THEIR CAUSTIC POSTS - TEASING WITH POWER IMPLICIT MOTIVES
Exploring the reasons behind some social media posts we endure
It seemed as when Trump rose to the presidency and while he was president that the MAGA personality really came to the forefront. I do notice now that on Facebook that much of the caustic and inflammatory political speech has largely gone away on my feed. There is an exception to this however, a fellow from my hometown who still gets a kick out of “owning the Libs,” triggering the political opposition. This phenomenon has been on my mind for a long time and I’ve written about it at least once before, but I wish to address it once again primarily because of curiosity more than anything else. One could just blow this man off as an asshole, which I’m sure many have, but unfortunately these were the types who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Or at least I assume they were. Hence they hold a certain degree of threat to the nation in my opinion. I’m trying to understand better how they tick, and compare my own behavior to theirs, much in the same way we naturally compare ourselves (if we’re able) to Donald Trump. Bad examples are still an example to study.
After some research I decided that such a meme posting might most correctly be called a teasing behavior. Anecdotally, I’ve thought of some over the years who may fit into this mold and realized that they nearly all liked to tease others. So I will address this notion a little. In a very cursory way I’ve at least proven to myself that teasing is a big feature of the right wing MAGA from a word search of “teasing” on Truth Social. A similar word search on X yielded virtually nothing similar, only “tease” in terms of a literary tease. Here is my “proof.”
Where does their motivation come from to participate in this repeated behavior, I pondered. I came across the concept of Implicit Motives, or subconscious motives and ascertained rightly or wrongly that this teasing must be a result of an implicit motivation for power. So the following acrostic free verse incorporates these two ideas into the MAGA personality, teasing and implicit motives.
As promised, I’ve researched teasing a bit. There has been quite a lot of research on it both with humans and other animals (primarily primates), although research is ongoing. I only want to try and relate the type of teasing I think is being perpetrated by MAGA and add in enough interesting information for your valuable consumption. The following quote I found quite interesting:
‘You can't tease other people unless you can correctly guess what is in their minds and make them suffer or laugh because of your knowing.’
– - Daniel N. Stern
Daniel N. Stern (August 16, 1934 – November 12, 2012) was a prominent American developmental psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, specializing in infant development, on which he had written a number of books — most notably The Interpersonal World of the Infant (1985). Stern's 1985 and 1995 research and conceptualization created a bridge between psychoanalysis and research-based developmental models. As an analyst, Stern identified himself as 'post-Freudian', in terms of his emphasis on 'creating transference/countertransference conditions that allow for a new and better experience of self in relationship with others' — thus relying less on interpretation of the past, and 'more on the object relations aspect (corrective attachment experiences) and on self-psychology (empathic availability and self-esteem)'.
The following is what I found to be an inclusive look at teasing. In teasing unsurprisingly, the person doing the teasing and the one being teased are often different in their emotional reactions to the act. Teasing often goes wrong, endangering relationships. We have all seen this happen. But with the MAGA teaser, this may not be a consideration.
Intentions in Teasing: When “Just Kidding” Just Isn’t Good Enough
Justin Kruger New York University
Cameron L. Gordon University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Teasing is ambiguous. On the one hand, the literal content of teasing is typically negative. When people tease, they point out physical flaws, quirky habits, questionable attire, or a variety of other less-than-flattering observations. On the other hand, there is often a positive component of teasing as well. To be sure, some teasing is designed with the sole purpose of hurting, humiliating, or harassing the target of the tease. But often, individuals tease to flirt, socialize, play, enhance social bonds, teach, entertain (themselves, the target, or an audience), or to express affiliation, affection, and even love.
How do teasers accomplish this goal? How do they inform the target of their tease that they are “just kidding”? The predominant strategy is to accompany the tease with subtle redressive signaling devices designed to indicate that the critical, aggressive component of the tease is not to be taken seriously— or at least not completely seriously. For instance, one may smile or laugh just before or after delivering the tease or vary one’s tone of voice or facial expression.
Some time back I wrote about the bullying behavior of many in the MAGA world. I was curious about the difference between teasing and bullying. Apparently teasing over time can become bullying. I found the following meant for teachers of youth, and I would assume it would apply just as well to adults. I’ve mentioned the apparent immaturity of behavior in MAGA, which I’ve never really laid out. But it’s my impression that much of the behavior, such as that seen on the Truth Social posts above is indicative of a level of immaturity.
