit uplands, while also talking about the shadowy threat from across the channel - a very duplicitous and damaging point-of-view. Also one without the benefit of truth, on either hand.
Any would-be leader that constantly seeks to divide and separate a nation is one to avoid.
Eventually such people will always become a personality cult. They will soon create a cabal and go on to instigate a regime in which failing to slavishly follow the leader's particular strand of dogma will get you into trouble, even when you thought you were safe, unless you continue to agree with them completely, as they become more and more fanatical.
It is surprising that division seems to have as much attraction as unity, in the mind of the voting public, when it comes to choosing who to follow and how far anyone is prepared to go, as a follower.
Disunity generally leads to war, or at least violence, which means that becoming an ardent follower of a divisive leader often involves putting oneself potentially in harm's way.
The obvious issue here is that those who are prepared to be harmed do so in the belief that ‘the others’ will be harmed more, and that the divisive fraternity will get their way and gain control of ‘the others’ and be able to subdue them.
Like most fights, both sides often have a greater belief that they will win than the reality suggests, so both sides end up losing more than they expect too.
Those who follow the fanatic, believing themselves to be superior and therefore believing they have right in their side, in this divisive struggle, turn out to be deeply unpleasant and unworthy of their self-proclaimed idea of superiority.
Those who are attacked often have no reason to be picked on, other than that they are seen as being ‘the other’. They are singled out and portrayed as a potential threat by someone who wants to use their very existence, as a visible minority, to further their own quest for leadership.
The self-righteous, attacking the minority, is not an edifying prospect, while the damage done to both sides, in order to further the aims of the leader instigating the conflict, is certainly not worth the fight.
This is a state of affairs where damage is done and nobody really comes out on top.
The drawing up of battle lines also demands people take sides, when they may not wish to, and the result is they form into separate groups, where they were previously integrated.
When it comes to groups, people behave in very different ways, in crowds and mobs, to the way they behave as individuals.
People in packs and masses often want to show their support for a leader and also show they can display fanaticism - by trying to prove that they can outdo the rest of the mob.
They want to be even more ardent than their fellows. They want to show affirmation of the cause, gain approval from the leader and the leader's henchman, and gain attention from the rest of the crowd.
People in mobs will do things, together, that no individual would do, by acting with the support of the crowd. This feeling of entourage gives them a sense of confidence and power that they would never feel in isolation.
The desire of the crowd to please the leader progresses to them often becoming more intent on pursuing the whipped-up prejudices of the group than the leader themselves - in order to prove their loyalty.
The drive to gain approval leads to extroverted and often dangerous behaviour, in order to be seen as part of the inner circle.
This behaviour only gives more power to a leader who began with the seed idea of gaining power by causing conflict.
Those closer to a leader will try to outdo each other in their efforts to show how they are even more dedicated to the cause than the leader, or each other.
All brutal regimes have notorious people who rise through the system, simply because they are prepared to be more barbaric, both physically and mentally, than those around them.
They are the ones who get away with war crimes, and also get taken to court for genocides and massacres. They have no conscience about the appropriation of valuables from those who are demonised and overseeing the transportation to camps and extermination of those they steal from.
Being part of the group allows them to feel justified about their role in the regime and, in many cases, feel protected by the regime because they are now the ones now making the rules - until they are not.
Instigating the divisive path is usually the route of the ambitious outlier, the perceived underdog, the one with the chip on their shoulder to begin with. Identifying with this type is often associated with those who feel somehow superior, but also feel they have been overlooked. They feel self-righteous in their desire to avenge those who they see as thwarting them.
In reality, with such people, it is often their own actions that thwart them in the first place. Such groups don’t need outside interference to become overlooked. They often have a natural aptitude for conflict to begin with, provided by a mixture of resentment, obedience, hubris and mediocrity, coming together to create a toxic cocktail.
Far from being noble, these people are often forgotten and feel powerless, so they create disunity in order to try and establish their control and promote a sense of their own grandiosity.
Chaos, for them, far from being scary gives them the feeling that they can gain control through disruption.
Such a personality is one to avoid following at all costs.
Necessary progress can be made through vision and unity, and this is where to put one’s shoulder to the wheel.
