Revisiting the Fixed Past

It seems an important distinction between progressive and conservative thinkers: that of the fixed or growth mindset. To refresh this concept, one may believe that a person is either born all they will ever be (fixed) or that people can change and develop as they age (growth). This may also reflect thinking on human nature and whether people can be included in "civilization". It is this fundamental difference which seems to creep into public discourse between those two camps—without making an explicit appearance, however. It must present a difficulty in resolving any issues under debate, this foundational belief about what is possible both individually and collectively. If one is of the opinion that people can never change, what use could there be for prisons and the concept of "rehabilitation"? This also allows such people to assume that "better" people exist in some immutable form; if this sounds like a cozy companion of prejudice, you may be onto something. Additionally, fixed-mindset adherents tend to invoke some idealized, mystical past in much of their arguing. Somehow, society and ordinary peoples' lives were better at some earlier point. Beyond that period, change is hopeless—because the one thing that needs to change simply cannot: people. No matter how much technology improves, we still only have humans with fixed ability. Contrarily, if one believes people can grow and learn better ways of being, then problems can be cured.

As long as this central dichotomy is not just unresolved but unacknowledged it is no wonder that laws and culture are hobbled.

This One Simple Trick....

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.

The above quote comes from John Muir, an important figure from the 19th century.

Life is never one thing at a time, but that is how we tend to convey or discuss things. The singular focus of an essay, the headline that conveys one idea, the single-solution presentation, or the click-bait advertisement are at once attention-grabbing and succinct enough to "drive engagement". One major contributor to this is the endless demand of time from so many competing areas. With limited time for comprehension, the tendency is to be pulled to shorter and shorter answer-focused outlets. So much of what we read, watch, and listen to is designed to be consumed quickly—and often to provide the answers without the understanding an audience deserves. Worse still is the exploitation of this time crunch by those who wish to sway opinion, and provide not just quick, but emotionally manipulative material. This allows them to dictate what is important and what should be done about it to a credulous, if weary, audience.

The concern here is treating others as means to one's own ends, which is what describing and treating people as "consumers" or "customers" does. Working our own ends upon others as though their value is only what they can provide us is simply in-humane. Once more, however, this is an expedient solution to the quandary of how to deal with others, and not just in a business context. Essentially, we have here the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" approach, which shows how to use tricks to get others to submit. It is a perspective that has inveigled its way into popular consciousness through much of the self-help industry. This approach is not actually about helping oneself to be a better human, improve connection, or understand others, rather how to achieve goals despite the needs, beliefs, and actions of others. The scam-or-be-scammed view on life reduces us to mere exploitation machines, each desperate not to be duped. It also makes the world a worse place to live in. Thinking of others as obstacles to be overcome, rather than fully human beings with goals and inherent dignity of their own is—and here I will be blatantly prescriptive—wrong. It creates a world where people tend to experience insult and disregard, which entices them to do the same. This attitude then spreads, influencing more people, and continues the chain of desperate individuals attempting to dupe others before they get duped. By pointing this out, I actually do hope to influence you, but in the other direction.

The inherent difficulty of writing [because I write, but this also applies to visual or audio works] is how it does not—and cannot—convey reality. Both intentionally and unintentionally, writers use what's pertinent, important, attractive, or persuasive. This immediately narrows what can be included, and reduces the full context to something more easily digestible. At best, it is a distillation of the nebulous and illumination of the dimly understood. Too often, it is bullying or prescriptive and lacks respect for the reader. I can only hope that my own efforts are about starting or expanding conversations by sharing from an unusual perspective. As we come to it now, at the end of an essay it is common to make the "call to arms" or present an "actionable item" which will solve the elucidated problem. Simply, we need to get better at nuance. This, however, necessitates a number of other steps, such as: comfort with uncertainty, expecting disagreement, accepting differences, willingness to change (opinions and more), and devoting time to topics. These are all just thoughts, however, until some of you readers decide to act on them; in essence, this does not matter until you make it.