The Difference Between Bullying and Teasing
Teasing is a human social exchange that can be perceived as friendly, neutral or negative. The goal of productive teasing is to create closer relationships and make connections. Pro-social teasing helps to satisfy a fundamental human motivation -- to be an integral part of a group.
The benefits of teasing include: a) It can be playful b) Promotes social affiliations c) Allows people to better deal with awkward situations d) Helps to bring both the teaser and the person being teased closer together
Sometimes simple teasing can go too far. Teasing turns into bullying when kids [I will add adults] use it to gain greater social status or when the intent of what is said or done is to harm. Teaching kids the difference between teasing and bullying can avoid hurt feelings, improve relationships and prevent an exchange from crossing the line into bullying. The best way to help your students deal with teasing is to teach them to understand it.
Define the differences between teasing and bullying:
Teasing creates stronger relationships while bullying damages relationships.
Teasing adds to your character as a person while bullying takes away from your character.
Teasing occurs between equals (age, power, intelligence, friendships) while bullying occurs between people who are unequal.
Teasing maintains dignity and respect toward a person while bullying is done to embarrass or hurt the feelings of a person.
Teasing may include harmless nicknames that the recipient also thinks are funny. Calling a person names that are derogatory or directed at his or her religion, ethnicity, speech, appearance, etc., is bullying.
From another psychological publication source these interesting two paragraphs which apply to the discussion. It is my impression that the MAGA personality imitates the narcissist personality of Donald Trump. Below it discusses high-power individuals in relation to teasing behavior. I imagine that the in-your-face teasing experienced, with little regard, is associated with Donald Trump’s high-power persona as well as his cult followers who imitate his behavior.
Teasing often arises in a second context of social tension: conflict. Studies have indicated that siblings tease each other more during conflict situations, friends are more likely to tease each other during discussions of their conflicting goals and beliefs, and coworkers are more likely to tease when addressing hot-button issues, such as allocation of office space. Provocative and at times unpleasant, teasing in fact serves important prosocial functions, enabling individuals to signal and negotiate norm violations and interpersonal conflict.
Qualities of the relationship between the teaser and the target, such as social power and familiarity, have been found to influence teasing. High-power individuals are less dependent on others and are thus less concerned with the risks associated with teasing. High-power individuals, it should come as little surprise, are more likely to tease than low-power individuals, and they tease in a more hostile, less playful manner.
From Quora and the “psychology around teasing,” I found two entries which I thought might apply to the type of teasing I’m discussing.
Teasing is really an act of aggression. The advantage is all on the side of the person doing the teasing because s/he claims it is all in fun and if you are not enjoying it, you have no sense of humour.
Society reinforces this view because we are all supposed to be good sports and to be able to take a joke. Now in my opinion, a joke is only funny if everyone is laughing.
Exchanging wise cracks is one thing, and I can hold up my end with the best of them, but teasing goes beyond that. There is always a subtle (or not so subtle) element of hostility to it.
******
There are many brands of teasing, but this is the one I thought most worth shedding some light on.
Many people can see right through the teasing and identify it for what it is and that is anger. Those who tease others are hiding some issues surrounding anger and use the teasing as an excuse to taunt others.
Teasing is an unwanted intrusion on another’s space and isn’t all right, regardless of the circumstances. As Dixie says, teasing is a passive aggressive way of expressing unresolved anger.
Also from this site on Quora I found this concise explanation of teasing in the image below.
Here is another reference on teasing. This particular study honed in on the teasing of other primates. I will concentrate on the more aggressive teasing to write excerpts from. I guess the information on the chimpanzee teasing has relevance in my mind. Perhaps I’m only being overly critical of MAGA behavior, but it seems interesting nonetheless.
Just kidding: the evolutionary roots of playful teasing
By Johanna Eckert, Sasha L. Winkler and Erica A. Cartmill
Published:23 September 2020, Royal Society
Accounts of teasing have a long history in psychological and sociological research, yet teasing itself is vastly underdeveloped as a topic of study. As a phenomenon that moves along the border between aggression and play, teasing presents an opportunity to investigate key foundations of social and mental life. Developmental studies suggest that preverbal human infants already playfully tease their parents by performing ‘the unexpected,’ apparently deliberately violating the recipient's expectations to create a shared humorous experience. Teasing behaviour may be phylogenetically old and perhaps an evolutionary precursor to joking. In this review, we present preliminary evidence suggesting that non-human primates also exhibit playful teasing. In particular, we argue that great apes display three types of playful teasing described in preverbal human infants: teasing with offer and withdrawal, provocative non-compliance and disrupting others' activities. We highlight the potential of this behaviour to provide a window into complex socio-cognitive processes such as attribution of others’ expectations and, finally, we propose directions for future research and call for systematic studies of teasing behaviour in non-human primates.
