Isolation

[JacobF]

We seem to live by the mentality that, by isolating a problem, you're solving it. In math for instance we are taught to isolate the variable to solve it. When a criminal commits a crime we put them in jail -- isolate them from society. Do we consciously isolate problems in our world or is it just an act of negligence that happens to result in the isolation of a problem?

It seems that isolation tends to harness a certain power over something. When someone isolates themselves it is usually a result of feeling powerless in the world they are in. They can feel in control when they are in their own space, doing what they want. Plus, it's easier than complete confrontation. Instead of solving a problem you plunk it somewhere else where no one will find it or care about it. Sometimes, as I previously mentioned, isolation can come about naturally. When something does not pose an immediate inconvenience to us it's easy not to care about it. Or even the "it's their problem, not ours." There are some instances where it appears that isolation can solve a problem. Getting criminals off the street and in jail reduces crime rates -- it doesn't make crime evaporate, however.

So where am I going with this? I don't really know, to be honest. After reading guns, germs and steel it made me think a little about how we manage ourselves, and why things are the way they are. But my ultimate question -- does isolation really solve a problem? Or does it just delay it and, perhaps, make it worse?

[skasian]

Isolation to solve a conflict? I believe it is just one way of numerous methods to solve a conflict. Today, I just experienced a conflict between a pair of my friends, and they decided to go on their own ways, ie be isolated from each other, therefore avoid further contact from each other. In result, their conflict that they created together was not solved by this isolation as they continue to feel depressed and upset. I believe that to solve this conflict successfully without any remainder of negative feelings is to reconcile, discuss what went wrong and get back together.
I believe isolation will not solve their conflict, only make it linger, and it remains unsolved as they forget about it over time.

Isolation, is avoiding contact between one and the other, therefore preventing further conflict. If there is to be a conflict, I believe isolation will not solve this, only preventing further aggravation of damage or harm. For example crime and violence exists everywhere, and there is no security or promise that there wont ever will be. Isolating wrongdoers prevents their input of damaging our society, however it does not solve the overall damage that our society faces everyday.

[mono]

We seem to live by the mentality that, by isolating a problem, you're solving it. In math for instance we are taught to isolate the variable to solve it. When a criminal commits a crime we put them in jail -- isolate them from society. Do we consciously isolate problems in our world or is it just an act of negligence that happens to result in the isolation of a problem?

It seems that isolation tends to harness a certain power over something. When someone isolates themselves it is usually a result of feeling powerless in the world they are in. They can feel in control when they are in their own space, doing what they want. Plus, it's easier than complete confrontation. Instead of solving a problem you plunk it somewhere else where no one will find it or care about it. Sometimes, as I previously mentioned, isolation can come about naturally. When something does not pose an immediate inconvenience to us it's easy not to care about it. Or even the "it's their problem, not ours." There are some instances where it appears that isolation can solve a problem. Getting criminals off the street and in jail reduces crime rates -- it doesn't make crime evaporate, however.

So where am I going with this? I don't really know, to be honest. After reading guns, germs and steel it made me think a little about how we manage ourselves, and why things are the way they are. But my ultimate question -- does isolation really solve a problem? Or does it just delay it and, perhaps, make it worse?