At least, I hope, the wending path of this blog post suffices to demonstrate the continued truth of the included quote. It may be that is the message, that when we begin to consider others, we find it leads back to ourselves.

The First Step in Fixing a Problem is....

Not so much a mystery as it is an assumption. Anyone in a recovery program will recognize, "The first step in fixing your problem is admitting you have a problem." Others might say it is, "...defining the problem", "...understanding the root cause", or "...recognizing there is a problem". These are all very pithy and goal-oriented. You may have surmised, by this point, that I have a suggestion which differs from these. This is correct, and not only that, I believe it is a vital difference. The baked-in assumption is that we can fix the problem, since the sentence begins with, "...first step in fixing...". It is here that we have already lost a large number of people, because they do not believe a fix is possible. It may seem strange or illogical to imagine that anyone could think we are just stuck with problems, that there is no solution for some things. However, this is the issue underlying many conflicts in relationships and life: one side thinks we can fix it and the other side does not.

In a previous post, I made mention of growth and fixed mindsets. These terms refer to the belief that either change for an individual is possible or not, respectively. In terms of nature versus nurture, one with the fixed mindset will hold that nature wins out and cannot be changed. This can be expressed, "Some people are just born bad" or "You can't fix stupid". This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery. However, the fact we can hear people continue to use such expressions should be enough to demonstrate the tenacity of this perspective. It is this attitude that poses a barrier in fixing problems, ironically enough. Those with a fixed mindset will work around the difficulties that others present, assuming that there's nothing to be done to change those others' actions. "It's just the way they are," they will shrug to themselves as they assume the other person cannot change. Rather than pointing out this other person's actions as being problematic, looking for ways to fix the situation, or even contemplating how to address the problem, these folks will take it upon themselves. This situation or attitude may begin to seem familiar, as you contemplate times in your life when someone acted this way.

The point here is not that people are incapable of change, and certainly not to berate anyone for thinking such. Having experienced such change in my own life, I hold with the growth mindset and can attest that it can happen. Because of this, I can believe that the same is possible for you, even if you currently hold a fixed mindset. My hope in writing this is to point out how the presuppositions we do not recognize can end up sabotaging our efforts to make things better. Therefore, my suggestion is that the first step in fixing a problem is simply to believe change is possible.

Speeding Through Life

Many are aware of the practice in production of "speeding-up" a manufacturing line. A popular example is found in The Jungle, where slaughterhouse workers are told to move faster in their work. This is desirable for the business, as more product means more money; however, it is largely deleterious to workers. In a slaughterhouse, workers are in dangerous surroundings using devices meant to inflict harm. Cutting muscle from bone is helpful when converting a carcass into meat, but a mistake can result in that same cutting of the human worker. In any industry with repetitive movements, the necessity for breaks is clear and the push from supervisors to keep on the line is harmful. Many industries want to mechanize to further increase output and profit, but the closest they have is to treat human workers as if they were machines. One way to do so is by insisting they get few breaks or vacations and longer work hours. The threat of firing is most often used to coerce workers to continue even after their bodies have begun to fail. It is the promise of having employment choices which convinces most people that capitalism is a beneficial system. This requires that there be other options available, of course, and it is often not true for low-skill, entry-level, or rural workers. When factory workers are told they can work harder at the only plant for hundreds of miles or be fired, the choice is either sacrifice their lives slowly on the line or quickly by not having income. Of course, working conditions have been an issue of public discourse for well over a century, and there is little to add. However, we can look at how these same practices are being introduced outside traditional industries and even beyond the workplace.