Be it as a teaser, recipient or observer, from early childhood onwards, everyone experiences this hard-to-define phenomenon that occurs in social interactions all around the world. Its inherent dichotomy—the mix between aggressive and playful elements—can affect the relationship between teaser and recipient in contrasting ways. If the aggressive component predominates, teasing may be perceived as more hostile, or even as bullying, and has the power to result in serious harm and damage a relationship permanently. If teasing is more playful and humorous, the teasing event may be mutually enjoyable for both the teaser and recipient, and potentially lead to greater closeness. Accordingly, the proposed functions of teasing are highly diverse and range from gaining social status to enforcing social norms, resolving conflicts and enhancing interpersonal relationships.
Teasing in non-human animals is drastically understudied and has mainly focused on aggressive behaviours (sometimes described as harassment or quasi-aggression). The earliest mention of aggressive teasing in the primate literature stems from Wolfgang Köhler's observations of captive chimpanzees in 1927. Half a century later, de Waal and Hoekstra described aggressive teasing in juvenile chimpanzees: ‘they approached quietly-sitting apes, threw sand or sticks towards them, stamped with their feet on the ground, and ran away if their object jumped to its feet, but shortly afterwards came back to throw sand again, and so on. Especially in senior females, this teasing provoked aggressive reactions’.
Teasing was systematically studied by Adang in his long-term observational study of young chimpanzees (1.5–7.5 years-of-age) in Arnhem Zoo. Because he was interested in ‘quasi-aggressive’ behaviours, Adang focused on agonistic forms of teasing, such as ‘bluff-like’ behaviours (e.g. stamping), swinging or throwing of objects, and hitting or kicking. He reported that such teasing behaviours typically occurred during vigorous social activity (play or conflict) and were mostly directed at adults outside the teaser's sub-group. The reactions of the targeted individuals were variable, ranging from ignoring to aggression, submission, flight or affiliation, and negative responses appeared to reinforce the teasing behaviour. Adang theorized that juveniles used teasing to learn about or to establish dominance relationships (a function of teasing that has also been proposed for third- to sixth-grade human children). Similar forms of aggressive teasing have also been observed in wild chimpanzee populations and in other primate species (e.g. langurs, macaques and baboons).
To date there are no systematic studies on the more playful forms of teasing in non-human primates. This is surprising considering the wealth of research studying play, and in particular play fighting, in non-human primates and other animals. We believe that the dearth of playful teasing descriptions in the literature stems from a bias in observation: Adang explicitly excluded all behaviours that were accompanied by a relaxed open-mouth display (a play-specific signal in many primates, also called ‘play-face’). Thus, his studies only captured more agonistic forms of teasing, disregarding acts that were likely to be performed in a positive affective state.
Further observational and experimental research on playful teasing in primates provides a unique opportunity to study potentially humorous behaviour in non-human species. It can also build upon the existing research demonstrating implicit false belief understanding to strengthen the case for a more sophisticated theory of mind abilities in apes than was previously assumed. Therefore, studying playful teasing in our closest living relatives not only gives us new insights into the phylogenetic roots and potential functions of human teasing behaviour, but might also offer a critical window into the evolutionary origins of our sophisticated socio-cognitive skills.
*********
I came across the term Implicit Motivation within my research, for which I took notice of. It might seem that a subconscious type motivation might be at play in people posting memes to tease or trigger others. Certainly the behavior seems quite widespread, and there has to be a payoff for it. In the case of a power-implicit motive it might be a rush of testosterone according to what I have read. Seems that certain hormones are a factor in some of these behaviors. Apparently, the power motive may be both an implicit motive and as an explicit motive as I can interpret from my brief research. My intuition leads me to the impression that in the case of repeated behavior of posting caustic posts that it might be driven more by the subconscious than the conscious, hence I’m concentrating on defining this behavior in question as an implicit motive.