Firstly, JacobF, I must remark that I feel impressed by these comments and questions coming from a young man of your age. You obviously have a head on your shoulders worth revering, since most individuals of your age I encounter, well . . . you know.
I entirely agree that a lot of laws attempt to solve a problem by ridding it out of their sight, whether placing in prison, in a psychiatric institution, or even how we see parents disciplining their children, by sending them to their bedrooms. Furthermore, we even see in two of Freud's defense mechanisms as isolation, itself, and intellectualization (a form of isolation). Even in day-to-day life, we see isolation as a means to solving a problem; in an argument, let us say, with a significant other, one may get so frustrated with its subject that he/she wishes to 'step out and take a walk,' for example, to analyze the problem.
When an individual found guilty of crime receives sentence to prison for 'x' number of years, indeed, we isolate them. The foundations in prison and potentials of rehabilitation have improved, from what I have heard (of course I would not know this from personal experience ); in some prisons, at least here in the U.S., prisoners must cook and prepare their own food, do their own cleaning and laundry, perform community service (we call them 'chain gangs'), and, as a means of positive reinforcement, receive rewards for good work (I have heard good things of an amateur baseball team in one California prison). Times have changed, and we still isolate prisoners (take 'the hole,' for one - a dark room, no contact with anyone for sometimes days, a punishment for bad actions in prison), but at least we offer them slightly more humane means of rehabilitation to make it 'out there.'
Some find isolation a more positive experience. Dr. Timothy Leary conducted experiments in sensory deprivation, and even considered a means of achieving a higher consciousness; monks of Hindu and Buddhist sects sometimes must perform weeks or months with limited human contact and an oath of silence before even attempting a state of Enlightenment; I cannot recall the name of any Native American tribes, but to complete the transition into manhood, some young men of certain tribes must go out into the wilderness, live off the natural elements he will find, and return only after seeing a 'vision.'
I think it partially a matter of cognition, that when we encounter a problem, we isolate the problem in order to fully perceive it as a negative thing; we declare a problem a problem before attempting to solve it. The projection of this may seem sometimes unethical and unjust, but perhaps natural. Seclusion and the subsequest lonliness that can follow, for that reason, can appear as the easiest punishment to someone for a wrongful action by a judge, but, then again, I can think of no worse punishment than the torments of one's own mind, which we likely see most clearly when isolated.
Interesting topic, JacobF.

[blazeofglory]

isolation is something we can not do away with. We are naturally or inherently isolated beings. No matter whether we are in a group or in absolute isolation we are in society we have forms of isolation.

We never can distance oursleves from isolation.
People or friends or groups can not keep away from isolation.

[JacobF]

Isolation to solve a conflict? I believe it is just one way of numerous methods to solve a conflict. Today, I just experienced a conflict between a pair of my friends, and they decided to go on their own ways, ie be isolated from each other, therefore avoid further contact from each other. In result, their conflict that they created together was not solved by this isolation as they continue to feel depressed and upset. I believe that to solve this conflict successfully without any remainder of negative feelings is to reconcile, discuss what went wrong and get back together.
I believe isolation will not solve their conflict, only make it linger, and it remains unsolved as they forget about it over time.

Isolation, is avoiding contact between one and the other, therefore preventing further conflict. If there is to be a conflict, I believe isolation will not solve this, only preventing further aggravation of damage or harm. For example crime and violence exists everywhere, and there is no security or promise that there wont ever will be. Isolating wrongdoers prevents their input of damaging our society, however it does not solve the overall damage that our society faces everyday.

Maybe, but don't you think that isolation can also put an even greater strain on a problem? Lack of communication/confrontation can occasionally only add to a problem, even if the results are not immediate. I think facing a problem head-on is a better way to deal with it, even if it's not as convenient or less difficult than isolating it or simply ignoring it.

Firstly, JacobF, I must remark that I feel impressed by these comments and questions coming from a young man of your age. You obviously have a head on your shoulders worth revering, since most individuals of your age I encounter, well . . . you know.

Thanks.

I entirely agree that a lot of laws attempt to solve a problem by ridding it out of their sight, whether placing in prison, in a psychiatric institution, or even how we see parents disciplining their children, by sending them to their bedrooms. Furthermore, we even see in two of Freud's defense mechanisms as isolation, itself, and intellectualization (a form of isolation). Even in day-to-day life, we see isolation as a means to solving a problem; in an argument, let us say, with a significant other, one may get so frustrated with its subject that he/she wishes to 'step out and take a walk,' for example, to analyze the problem.

Yeah, sending a child to their bedroom or to the corner or wherever always seemed odd to me. Parents/teachers generally say that it gives the child 'a time to reflect on their actions' when, really, they just want the child out of their sight. I think we all need some time to isolate ourselves, e.g. a vacation or as you said taking a walk, but its the consistent use of isolation as a means of attempting to fix a problem which seems unsettling to me.

I think it partially a matter of cognition, that when we encounter a problem, we isolate the problem in order to fully perceive it as a negative thing; we declare a problem a problem before attempting to solve it. The projection of this may seem sometimes unethical and unjust, but perhaps natural.

I agree. Isolation occurs as early as grade school. When a child comes off as weird or socially inept they are isolated from the rest of their peers. It is natural and maybe as blaze states above me, we cannot stop it.