You may think that because you don't work on a production line that you would be immune to the harmful practices of manufacturing. However, increased costs of living induce people to work longer or accept multiple jobs in order to survive. With the advent of email, text messaging, and expectations of being 'always-connected', workers find that they are asked to give more of their time to their employer. If your job haunts you at home or wears on you during your commute, that is a cost you assume on behalf of the business. Additionally, the spread of "grind mentality" makes it seem appealing to 'always be hustling', or that you are missing out if you are not 'grinding'. In this, every aspect of life is an avenue to be exploited for gain and turned into a "revenue stream". Even if you aren't 'on the line' at a plant, you are inundated with messages that you are slacking and should be busy doing something. This all adds stress to takes time away from the everyday tasks, chores, and recreation people consider their actual "life". In this case, the entire society becomes the manufacturing plant and every citizen is a harried worker. Job insecurity, fear of missing out, pressure to compete, conspicuous consumption, and substandard wages all combine into workers feeling dis-empowered in general, and now not just at work. Even recognizing this tendency and the changes we experience as things get worse requires time, which is the very resource that is being taken from us.

How Success Can Lead to Failure

Historically, it seems there has been an acceptance of "successful" peoples' actions, methods, and recommendations for others, as though wealth or popularity conferred a sort of impunity and entitlement that those without were meant to subscribe to. The belief that the "powerful" and "elite" must know what they are doing, and inherently are to be trusted and obeyed. While in feudal times lords and ladies had both social and legal prerogatives, this was shifted during the European Age of Enlightenment. There was a sense that those in power were fallible and human, therefore structures should be enacted to combat such troublesome tendencies. During the more recent era (let's say from the Industrial Revolution) that seems to have swung back towards expansive privilege, and came to include "tycoons". It may be that these robber barons were given social cachet as their wealth allowed these individuals to craft a positive public persona. We ended up with the notion that the wealthy "can do no wrong" inculcated into public consciousness. We could seek explanation in psychology, and the desire for idealized role models; however, it is unimportant for this introduction. The point is to notice the shift in attitudes towards more or less latitude given to those "in power". A frightening example in recent years is the trend of "celebrities" who are "famous for being famous". This seems to mean that they are given status, afforded media attention, and discussed by everyday folk simply because they reached a threshold of public awareness. This recognition indicates no greater education, simply that the person has skills and resources enough to become noticed. A feat, we must recognize, that is easier in recent times with the prominence of social media added to the dearth of "news savvy"; if you disagree, I would point out how serial killers and, more recently, various "shooters" became household names. After some amount of time this recognition allows them to build a "following". Once established in the public consciousness, they can expand out from the initial event they became known for (in this I refer to sports figures and local political operatives—hopefully not murderers). This aspect demonstrates how people in the public eye are given no small amount of deference and power by those who listen or watch them, and how this is problematic.

Whether it is a celebrity product endorsement, an economic pronouncement from an industry leader, or just a fad hocked by an attractive also-ran, the attention paid to these individuals comes at a price. Not just because the latest diet does not work, the product is shoddily made, or the economic plan is self-serving, but also because it takes the thinking and discussion away from citizens. Inherent in the history of this issue is that "they know better"; that royalty, tycoons, or celebrities have a better understanding of the situation than those who are in it. It seems like some sort of confabulation between being trained and informed as a professional and just being popular. It can be alluring to trust: someone else has already done the tough job and all I have to do is agree or disagree. However, citizens are not only meant to be informed and engaged, but also the public should have a sense of how to analyze and discuss issues. If regular citizens are not involved in their own government operating in their best interests, and instead rely on industry or popular figures to make those decisions, the democratic process is suspect. The function of a public hearing and of voting is to get as many of those differing experiences of the problem under discussion and come up with a solution that will address it as best we can. The skills to do that work are not commonly taught in our schools, or discussed at the dinner-table. Most people do not have the time or inclination to learn how to come to consensus, and that is aside from having time to actually use such skills and discuss public issues. The other side to this is that without a wide section of the community involved, many aspects of issues get missed. Above, it was noted how professionals are expected to come up with solutions, and that expectation extends to the successful. The notion that we should listen to "experts" over those impacted by a situation becomes increasingly problematic. Look at recent discussions of 'race' and policing. How can we expect to make the best decision without getting an accurate picture of the issue? It would be like expecting a medical doctor to diagnose a condition without any tests or background from the patient. At that point, it is just guesswork and the treatment is more likely to fail. This exposes the biggest problem with handing over agency to someone whose credentials are just having been on TV: the image is not the reality.

