Nothing worse than an ex-smoker

[Royston]

This came up in conversation the other day, and I'm trying to pin down exactly what it is.

 

If somebody has had a habit, or fervent belief in something and it changes e.g they used to smoke, and have now given up, or they used to be a devout Catholic and they're now an Atheist, I've noticed they're a lot more vocal / opinionated / advocated towards this change.

 

This certainly isn't about religion, but to bring the argument close to home (SFN) they're are members who I know were brought up within religious families, and have (for whatever reason) decided it wasn't for them, have certainly been more vocal and ardent about their new found position. That certainly isn't an attack on anybody on here, it's just to illustrate the point, and I'm hoping that some members can identify with that.

 

So what causes this, is it just simply...'I've made a change, to what I think is better, and feel the need to tell everybody about it', if so, why do they feel the need, if not, what else could be at play here.

 

Just to make it clear, I want to discuss the cause of this, this isn't specifically to do with belief, but lifestyle change. I realize there are always exceptions, I recall when I gave up smoking for roughly a year, I told myself not to preach to anybody about giving up, but I still had to tell myself. Only due to being subjected to preaching, and if I had not, I probably would have been more opinionated about non-smoking.

 

Any ideas ?

[5614]

With smoking: when people decide to give up it's because they truly understand it is for the best of them and everyone around them. It's often taken them a while to understand and accept this, and to actually go through the hard process of giving up. When they come across people who still smoke, maybe they consider themselves to have "seen the light" (i.e. what they consider to be the "correct" path) and advise the smoker, who in their eyes is on the "wrong" path, to stop smoking. And they'll use the "logical" arguments, which originally convinced them to change, to convince the other person.

 

Giving up smoking is a big deal to an addict. I guess that if they give up then they've got a lot of strong will power, something must have stimulated this, and I think it's this something (the sudden discovery of the "correct" path) that people like to share. They share for two reasons: firstly for the pleasure of sharing and helping others (in a manner similar to why we at SFN help people with work, and friends help each other with personal issues) and secondly to show off their achievement (e.g. in the case of successfully managing to give up smoking).

 

I think that the above can be applied to many situations. Hence I use "" around potentially controversial terms (e.g. personal opinions) - because if you say take this argument and apply it to religion you've got to be careful when saying what is "correct", "logical" and "wrong" etc.

 

I hope this is what you were looking for in this thread! It's a slightly unusual thread; although should make for an interesting discussion.

[CaptainPanic]

Perhaps there is still some uncertainty that remains after radically changing your lifestyle? Trying to convince other people is sometimes actually trying to convince yourself more than the other.

[Phi for All]

I think it's the personal involvement that's the major factor here. When you hear about something and pass it on to someone else, you're an information conduit only. When you've experienced something firsthand and then pass it along, you're an advocate. You invest a passion in your stance that wouldn't be there if you weren't personally involved.

[Royston]

I think it's the personal involvement that's the major factor here. When you hear about something and pass it on to someone else, you're an information conduit only. When you've experienced something firsthand and then pass it along, you're an advocate. You invest a passion in your stance that wouldn't be there if you weren't personally involved.

 

I agree, however I've always found the 'converted' for want of a better word, to be more of an advocate, than somebody who already had a vested interest in whatever, or who had never smoked from the start (as an example). I guess as 5614 pointed out, there's probably more than one motivation that prompts this advocacy, rather than just 'seeing the light.'

 

But, ummm, yes, that still boils down to the personal experience of the change.

 

It's a slightly unusual thread

 

Yeah, I guess it is slightly unusual. I am however suffering from physics madness at the moment, having been up to the early hours finishing an assignment...and perhaps the answer is as simple as Phi is stating.

 

I may come back to this...but it might be I'm just looking too deeply into something that doesn't require much exploring.

[iNow]

I think it ties directly to the same feeling you get when you're in the lab and you discover something new. You want to tell the world. You are proud. You find this information useful, beneficial, and worthy of attention.

 

Also, it's a different stance.

 

When I smoked, I never listened to people who hadn't smoked themselves. I knew their logic was sound, but I disregarded their opinion because "they just didn't understand."

