Newspaper Page Text
GRIFFIN DAILY NEWS MAGAZINE
DRAWING BY
“ SHOULD A PERSON BE
fy All-Forgiving?
A —*•*
JFHkHb
jn^iof * f VH WbA ><JMtysy'~
•■MMhI bSB’-'B »/ Jwll r ~ ’ • , S2 I ' ISm.,' ’\
M3tr < A « .«* i Baßßr* r <-^9at&.’ ■. ik*.
Wall 1 IJB 'wIHB
qSRKSzjiE ShßKe wHSSb^& %
m \ wz 7/- W \\vJLM
® ■ JIHI A lUlr ' rnXA\ --i
fl inofc/
> >wßß*OmP> ts.„. J !h fljf w ’ldPw ?«
JKr j&Mah j *Xw&&& WMf it lliaS JKwSHfiiF 19
> >1 <'-ws 3
iS Sp o
f Wi ■ »JW- Jf
wßm \Sf.. X Hk.'
*BL 5» r v***
™ w- ’©■■a b ¥;W- ' ■ "-■*—>" . ,~ --■
r J HMHm/.Ji v vIL / .mBBF*
RLLJrI $
Z wp> Z ■ /
j^K" 1 -’jfcly '** ' • '■■- w- * tW jf 1 v *
• An individual should be ready to forgive a friend,
say, for an injustice inflicted upon him. And he
should forgive completely. But there are limits. The
offended person should not be ad-forgiving all the
time. To begin with, this would be almost impos
sible for an emotionally stable person; he would not
permit himself to become a doormat Nor would he
do it because he would be hurting his friend.
A real friend, of course, would not consciously
hurt someone whose friendship he valued. Unin
tentionally, he may cause resentment by failing to
remember a birthday, perhaps, or sayis-g something
which he doesn’t realize has hit a "sore spot.” But
• Why do girls giggle ?
Actually, girls giggle simply because 1
they are human beings and find 1
something to giggle about. Boys gig- j
gle, too. Only as they grow older,
it is a "snicker,” a "chuckle” or a
"smirk.” "Although the best gig- j
glers are adolescent girls,” says Dr.
Sandor S. Feldman in "Mannerisms ,
of Speech and Gestures” (Interna- |
tional Universities Press, Inc.), "all
women do it well. In the course of
time, giggling becomes a feminine ,
characteristic.” (
While giggling seems to be some- !
thing girls apparently have no con
trol over, it is far from compulsive
laughter. Giggling is a healthy, I
though perhaps annoying reaction I
to a situation that appears funny to
the gigglers. Compulsive laughter is
not funny. It is associated with pa- ;
tients suffering from a form of
schizophrenia. "They often engage
in hearty laughter when there is no
occasion known to them or to others i
for laughing,” say Drs. Leland E.
Hinsie and Robert J. Campbell in
"Psychiatric Dictionary” (Oxford). 1
"They usually say that they do not
2
these are offenses that can happen once or twice in
a friendship, and therefore can easily be forgiven.
But a friend who offends another habitually may
be doing so because of unconscious motives he can
not control. If he is driven to flagrant misconduct—
perhaps "flying off the handle” at the slightest ex
cuse, or threatening to inflict physical harm while in
a violent rage—then his "target” should try to in
duce him to get professional help.
Even if the continually offending friend does not
show extreme signs of mental or physical problems,
it is doing him a disservice to let him get away
with habitually offensive conduct. If someone con-
know why they are laughing and
they seldom if ever give a reason
for it.” On occasion, the only way
the patients can tell they are laugh
ing is by the movement of muscles
in the face.
The mind, however, must be men
tally healthy for a person to have
genuine laughter, for he laughs when
he is provoked by a situation in
which there is incongruity: a neatly,
composed stroller suddenly slipping
on a banana peel; a perfectly de
licious, edible cream pie smashing
into an unsuspecting face. Children
laugh readily at a situation that
seems silly to them. Or they can
giggle and tease without fear of
being punished for it.
"It is remarkable how little is
necessary to make girls giggle," says
Dr. Feldman. But "a girt needs
company in order to giggle ... the
strength of the group makes gig
gling acceptable.” Acceptable, that
is, to everyone but the boy who’s
being giggled at, or the one who
has to listen to a bunch of girls
with the giggles.
<© 156». King Futures Syndicate, inc.)
• Can every prisoner be a “modelprisoner”?
Perhaps corrections work to reha
bilitate prisoners fails to be as suc
cessful as we want it to be because
we are expecting the impossible. We
want all prisoners to be “model pris
oners.” And yet that would mean
that they would all have to have
the same personality.
"Even the best, modern, ‘enlight
ened’ prison work is inadequate and
inefficient," say Dr. Frank K. Gib
son and Dr. Raymond Payne in the
"American Journal of Correction,"
"largely because it does not appro
priately take into account the.na
ture of human personality." Every
kind of corrections system (prison,
training school, parole or probation
control) has every type of human
personality, say the authors. These,
very briefly, are: The self-directed
person (conscientious, orderly and
persistent); the adaptive person (so
ciable, friendly, vivacious, out-going,
and having “social intelligence”);
the submissive person (uninitiative, a
follower, unaggressive, ruled by au
thority); the defiant person (hostile
to society, non-conformist, grudge-
Sat. and Sun., Oct. 19-20, 1968
stantly finds excuses for his actions, the offender
may feel that the “sky’s the limit." If he finds that
the one he hurts will always make allowances for
his actions, he may think that there is nothing he
could do that would cause that person to lose re
spect for him. He may feel that his friendship is
more highly regarded than he realized, and that he
shouldn’t “waste" it on the likes of anyone who
permits himself to be treated in an abusive manner.
He might even resent it because his friend has al
lowed him to break up a beautiful friendship by not
letting him know just how far he could go without
destroying their relationship.
bearing, maladjusted); the unad
justed person (discontented, inse
cure, frustrated, difficult, unable to
fit into his environment); the mixed
person (not clearly a definite per
sonality, having characteristics of
two or more of the types cited).
Only the submissive personality,
say the authors, could be comfor
table in the modem prison, and only
this type could meet all the rules,
regulations and requirements. They
say that present corrections institu
tions should not try to convert all
prisoners to the submissive type. Not
only is this impossible, they point
out, but the attempt is a waste of
time and money and could result In
such undesirable side effects as:
"the creation of neurosis and psy
chosis, an intensification of hostility
and a resentment of authority.”
They suggest that corrections sys
tems attempt to change the self
directive criminal into a self-direc
tive Hon-criminal; the adaptive crim
inal into an adaptive won-criminal,
the defiant criminal into a defiant
•on-wimiual.