Finally, there is the problem of disposability. The tendency to get rid of someone because of the slightest perception of impropriety. What this means is so subjective as to be meaningless, but every scandal is another possible end to a career. This demand for perfection traps not only the celebrity, but the citizen as well. In order to remain an ideal, these people are required to live up to unrealistic expectations. Those who aspire to public office face meeting those unachievable standards just to have a chance. This is only reinforced when a public figure makes an inevitable mistake and is thrown out. Most situations are multifaceted and need some unpacking to understand, and we rarely get that in public discourse. I am gladdened to see some public figures (a current example would be Senator Fetterman) having real-life struggles that do not immediately result in resignation. To admit frailty and failure—to be human—and still retain agency and engage in discourse as we are. Of course, I hope the Senator recovers, but moreover, I hope this is a sign that we no longer demand the impossible from each other and are instead able to accept human limitations while engaging in public discourse. This can only help more citizens to become involved and allow the bumptious process of democracy to flourish.

A Short Proposal on Expertise

I propose that the idea of being an expert in a field is misunderstood. A dictionary will define it as skill and/or knowledge of a particular area. This is both inadequate as well as under attack in recent history. By the latter, I mean that the very notion that someone can be an expert has been dismissed or ridiculed in public discourse for decades. This could be an attack designed to undermine the legitimacy of actual knowledge and/or science or a critical look at expertise being used to discount complaints of target populations. That is not the content of this post-I propose to look at the former notion and offer a less-expressed addition to the thinking on the subject.

While expertise can be seen as ability to perform all aspects of a task or act with authority in a position, this does not cover enough of what it is. The capacity to not only guide actions during everyday operations, but to do so when things go awry is what I suggest. Most people, most of the time, can sit in a chair wearing a bathing suit and holding a whistle while watching people in a swimming pool. Some of them may even be able to spot a swimmer in trouble and blow the whistle. However, even if they could tell something was amiss, I do not think many would be able to spot a person drowning and take appropriate action to save a life-many would even drown trying to save another! So I ask if you would frequent a swimming pool where the lifeguard did not have adequate training-or entrust the life of your child to such a lifeguard.

Similarly, we can operate most of the time with shortcuts and half-attention to what we do. Usually "good enough" is good enough; we can 'get away' with adequate. However, this system relies on all other things being within particular tolerances. Only as long as the situation is operating smoothly can most people handle managing or guiding their actions and those of others. All that changes when the unexpected or disastrous occurs. Once a person in the water is drowning, we need trained and fit lifeguards on duty. This is where expertise comes into play. Finally, we reach the purpose to this post: why is this an important addition to the definition and our understanding? It is because we need folks in charge of things who have experience or knowledge of what to do when things go wrong, not just when things are going according to plan. We have too few of them around at the moment, and too little trust in those who are. We will pay an exorbitant price when the crisis comes because of this absence.

The Factory Model of Humans

There seems to be a notion – bolstered by the ubiquitous "self-help industry" – that our beliefs are our only limits. As if there is a standard, set point, or style that every person can attain or adopt. The thinking seems to be that success is within everyone's reach, if only they follow the "[insert number here] simple steps to success". Meaning that by emulating them, we can become (or achieve the results of) the person we envy or admire. I do not mean to discuss here the issues of lack or perceived deficit individuals judge in themselves, that is for another time. The focus of this post is on the means to improve, not the drive to do so.

The above thinking approaches people with the attitude that we can "cut and paste" talents and abilities. That if we adopt the tendencies of others, then we can be like them and experience the same success, lifestyle, or even livelihood. It is both the 'quick-fix' and the 'outside agency' parts of this attitude that are troublesome here. Let me address each separately.