Change is often desired, but chaos is very different to change - it creates destructive harm where remedial healing is actually required.
I started writing this piece before the events of Sunday night, when President Biden announced he would no longer be seeking nomination to stand as the Democratic candidate in the US Presidential election in November.
The current battle for the soul of the US, politically, clearly outlines the principles of what I was describing above.
The fact that the US had come to the point where two men, both of considerable age, were pitted against one another in a struggle that seemed both vitally important and somehow rather sad was one of the issues that preoccupied many of those watching the campaign.
The fact that the Republicans have allowed themselves to be taken over by a demagogue, selling their own political soul in return for the belief their candidate would win the White House and hold the reins of power, irrespective of their true political ideals, seemed shameful.
The fact that the Democrats had eight years to come up with a youthful, if not young, candidate that a voting majority could get behind also seemed unimaginable.
Taking eight years - from November 2016 - not to find a wholesome, decent, respectable and yes, attractive, candidate for the ticket seemed like an astonishing lack of foresight on the part of a major political party in the most powerful country on Earth - if measured by money and weaponry alone.
As I noted last week, it seems God moves in mysterious ways. Whatever power moves the world gave President Biden Covid this week and created the decider when it came to his stepping back from the nomination.
Kamala Harris has the making of that wholesome, decent, respectable and yes, attractive, candidate that the Democrats need in order for the US to fight off the prospect of four years of being run by a man who wants to divide and rule by fragmenting everyone, from his own team outwards to the whole of the country and even to the rest of the world.
Such a man can only do harm to the United States, if he wins, while proclaiming to love it; he can only do damage to the ordinary person, while claiming to fight for them and, if elected, he can only leave a huge mess, for someone else to clear up, once he has departed.
Whether that departure would be in four years, or at a time of his choosing, as he would also be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, as well as the President, remains to be seen.
Here in the UK we held one of the most strangely under-reported political summits in recent years.
The UK government hosted the fourth European Political Community meeting (EPC) at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire on 18 July.
“The EPC meeting brings together around 50 leaders from across Europe to cooperate on important issues. It allows European countries to progress discussions which affect the continent as a whole, and to hold bilateral discussions and smaller working groups of particular countries.”
President Zelensky also addressed the meeting.
Sir Keir Starmer promised much more cooperation with Europe, over immigration, and continued cooperation with Ukraine, against Russia.
The Prime Minister also pledged £84m for projects in Africa and the Middle East to stop illegal migration "at source".
Considering the broad scope of this speech, its signalling of a new political direction and the fact that the meeting of European leaders was held in Britain, it seems extraordinary that the media coverage was so light.
The direction of the PM’s speech once again shows the leadership path taken where cooperation and prevention, rather than isolationism and punishment, is the preferred course.
These policy directions are being taken by a Prime Minister who has a better grasp on how to approach problems, if not yet solving them, than any of his immediate predecessors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/european-political-community-meeting-2024#:~:text=The%20UK%20government%20is%20hosting,Oxfordshire%20on%2018%20July%202024.&text=The%20EPC%20meeting%20brings%20together,to%20cooperate%20on%20important%20issues.
Meanwhile, this week's global Windows IT outage is a reminder of how reliant, and vulnerable, most of us are to technology that we can neither see nor understand.
If the people who are trying to keep us safe from harm can create such a catastrophic collapse in the world's computer systems it is not hard to imagine how much damage those who really want to disrupt us could cause.
Obviously, we are not going to go back to using pen and paper, but it seems that our vulnerability to small lines of malicious computer code is extraordinary.
The fact that the CrowdStrike Falcon code was not tested, prior to being released, is one of those questions that seems obvious.
Investigation shows that computers are constantly updating software, automatically, in order to prevent new malicious software causing major damage.
This creates a vulnerability circle, in which not updating software automatically leads to potential disaster, while updating software automatically can lead to potential disaster.
Even more vulnerability is found because CrowdStrike updates, for Windows and other operating systems, are limited to 1,000 or more user licences, so when it does go wrong, it's the biggest clients who suffer, rather than the individual laptop users.
It seems we are in a Schrödinger loop now, where we are endlessly vulnerable to the actions of our own ‘good players’, while simultaneously being endlessly vulnerable to the actions of other ‘bad players’.