 

So, when I quit myself, I was able to take a different approach. "I've been there. I understand the challenges you are facing. I know how difficult it is. Here's what worked for me. You can do it, too."

 

I cannot speak for everyone, but I don't try so much to be a quitting advocate as much as I try to be a quitting enabler.

 

Regardless, I pretty much just repeated what's already been said. I also used to work on a quit smoking research project, so I'm not necessarily the most objective source.

[Royston]

I think it ties directly to the same feeling you get when you're in the lab and you discover something new.

 

That's a nice way of putting it, but the difference with that example is that you've discovered something, that nobody else has.

 

I guess, going back to the smoking analogy, it comes across as preaching, because I'm sure most smokers are abundantly aware that it's bad for them. It could be for some, that the non-smoker is highlighting a weakness, and makes that person feel uncomfortable, or maybe embarrassed.

 

However, I can understand why that would be irritating, if said person knows full well of the risks, and the non-smoking activist is just regurgitating the same points, that have already been heavily considered.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that there is also an issue of knowledge. Someone who has "converted" from one belief to another is familiar with both beliefs and the arguments in favor of each. It is not easy to change from one belief to another, so they must have also invested a lot of time considering both. In this sense, they are an "unbiased expert" in the topic, and so can say with more confidence that they know which belief is better.

[Royston]

In this sense, they are an "unbiased expert" in the topic, and so can say with more confidence that they know which belief is better.

 

As long as the subjectivity of that viewpoint is emphasized, plus you can't guarantee how much time was invested into forming that viewpoint. For example, it's easier for somebody to give up smoking if they've only been smoking for a few weeks, as opposed to a few years.

[omnimutant]

(Sorry to Necro Post but this is important to me)

 

I think it has more to do with caring then actually trying to insult and preach, but I've been on Both sides of this issue in general.

 

I do smoke and I am bombarded every day with stuff I've heard for years. I know it can kill me, and cause cancer, and all the hazards and nastiness associated with it. I know I'm addicted to nicotine and it's something that I need to deal with. So I know how much it sucks when someone preaches to you constantly to stop. For me it's the final step in some serious life changing thats happened to me over the last 10 or so years.

 

That said, things I have given up, like Drinking and Drugs, I do tend to be preachy to those I care for who still continue these activities. It's a bit hypocritical of me to preach to someone using drugs when I smoke but thats how I roll sometimes.

 

That said, even though I KNOW that the only person that will get people to quit there own habits is themselves, I still feel it necessary to push them in the right direction. It is because I care for those people. I don't go up to strangers and preach to them so maybe I'm being greedy about the whole thing, but I do believe that it's because of the caring that the preaching is so rampant.

 

Of course when were talking about Drug and Alcohol abuse many times you have to deal with the denial factor. Most smokers I know, know that they are addicted and accept that they are harming themselves. Like myself, they want to quit, but it hasn't happened yet. On the Other hand many drug users I have known have a real hard time accepting the Harm they are causing themselves and others. And an even harder time accepting the addiction when applicable. Alcohol is much the same in that regard.

 

I think it has to do with the social acceptance of alcohol and "social drugs" that makes people less aware of their own addictions in that regard. In fact, judging by my own personal views on society and life experiences, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of people who do habitually drink, are not even aware that they are Alcoholics.

 

Anyway, it's probably not right for me to push my own "moral" judgment on those people I preach too, but sometimes it feels like it needs to be done.

[Taktiq]

I agree. In fact, I find it ironic how staunchly anti-smoking I was for years and then became a heavy smoker by the time I left the Navy in 95. I'm planning on attempting to quit (again...lol) while my girlfriend is away visiting her family in Liechtenstein.

 

I take her to the airport tomorrow morning and I'm intending for my last cigarette to be the one I smoke with her before she leaves so, wish me luck...

[doG]

If somebody has had a habit, or fervent belief in something and it changes e.g they used to smoke, and have now given up, or they used to be a devout Catholic and they're now an Atheist, I've noticed they're a lot more vocal / opinionated / advocated towards this change.

 

Not always though. I'm an ex-smoker and I seldom mention it to smokers in my midst except when one of them says something like, "it's been x hours since I had a smoke" and I counter that it's been 8 years since I had my last one.