First, the short-cutting of experience. It is an understandable desire, to cut out hours of practice or exploration in order to reach the conclusion. The idea to eliminate the unnecessary middle ground of practice and failure; to jump directly to the "right solution". However, it is misguided - as there is no such thing. I suspect that the results may only be successful because of the experience and intuition developed by the explorer. It is especially difficult for people to explicate their internal processes, as demonstrated by the need for study of elite athletes to understand what makes them effective. At any rate, the answer to this problem does not solve all those to come; it is necessary to be prepared to tackle them as well, and that requires a great deal of experience.

Second, that the solution comes from someone else, rather than from within. This is a true problem, as it redirects the power from 'me' to 'the other'. Instead of building confidence in myself and my ability to find answers, it builds reliance on another. The next time I come up against adversity, have I built up resilience and capacity to overcome, or do I need to return to the fountain of wisdom that I used last time? The answer is evident when the gurus only answer one question in a book and require a subscription to tackle more.

Ultimately, this model doesn't fit with human nature, which is fractious and diverse. Yes, I (and you) can learn, change, and grow; that does not mean we will (or can) do so in the same ways. In fact, it may be important that we do not. Leaving that aside, can we or should we get the same results the same way? Is it beneficial to have a success "formula"? I take the large proportion of divorces as evidence of needing to find one's own way. There is certainly no shortage of people who offer advice to married couples, and yet the divorce rate has remained static for decades. Instead, there are likely only a few "universal" constants, while the rest are open to interpretation and personalization.

What Cars May Come

I imagine a not-so-distant future in which rush hour, traffic lights, collisions, and road rage are only memories. With entire cities full of cars connected to and controlled by a central computer, almost all traffic issues would be eliminated. Essentially we would all be chauffeured around in private cars without a worry in the world. As much as the internet holds the promise of freedom and equality, I think the same possibility exists with the mass automation of transportation.

Most traffic problems are a result of unexpected or non-conforming actions - when a person goes against the expectations of those around them. Driving slowly on the highway, too fast on crowded streets, surprise lane changes or turns, unexpected stops or slowing, racing, pulling over (or not) for emergency vehicles, and more. Think about every time you've slammed on the brakes, and how many of those times were "some idiot doing stupid, dangerous things." Swerving to avoid a collision, slowing down to evaluate another driver's actions, or just feeling uncertain about what to do. What percentage of the time have you been reacting to another driver? Inversely, it can be me who cuts someone off, doesn't signal, speeds to make it to work on time, or any number of offenses because I'm in a rush or distracted. Car crashes will cease as distracted and impaired driving, missed exits, miscalculated hazards (i.e. wet/icy roads or bald tires), and errors in judgement ("I can make that light") are relics of the past. No longer do I have to worry about what stupid thing I have to deal with next because there will be no more human error.

Traffic jams would go away because there would be no hesitation or need to negotiate between individual drivers. Each car would move to its destination, along with all the others, without the near-misses, anxious adjusting, or jockeying that all result in braking and disruption. Every car would go to its destination with certainty, as there would be no checking of maps or second-guessing of routes. In order to keep traffic moving at its most optimal flow, the computer would divert traffic before a problem, allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded, and provide passengers with an immediate replacement in the event of a car's failure. Merging and highway/freeway on-ramps will also be smooth, doing away with the need for metering lights.

Instead of worrying, bicyclists could move about the roads with the confidence that every car was aware of them and would respect bike zones. Intersections and crossings could be handled easily. The computer adjusts (slows without stopping) traffic flow in one direction to allow time for crossing foot and vehicular traffic and then alternates directions. This would allow for traffic to move continuously, even in busy downtown areas. No more circling the block looking for parking. When I reach my destination, I just step out and the car is ready for the next person.

Another benefit would be the freeing of police to concentrate on substantial crimes instead of speeding or other trivial traffic issues. In addition, the impact of police in traffic (i.e. drivers slowing or focusing on a cop car) would be alleviated.