Stability of and Changes in Implicit Motives. A Narrative Review of Empirical Studies
Ferdinand Denzinger and Veronika Brandstätter
Frontiers in Psychology 2018; Published online 2018 May
Implicit motives* are defined as unconscious motivational dispositions that are activated through affectively charged incentives influencing spontaneous behavior. Researchers postulate that they are acquired early in the preverbal stage of life, through the repeated experience of motive-satisfying incentives. Despite the growing understanding about changes in personality characteristics, implicit motives are often still considered to be a comparatively stable part of an individual's personality that is exclusively formed in early childhood.
Since the 1950s, researchers have been interested in the “big three” of implicit motives. McClelland (1985) called them the need for Achievement (n Ach), the need for Power (n Pow) and the need for Affiliation (n Aff). The achievement motive is the need to accomplish something difficult in competition with a high and challenging standard of excellence. The power motive is the need for the experience of having an impact on others. The affiliation motive is the need to establish and maintain positive relationships with others. Implicit motives in these three different domains represent a capacity to derive satisfaction from the attainment of the above-mentioned domain-specific incentives.
Implicit motives are not only related to the individual's behavior, but also to psychophysiological responses such as the release of hormones (implicit power motive: testosterone and estradiol; implicit achievement motive: cortisol and vasopressin; implicit affiliation motive: dopamine and progesterone. In addition, implicit motives are associated with specific health outcomes such as stress, changes in blood pressure and immune parameters. In sum, implicit motives are an integral part of the human being. They influence individual behavior and are strongly linked to various psychological and physiological processes.
*Human motives theory distinguishes between two types of motivational systems–an implicit system that operates outside of conscious awareness and control, and an explicit system that functions at a conscious level. Implicit motives differ fundamentally from explicit motives in that the former are acquired during early childhood on the basis of non-verbal, affective experiences, while the latter are cognitively more elaborated constructs that are acquired after the development of language, being influenced by explicit instructions originating in the social and cultural environment. Using Berlew’s push–pull metaphor, Kehr (2004) and Hermans et al. (2017) suggest that implicit motives “push” individuals toward actions that they enjoy (“want-to” behavior), while explicit motives “pull” them toward actions that they feel obliged to do (“have-to” behaviors). Explicit and implicit motives are also triggered by different types of incentives, and they only affect behavior in the presence of the “right” type of incentive.
The parts of the brain used with an implicit motive versus an explicit motive apparently are different. As described from this pdf found online. It is a chapter of a book written:
Chapter 9
Properties of Motive-Specific Incentives
Steven J. Stanton Duke University
Julie L. Hall University of Michigan
Oliver C. Schultheiss Friedrich-Alexander University
Appeared as: Stanton, S. J., Hall, J. L., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2010). Properties of motive-specific incentives. In O. C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Implicit motives (pp. 245-278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McClelland et al. (1989) also offered some speculative explanations as to why implicit and explicit motives respond to different types of incentives and influence different kinds of behavioral outcomes. They argued that implicit motives are shaped by ontogenetically early, prelinguistic, affectively toned learning experiences, whereas explicit motives are based on verbal learning of rules, demands, and expectations later in life. They also proposed that implicit motives are rooted in brain structures dedicated to automatic emotional processing whereas explicit motives are represented in cortical areas subserving explicit memory and the voluntary regulation of behavior.
The link between n Power, implicit learning, and striatal function described above would suggest that the need for power is compromised when striatal function is impaired (as in Parkinson’s or Huntington’s disease) or that the independence between implicit and explicit measures of power motivation may reflect, in part, the mutually inhibitory effects of striatal* and neocortical** control over behavior.
The results of the Schultheiss, Wirth, et al. (2005) studies and those reported by Schultheiss and Rohde (2002) thus provide evidence that n Power influences procedural learning contingent on power-relevant incentives. Because procedural learning is closely tied to striatal function, these findings suggest that n Power (and perhaps other motives, too) recruits, and is represented in part by, the striatum, a critical structure for behavioral learning and incentive processing. Recent research using brain imaging supports this hypothesis: Relative to low-power individuals, high-power individuals show greater activation of anterior parts of the striatum in response to angry faces.
*The striatum is necessary for voluntary motor control. Research on its role in movement planning and execution uncovered its participation in cognition and reward processes. The striatum contains neurons that signal the social action that will result in its own reward.