[skasian]

Maybe, but don't you think that isolation can also put an even greater strain on a problem? Lack of communication/confrontation can occasionally only add to a problem, even if the results are not immediate. I think facing a problem head-on is a better way to deal with it, even if it's not as convenient or less difficult than isolating it or simply ignoring it.

In a larger perspective about isolation exerting on a conflict, it can either

1. Prevent further conflict
2. Give a greater strain on a conflict, which is rare
But also
3. Ease the problem people have in their mind as time passes, however the conflict itself remains unsolved

The reason why isolation is choosen is majorly becuase it will 1. and 3..
The reason why couples separate and divorse is for them to isolate, as it will provide 1. and 3. and less of 2.
This is why I believe 2. is less common in this context of isolation.

Sometimes, getting into down to business type of conversation to resolve a conflict is better than isolation, however equally, it is not. Thats why some couples decide on divorse, where conversation just wont solve their conflict.
In regards of 3., while a conflict between two people may become eased in time during isolation, further encounter may make their conflict worse. I believe there is no rule on considering what type of conflict is better to be put aside by isolation or further encounter.

But the main idea is that isolation cant solve a conflict, whereas further confrontation and discussion CAN solve a conflict.

[TheFifthElement]

Hi Jacob, it's an interesting thought you've put together there. I think the issue of isolation is an interesting one, but I think maybe this statement confuses the issue:

In math for instance we are taught to isolate the variable to solve it. When a criminal commits a crime we put them in jail -- isolate them from society.

because you're not really comparing eggs with eggs. In prison people aren't truly isolated, prison is a community albeit an enclosed one. Perhaps the only true example of isolation being used as a solution to a problem is in the case of solitary confinement, but that is used as a point of last resort, for short periods and often to either control or protect the individual in relation to their fellow inmates. Even in mathematical terms, when you isolate a problem you then focus your attention on it so the isolation iself is only a means by which to identify where your focus needs to be. A step in the journey, so to speak.

But your statement did make me ask a different question: what is the purpose of prison? As you mentioned, one of the purposes of prison is to isolate (or remove might be a better term) an individual, perceived to be a danger, from the rest of society. But I think the greater purpose of imprisonment is as a punishment: the individual has been tried and found to have 'wronged' society. So they are punished and the most prevalent form of punishment in current society is imprisonment or, if you prefer, denial of freedom. Of course in the past the thief would have had his/her hand cut off or been flogged, murderers put to death (as they still are in some societies), those guilty of manslaughter may have been branded, fraudsters pilloried, and so on, but many current societies no longer accept these forms of punishment and in all but a few cases the sentences have been transposed to imprisonment, the essential denial of freedom for a period determined by the nature of the crime committed. And that is, of course, oversimplifying the whole issue of prison which, if we examined it in detail, would have various other strings attached to it: restitution, re-education, and so on. This is an interesting statement, and I almost used a similar example:

Yeah, sending a child to their bedroom or to the corner or wherever always seemed odd to me. Parents/teachers generally say that it gives the child 'a time to reflect on their actions' when, really, they just want the child out of their sight.

I think it's a little more complex than that. I'm a parent, and when I send my children to their room it is to reinforce the fact that actions have consequences, which is a really difficult lesson for children to learn in a society which protects them from every danger and pre-empts every risk. So maybe your parents/teachers are being truthful there Put yourself in the parental shoes for a moment: imagine you have a baby, say a 9 month old. It keeps trying to put its fingers in the fire. You told and told and told it, but it doesn't listen, it likes the fire. How do you stop it? Do you intervene: put up a fire guard and maintain a diligent watch to ensure the fire guard never fails, so the child never learns that fire is dangerous. What happens then if it goes somewhere where there is no fire guard? Do you take the non-intervention approach: let it put its fingers in the fire and get burned, so then it knows that fire is dangerous? Or do you find a less damaging middle ground?


But taking your initial statement on face value, is it your view that prison is an imperfect solution to the problem of criminality? If so, what would you propose as an alternative? My own view is that prevention is better than cure, but at the same time even if preventative measures make a significant impact, on balance of probabilities there will still be a proportion, however small, of criminality. What would you do with your criminals, if 'isolation' or if you prefer 'denial of freedom' is no longer an option?