Never worry about the next oil change or if there is enough fuel in the tank, as that would all be taken care of by technicians who maintain the fleet. Similarly, cleaning, repairs, and upgrades. Alternatively, the motor vehicle department would serve different functions. Licenses would still be needed, but for other reasons. Registration, titles, and other areas dealing with ownership and transfers would be eliminated.

Another major change would be road signs. No longer would there be any reason for anyone to watch for danger or search for addresses. Information could be shown on the screen (windshield) of the car, using a heads-up display. Alternatively, the display could show entertainment, ads, or artistic accompaniment, or could be completely off and act as a plain window. Since I will not need to keep my eyes on the road to navigate and steer, I'm free to simply enjoy the view. All billboards and business signs could be replaced with greenery.

The infrastructure for all this would be immense, which has positive and negative aspects. First, the design, construction, and maintenance requires a sizable workforce. Great for employment in those industries, although many of the existing jobs and personnel could be transitioned to the new system with training and modification. Also, taxi services are subsumed into this new system. Private auto insurance, car modification, or 'personalizing' will be eliminated when all vehicles are public goods. Auto mechanics become public employees, as they are needed to keep the roads rolling. Gas stations, parking garages, and car washes are also public goods and can be used for varying purposes.

The central idea to all this is simple enough: relieving people of the burden of automobiles. This is done by accentuating all the positive and reducing the negative impacts. It is not all post-modern, futuristic wonderment. All these points need to be worked out, security and finances addressed, and implementation is always over-budget and behind schedule. Many aspects of making the transition will take a fair amount of negotiation. However, the bright outcome is enticing enough to overcome such resistance and definitely warrants the effort.

Insidious

This is a follow up of What is a Lie? (13 April, 2015). I mentioned briefly that jokes are lies, meaning they are not reflective of reality. A horse did not walk into a bar, and muffins do not talk. The intent to deceive is tempered with the intent to entertain. However, even jokes can be malicious and harmful. In ways greater, such as bullying, or lesser, as with 'fuzzy logic'. For example,

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

 The cop asks the man, “Do you want me to stop, or pause?”

As a child, this joke held a number of messages: personal safety, police violence, consequences, others' pain can be funny, hurting others as male 'explanation', surveillance by authority, and the importance of word choice.

The issue I want to focus on here is that the joke that leads to illogic. The man's actions did not warrant physical violence, nor is being beaten an analog for not fully stopping at a traffic sign. To compare potential harm with actual harm is wrong. It would be akin to saying I am justified in locking up a person who accidentally swept up another's checkbook in a pile of papers. There could have been malicious intent, but actually, there was none; furthermore, the harm is only a bit of worry before the confusion is sorted out.

Why is this worth mentioning and exploring? Many of the consequences to faulty logic are real-life and contemporary. Scams require victims to be oblivious to logic or susceptible to making erroneous conclusions. Malicious individuals rely on victims to not make logical choices and connections. This is not cause-and-effect and I am not claiming that laughing at silly jokes will lead to losing all your money to a con artist. I am supporting awareness of the ways we are fooled, and to be conscious of those patterns or instances in order to choose when to be on guard.

Why Is There No Post Here?

I was inspired to write a critical analysis of The Lord of the Flies recently, and it ended up being a larger project than I anticipated. It has taken much longer than most of my posts, and expanded into something that may require publishing in another format. I am replacing one of the original posts (yes, it was turning into a series) with this explanation, and will need to write new posts to take the place of the other parts. This is at the same time as a number of changes in my life, so I appreciate your patience with my process.

What is a Lie?

I think this seemingly simple question needs to be asked from time to time because attitudes and perceptions change. However, just because one thinks it is "not lying" to not declare certain things on a tax form, to 'keep from hurting feelings' by reassuring someone they are attractive when they are not, consider an act not to be "sex" just because it does not include a penis inside a vagina, or even because "I was the only one there, no one will ever know different."

A lie is inherently and totally a lie. It isn't "half-truth" or even "stretching the truth", it is just a lie. To say otherwise is to lie. The point being that this practice of ignoring small examples of lying degrades the meaning and importance of the concept of truth. Beyond being influenced by popular attitudes about what it means to lie, we can also address what kind of person uses lies and when it acceptable to engage in lying. Let us be clear about what is a "lie" and to agree on that definition; to the dictionary!