 

I know the type you're speaking of though. Several ex-smokers I know nag smokers on a regular basis about how they need to quit. I figure it's a waste of breath. Smokers aren't going to quit because of someone nagging them, they're only going to quit when they make their mind up that it's what they want to do. Rehab only works for those that really want it.

[ParanoiA]

I don't go up to strangers and preach to them so maybe I'm being greedy about the whole thing, but I do believe that it's because of the caring that the preaching is so rampant.

 

You necromancer. Just to make it official...somebody had to say it.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure about the caring bit. The most annoying example of Snail's post is an older gentleman I work with that takes every opportunity to spout anti-smoking rhetoric, even around nothing but non-smokers. I will admit he's passionate, but I'm not so sure it isn't more about his morally superior resolve not to smoke rather than his care for other human beings.

 

I cannot speak for everyone, but I don't try so much to be a quitting advocate as much as I try to be a quitting enabler.

 

I really like this attitude. I always enjoy telling my story, sharing my experience - when it's asked.

[Glider]

You necromancer. Just to make it official...somebody had to say it.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure about the caring bit. The most annoying example of Snail's post is an older gentleman I work with that takes every opportunity to spout anti-smoking rhetoric, even around nothing but non-smokers. I will admit he's passionate, but I'm not so sure it isn't more about his morally superior resolve not to smoke rather than his care for other human beings.

You're right. This particular phenomenon is down to cognitive dissonance and group identity.

 

1) Group identity. You can separate a group of people on the most arbitrary basis and assign each sub group a different task (or even the same task) and within an hour, each group, if asked, will be performing much better than those muppets over there.

 

2) Cognitive dissonance. Whenever we make a decision, we close off other options. This results in dissonance. To reduce this dissonance, the decision we made becomes 'righter' and 'better' and more correct and more adventagious and more insightful and wiser.....ad nauseum

 

As a smoker, the individual is quite happy with the situation and has already justified their position to themselves and identifies with the 'smoker' group. To alter that stance takes a lot (addiction aside). Making the move from one group to the other results in a huge amount of dissonance because the individual is now confronted with knowledge that their previous stance was wrong (I'm a good and sensible person...this just can't be!).

 

To reduce this dissonance and reconcile their action with their self identity as a good and sensible person, the decision must become even 'righter' and better and more moral and ...you get the idea. Also, the individual now identifies with the 'opposing' group. This too creates dissonance. Previously, these people were a bunch of smug, self-satisfied gits who didn't understand how hard it is to quit. Now, I have to reduce the dissonance cause by my being one of them. So, as a group, they become wiser, morally superior and generally better (they have to be. I'm one of them after all!).

 

Now I'm one of these superior types, it behoves me to demonstrate that loudly and frequently and to proselytise to those other poor, deluded muppets that haven't seen the light wherever the opportunity presents itself in order the silence the little voice that's telling me I was wrong all these years.

[ParanoiA]

Funny, as much as I carry on about group behavior I never actually considered it in terms of smoking. Makes sense Glider.

 

So why do a portion of us, such as doG and I, not really care about throwing our superiority around, or deluding ourselves with moral righteousness? We both quit smoking, so at one point we belonged to the smoking group and had to convert to the other group. So, we had to deal with dissonance. Why aren't we guilty of the same thing? Or are we really just "silent" about it?

[Royston]

So why do a portion of us, such as doG and I, not really care about throwing our superiority around, or deluding ourselves with moral righteousness? We both quit smoking, so at one point we belonged to the smoking group and had to convert to the other group. So, we had to deal with dissonance. Why aren't we guilty of the same thing? Or are we really just "silent" about it?

 

Going back to an early post, for me, it was because I was on the receiving end of the moral righteousness, so I appreciated how irritating it was. Another reason, is that I personally feel a hypocrite, highlighting the dangers of a habit, such as smoking, when I used to do it myself. If somebody wants to indulge in this, that or the other, it's really none of my business. If the person brings up quitting a habit, then offer advice, but don't preach, it doesn't work (as iNow alluded to earlier).

[Glider]

So why do a portion of us, such as doG and I, not really care about throwing our superiority around, or deluding ourselves with moral righteousness? We both quit smoking, so at one point we belonged to the smoking group and had to convert to the other group. So, we had to deal with dissonance. Why aren't we guilty of the same thing? Or are we really just "silent" about it?