[NikolaiI]

Actually isolation is the main reason for prison. You have food and shelter take care of, the only thing you cannot do is leave. But isolation can be a good thing for creativity. Actually we feel isolated from each other but also we feel we have never been isolated or alone.

[TheFifthElement]

Actually isolation is the main reason for prison. You have food and shelter take care of, the only thing you cannot do is leave. But isolation can be a good thing for creativity. Actually we feel isolated from each other but also we feel we have never been isolated or alone.

You also have companionship, ergo you are not isolated, not entirely anyway. Segregated, or separated, certainly.

I think there are many theories/philosophies surrounding the purpose of prison, and to an extent they are all true. But as to its primary purpose, I think Jack Straw (former UK Home Secretary) said it quite succinctly, in this statement:

What I want to do briefly this afternoon is to reiterate what I consider the purpose of prison.

“Put simply, that is punishment and reform.

“Both are words which have become unfashionable, but both have meanings which have always been clear.

“Prisons are, as they should be, first and foremost places of punishment, primarily through the deprivation of liberty but also through a regime behind bars which is tough and fair. We should never shy away from this nor hide behind euphemism – this is a barrier between those speaking and those listening. No one wants to hear jargon to translate. We must be clear about punishment and reform.

“At the same time we must recognise that the public are not protected, nor the taxpayer best served, unless they are also places of reformed behaviour and rehabilitation. We must not be shy about our commitment to this, because our top priority in giving offenders the opportunity to turn away from crime is the contribution cutting reoffending makes to ensuring our communities are safer places to live, as well as alongside the fact that when we meet ex prisoners who've turned around, their lives are enriched by doing that and they can have proper relationships without violence or stealing.

“This means supplying enough prison places; it also means providing a constructive regime which gives people on the inside that chance of ensuring they are able to pursue a law abiding life on the outside.

“To do so is not to make life “cushy” for inmates – rather, it is ensuring that prisons work in the interests of everyone. Punishment and reform.

[mono]

In a larger perspective about isolation exerting on a conflict, it can either

1. Prevent further conflict
2. Give a greater strain on a conflict, which is rare
But also
3. Ease the problem people have in their mind as time passes, however the conflict itself remains unsolved

The reason why isolation is choosen is majorly becuase it will 1. and 3..
The reason why couples separate and divorse is for them to isolate, as it will provide 1. and 3. and less of 2.
This is why I believe 2. is less common in this context of isolation.

Sometimes, getting into down to business type of conversation to resolve a conflict is better than isolation, however equally, it is not. Thats why some couples decide on divorse, where conversation just wont solve their conflict.
In regards of 3., while a conflict between two people may become eased in time during isolation, further encounter may make their conflict worse. I believe there is no rule on considering what type of conflict is better to be put aside by isolation or further encounter.

But the main idea is that isolation cant solve a conflict, whereas further confrontation and discussion CAN solve a conflict.

I strongly agree with you here, skasian, that isolation does not necessarily have to solve a conflict, but it can both prevent a cascade-effect into more conflict and/or 'ease the problem . . . as time passes.'
Making decisions amid a conflict or near your stimulus of the conflict can make things difficult, much like after a good debate, while walking away, one thinks "I should've said this, I would've done that . . ."
Such as in prison time or sending a child to his/her bedroom, as TheFifthElement explained, gives the individual time to reflect during consequences of wrongful actions, 'wrongful' identified by a justice system (the law or parents ).

[skasian]

I strongly agree with you here, skasian, that isolation does not necessarily have to solve a conflict, but it can both prevent a cascade-effect into more conflict and/or 'ease the problem . . . as time passes.'
Making decisions amid a conflict or near your stimulus of the conflict can make things difficult, much like after a good debate, while walking away, one thinks "I should've said this, I would've done that . . ."
Such as in prison time or sending a child to his/her bedroom, as TheFifthElement explained, gives the individual time to reflect during consequences of wrongful actions, 'wrongful' identified by a justice system (the law or parents ).

Yes, I completely concur with what you said.. theres always that after thought after a disagreement between people that may cause further problems within oneselves, and that yes, isolation does provides one to self confess their wrongdoings.

Time outs and groundings on children? Ah I remember clearly, facing the wall in a dark corner of the room back in the days, well dont we all