LIE (noun)

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie.

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms: truth.

 

TRUTH

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

4. the state or character of being true.

5. actuality or actual existence.

6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

Here is clear and encompassing definition, but quite dry. One important revelation would be to note that truth deals with reality. This means that if one lies, one is out of synchrony with reality, with the world. If this is minor, then it may possibly not have excessive impact. However, if this is endemic, if it touches on many or most areas of my life, then lies and lying can put me in a poor position to relate and interact with the world around me.

Another piece to note is that lying typically requires some amount of intent, whereas just being wrong or in error does not. This means that I can mistakenly answer a question, but in order to lie I had to want to provide inaccurate information on some level. Only I can know my intent, but others can assign malignant intent to my action or words. This is important because by not being honest about my own uncertainty, I can indirectly invite others to view me as willfully deceiving them.


To be clear, I am not advocating for a standard of always telling the truth, surprising as it may sound by this point. My aim is to clarify and reorient, and to advocate for awareness and choice in truth and lies. This awareness can lead to better outcomes, since people do things based on their beliefs. This does not necessarily lead to changing them, but can mean they are no longer unchallenged assumptions, rather they hold their correct status of personal attitude.

I recognize that lying or even the ability to lie is not totally bad. Humour often relies on untrue premises. Imagination relies on overcoming reality and using the ability to see things as they could be. Sometimes hope in the face of imminent destruction keeps us searching for answers when acceptance of reality would cripple us. However, I believe that blindly choosing one or the other path will not serve. I work to acknowledge and limit my lies so that I can be in better relation with those around me.

Finally, I will leave you with this eloquent and beautiful quote:
Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie becomes unable to recognize truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn't it? And surely he knows that no one has offended him, and that he himself has invented the offense and told lies just for the beauty of it, that he has exaggerated for the sake of effect, that he has picked on a word and made a mountain out of a pea — he knows all of that, and still he is the first to take offense, he likes feeling offended, it gives him great pleasure, and thus he reaches the point of real hostility.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov

Notions of Normalcy and Operating At Capacity

When I was younger, I thought that people were all like me. On the inside, I mean. I thought that even though they looked different, that within that unique but fairly standard packaging they thought in much the same way I did and had the same capabilities and aptitudes. Certainly there were some small number who had mental or physical handicaps-again, whatever their individual packaging consisted of. At heart, though, where it really mattered, I thought any differences could only be shallow ones and that we all had a core that would lead us onto the same basic track.

As I've become a more complex thinker (or at least think of myself as such), I've revisited and re-evaluated this concept. I'm starting to wonder if it is actually more that we tend to operate within a narrow range of mental and physical specifications. What if there are a greater degree of adaptations we encompass instead of a sort of "on/off", "yes/no", "normal/abnormal" status? Instead, there may be a number of significant differences that allow individuals to operate within the confines of our systems. After all, it's not like we're products on an assembly line-there's no stress-testing or design studies on each model. If we manage to do most things for ourselves, that's generally good enough.

I've been hearing this new buzzword "neurodiversity" lately, and I suppose what I'm talking about may relate to it. This is about 30 years after the notion of "multiple intelligences". The idea takes a bit of wind out of IQ and expands from a single "academic/learning" understanding of intelligence into several distinct types. The validity of either point of view is not at issue, I mention it to note that the desire and search to understand how people operate and the way that the internal influences the external is still being examined.

My Very Own New Word!

Disneed: a self-destructive or harmful pattern of thinking, doing, and/or interacting.  The prefix dis- is used as in a dis-ease, dis-function, or dis-order whereby an actual need is sabotaged to result in a counterproductive outcome.  My disneed for being helpless led to us getting lost and missing the dinner.  The underlying drive may be to not be responsible; so as to bring down others expectations of me to such a minimal level that I won't be asked to do anything in the future.  It could also be a sense that I am not fit to make these decisions and so I force others to take control and make decisions.  At any rate the term disneed describes the underlying motivation.