**The neocortex performs a wide range of functions, including working memory, sensory perception, and motor planning. Despite this diversity in function, evidence suggests that the neocortex is made up of repeating subunits (“macrocolumns”), each of which is largely identical in circuitry. Understanding the exact computations performed by the mammalian neocortex has been a “Holy Grail” of Neuroscience for over 100 years. This is in part inspired by the fact that the only known unique attribute of the human brain in comparison to other mammals is the relative size of our neocortex.
Here is a little more about power-implicit motive and testosterone from another source.
Implicit Power Motivation Predicts Men’s Testosterone Changes and Implicit Learning in a Contest Situation
Oliver C. Schultheiss and Wolfgang Rohde
The steroid hormone testosterone has been implicated in social dominance and aggressive behavior in a wide variety of species, including humans. Specifically, many studies document rising testosterone levels in response to a dominance success but unchanged or even declining testosterone levels after a defeat. Mazur (1985) has speculated that postvictory testosterone surges, which can be observed within minutes and up to some hours after a dominance success, may serve to reinforce behavior that was instrumental for achieving the victory. This hypothesis has gained plausibility by recent findings that document rewarding and mood-enhancing effects of testosterone administration.
Importantly, we found that for low-inhibition participants, the power motive and contest outcome had strong effects on implicit learning of behavior that preceded a victory or defeat. In winners, high levels of power motivation predicted enhanced learning of a visuomotor sequence embedded in the contest task, whereas in losers, high levels of power motivation predicted impaired learning of this sequence. These results suggest that for non inhibited power-motivated individuals, having impact by beating an opponent is indeed a rewarding experience and behavior leading to this outcome will thus become more energized, whereas being beaten by another person is aversive and behavior associated with this outcome will not be invested with motivational energy in the future. Notably, participants did not seem to be aware of the fact that they actually learned a sequence during the contest, which demonstrates that the implicit power motive in conjunction with situational factors can shape individuals’ behavior without their knowledge.
I’ve gone off course a little below. I was curious about the actual effect of testosterone on the brain. It seems, after a cursory look, that it might be too complex for me to write about intelligently. It also appears from the research information published in June of this year, that it’s still a topic of research and discovery. But I thought a little information might not hurt. As far as the actual testosterone physical effects upon the brain of the caustic social media posters, that will have to wait for another time.
Testosterone is the major anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) hormone, which plays a key role in brain development. This hormone is predominant in males and has numerous physiological roles, acting in both the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral tissue. The effects of testosterone on the brain are crucial to development and sexual behavior, and are responsible for the differences between the sexes.
Testosterone acts as a neurosteroid in the neurons, where it may induce changes at the cellular level, affecting behavior, memory, cognition, and emotion.
Testosterone’s Dual Role in Brain Development: Affects Emotion Control Differently Across Ages
June 21, 2023
Higher testosterone levels during adolescence are associated with increased involvement of the brain’s anterior prefrontal cortex (aPFC) in emotion control, but the opposite effect occurs during adulthood.
The study, which included 71 participants, demonstrated that the positive effect of testosterone on aPFC engagement decreases from age 14 to age 17 and then shifts by age 20, when higher testosterone levels are linked with less aPFC activity.
In contrast to adolescence, during young adulthood, testosterone—no longer related to pubertal development— may impede emotion control, as implemented by the aPFC.
The findings suggest that the function of testosterone changes within individuals across adolescence and adulthood.
The study’s investigators note that many mood disorders tend to arise during adolescence, and additional research may reveal whether alterations in the interactions between testosterone and the brain may be related to this.
“Testosterone typically tends to be associated with aggression or dominance behavior, whereas in fact it has multifaceted roles across different developmental periods,” said corresponding author Anna Tyborowska, PhD, [@ATyborowska] of Radboud University, in The Netherlands.
I came across an article specifically about those who will berate the referees and umpires in sporting contests. In this article through research it found that the testosterone factor was cited in this example of behavior as well. Getting on the refs and posting caustic memes on social media seem to me as being nearly the same. I was unable to re-find this source to link to it here, but wished to mention it in the discussion. Oliver C. Schultheiss’s work was listed in this article.
Below is a qualifying study on ways to incite emotions within laboratory experiments in psychology. I thought it might be beneficial to give the information on how to best provoke anger in others. This might have application in the triggering of others, if that might be the goal of someone online. It would seem that a meme might be as effective or more so as any other method from looking at these results.