It depends on the amount of dissonance you have to deal with, and that depends on a number of things. A basic outline would be that the more effectively you had justified your original position to yourself, the harder it becomes to alter that position without damaging your self-image and the more dissonance there will be to overcome.

 

I am a smoker but, like you and doG, when I quit (as I keep planning to), it's unlikely that I would become a sanctimonious, proselytising convert, because I can't justify my current position to myself. Smoking in front of my non-smoking friends embarasses me so much that I can't bring myself to do it. So my self image won't be taking much of a hit when I do come to quit as, psychologically, I already identify with the non-smoking group and it's smoking that causes dissonance in me.

 

If I had managed to justify my current position to myself, than the change would be harder (reconciling my new position with my previous stance whilst protecting my self-image) and it would be more likely that I would become an annoying, happy-clappy convert.

[blazarwolf]

People very simply strive to share there journeys/exprirences/struggles with other people. Social exchange/expirence is crucial to our existence, and even to a monkeys existence (see: pit of dispair). Some people do not understand proper approach and believe that if they have seen "the light" it should be so easy to share "the light" with other people. To each our own is to our differing perception. Words have very little comparison to our thoughts and expirences, and until we are all vulcans and can mind-meld with each other... there will be major lapeses in explination and atleast as much in understanding... That being said.... seriously... you got any? hahahaha BAN BAN BAN hahaha

[bigjobs]

This came up in conversation the other day, and I'm trying to pin down exactly what it is.

 

If somebody has had a habit, or fervent belief in something and it changes e.g they used to smoke, and have now given up, or they used to be a devout Catholic and they're now an Atheist, I've noticed they're a lot more vocal / opinionated / advocated towards this change.

 

This certainly isn't about religion, but to bring the argument close to home (SFN) they're are members who I know were brought up within religious families, and have (for whatever reason) decided it wasn't for them, have certainly been more vocal and ardent about their new found position. That certainly isn't an attack on anybody on here, it's just to illustrate the point, and I'm hoping that some members can identify with that.

 

So what causes this, is it just simply...'I've made a change, to what I think is better, and feel the need to tell everybody about it', if so, why do they feel the need, if not, what else could be at play here.

 

Just to make it clear, I want to discuss the cause of this, this isn't specifically to do with belief, but lifestyle change. I realize there are always exceptions, I recall when I gave up smoking for roughly a year, I told myself not to preach to anybody about giving up, but I still had to tell myself. Only due to being subjected to preaching, and if I had not, I probably would have been more opinionated about non-smoking.

 

Any ideas ?

 

snail,

 

when working in rehab & prisons we used to call this 'swapping the witch for the bitch'

 

to me this is when a hard crim / addict would find jesus and become a zealot.

 

it struck me that these individuals would always persue advocating for religion / jesus as hard as they offended or took drugs. always fascinating to me. i wondered if they ever got over their addictions, and still wonder.

[pioneer]

Fanaticism is compensation for doubt. The ex-smoker would like to go back but is using will to quit. Deep inside there is this split between choices. To maintain the direction of the will they need to overcompensate to overcome the inner doubt. By convincing others they are also convincing themselves. The stronger the urge to convince others is directly proportional to the strength needed to convince themselves. It is sort of a projection affect.

 

They could tell themselves."you are a piece of crap if you still wish to smoke". But nobody wants to put themselves down or you can sink into depression. Depression is anger turned inward. So you project the anger outward and play out the inner dialogue, externally, calling others a piece of crap. It sort of serves the same purpose but this anger output is more destructive to others. The idea is to not take it personally. It is sort of self therapy with the victim sort of like an abstraction for their therapy. Eventually it goes away.

[Glider]

Fanaticism is compensation for doubt.

Can you support this?

Depression is anger turned inward.

Is it Really? Can you support this?

So you project the anger outward and play out the inner dialogue, externally, calling others a piece of crap.

Is there any evidence for this?

It sort of serves the same purpose but this anger output is more destructive to others.

Evidence?

The idea is to not take it personally. It is sort of self therapy with the victim sort of like an abstraction for their therapy. Eventually it goes away.

Evidence?