Experimental Methods for Inducing Basic Emotions: A Qualitative Review
Ewa Siedlecka
@Ewa__Siedlecka and
Thomas F. Denson
Sage Journals
First published online March 1, 2018
Anger Summary
A summarization of the efficacy of the five methods for inducing anger are described below. Four methods increase both cardiovascular and self-reported measures: visual stimuli, autobiographical recall, imagery, and situational procedures. There is limited physiological evidence to support using music. A meta-analysis found that visual stimuli have a smaller effect on anger than autobiographical recall, situational procedures, and imagery. Additional research found that situational procedures are more effective than visual stimuli, but that imagery and recall are more effective than situational procedures. We therefore recommend imagery or recall as the strongest techniques for inducing anger, followed by situational procedures, visual stimuli, and music. Within imagery and/or recall, we recommend methods that ask participants to focus on physiological variables, rather than just imagining/recalling events vividly. Imagery vignettes that focus on social scenarios (e.g., people cutting into a queue) appear to be particularly effective.
We broadly classify emotion induction techniques into five specific methods. Visual stimuli can be static images or videos selected to evoke target emotions. Listening to music activates effect via specific types of auditory input (e.g., tempo, melody, lyrics). Autobiographical recall involves summoning personal emotional memories to reactivate emotions from the original emotional experience. Situational procedures involve creating a social situation that elicits the target emotion. Imagery involves participants creating vivid mental representations of novel emotional events. Imagery can consist of reading vignettes, often with guidance from the experimenter.
The following are a few old quotes on “motive” from Forty Thousand Sublime and Beautiful Thoughts, (1914). Biographies are from Wikipedia.
“However brilliant an action, it should not be esteemed great unless the want is the result of a great motive.”
- La Rochefoucauld
François de La Rochefoucauld, 2nd Duke of La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac (15 September 1613 – 17 March 1680) was an accomplished French moralist of the era of French Classical literature and author of Maximes and Memoirs, the only two works of his dense literary œuvre published. His Maximes portrays the callous nature of human conduct, with a cynical attitude towards putative virtue and avowals of affection, friendship, love, and loyalty.
“We must not inquire too curiously into motives. They are apt to become feeble in the utterance; the aroma is mixed with the grosser air. We must keep the germinating grain away from the light.”
- George Eliot
Mary Ann Evans (22 November 1819 – 22 December 1880; alternatively Mary Anne or Marian) known by her pen name George Eliot, was an English novelist, poet, journalist, translator, and one of the leading writers of the Victorian era. She wrote seven novels: Adam Bede (1859), The Mill on the Floss (1860), Silas Marner (1861), Romola (1862–63), Felix Holt, the Radical (1866), Middlemarch (1871–72) and Daniel Deronda (1876). Like Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy, she emerged from provincial England; most of her works are set there. Her works are known for their realism, psychological insight, sense of place and detailed depiction of the countryside.
“Motives are symptoms of weakness, and supplements for the deficient energy of the living principle, the law within us. Let them then be reserved for those momentous acts and duties in which the strongest and best balanced natures must feel themselves deficient, and where humility no less than prudence prescribes deliberation.”
- Coleridge.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (21 October 1772 – 25 July 1834) was an English poet, literary critic, philosopher, and theologian who, with his friend William Wordsworth, was a founder of the Romantic Movement in England and a member of the Lake Poets. He also shared volumes and collaborated with Charles Lamb, Robert Southey, and Charles Lloyd.
“Men's minds are as variant as their faces. Where the motives of their actions are pure, the operation of the former is no more to be imputed to them as a crime, than the appearance of the latter; for both, being the work of nature, are alike unavoidable.”
- George Washington.
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United Statesfrom 1789 to 1797. Appointed by the Second Continental Congress as commander of the Continental Army in June 1775, Washington led Patriot forces to victory in the American Revolutionary War and then served as president of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which drafted and ratified the Constitution of the United States and established the American federal government. Washington has thus been called the "Father of his Country".
That concludes my look at the caustic poster on social media. I’m realizing that I’ve learned quite a lot, but maybe not enough. George Washington mentions the variability of people and their motives. Perhaps one can’t do what I attempted to come up with any one answer to these friends and relatives; as to their behavior and motives. And are they actually in a process of teasing in these postings? I’m not certain, but I think my exploration still has a value. Thanks for reading.
99th Posting, September 26, 2023