Since it is self-destructive rather than productive or generative it isn't actually a need.  It would be too easy to say "My need to be irresponsible..." where it is not an actual need.  What I want is to accurately diagnose and describe what is happening, and that starts with recognising an error in thinking.  As language has power and the words we use will shape our thoughts and beliefs I feel that making this distinction is important.  It allows me to point to my self-destructive habits and know/show how the result was not what I really wanted nor needed.  It can call attention to where I need to focus-on the problem-rather than on blaming and belittling myself as the "uncorrectable source of the problem".  I do not believe in condemning people; it is the internal issues-which can usually be corrected-that should be the focus.  I hope that this tool helps with that goal.

Show Me the Trust

There is a basic question everyone needs to answer for themselves, whether they are aware of it or not: is the world a basically good or bad place? In other words, "can I trust others?" The answer to this determines what sort of individual you are and how you interact with everyone around you. If you are constantly on-guard or scared of being exploited then you won't be the same person as if you were confident that you are safe and secure. If every situation is seen as another possibility to be humiliated, hurt, bested or broken then everyone around is a source of one of these possibilities. When you worry everyone is against you, it means you are using energy for that-not looking for the opportunities to cooperate-as you feel you need to outdo the other person before they do you in. This is not alleviated by being rich or powerful, it is pervasive and can only be dealt with in terms of the question presented at the start of this post. The stakes only rise the higher one climbs; it means those same enemies who would throw you only a few meters before can now send you plummeting kilometers. One will not find that suddenly-upon completing a marathon, receiving an award or standing ovation, having the person of your dreams agree to wed, or getting a dream job-that this problem resolves itself. These things can all be undercut by the feeling that your accomplishments can be stolen by a competitor, or that someone else could do the same or better.

Languishing in Language

There are a number of people who cannot effectively communicate, but limp along in some manner, managing to navigate life through whatever means they can. Yet they can only do so until their methods are challenged and that system breaks down. This type of person is a time-bomb, an accident waiting to happen. The trigger is an encounter with a person or a problem that requires being able to communicate in a way that they lack or who has a similar deficit. In this case, if there is no common term for discussion, information missing, or there isn't a word or concept that can be substituted, then it creates confusion and possibly anger. Instead of being able to use language and resolve a situation, the inability to communicate creates the problem, and there can be no solution until all parties are able to meet that basic need. Given this basic premise and truth, why is it that we are not better at communicating? We know that it is essential, yet this problem remains nearly unaddressed and unchanged. A simple example: if one says, "chair", those around may think: "recliner", another "rocker" and the last "wing back", they are talking about the same subject, but have different pictures in mind. When this reaches the point where they are talking about the different aspects of their "chair", there will be misunderstanding since they are actually discussing completely different objects. To overcome or prevent this is simply a matter of accuracy and knowledge. We should all be familiar with the words being used and know how to use them properly. This in addition to some practice and dedication would go a long way to solving the problem. It does require us to have some proficiency in utilizing our own language, and agreement on the basic components of the same. It is important to note that which language is less important than both the desire to communicate and the agreement on the actual words or language to use. After those points are addressed it will be much simpler going, and the basis of agreement will remain so revising is simpler in future as the framework is set.

I would like to leave you with an example from Douglas Adams' "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" that illustrates how specific and accurate knowledge can help, here in describing rain: "types 33 (light pricking drizzle which made the roads slippery), 39 ( heavy spotting), 47 to 51 (vertical light drizzle through to sharply slanting light to moderate drizzle freshening), 87 and 88 (two finely distinguished varieties of vertical torrential downpour), 100 (post-downpour squalling, cold), all the seastorm types between 192 and 213 at once, 123, 124, 126, 127 (mild and intermediate cold gusting, regular and syncopated cab-drumming), 11 (breezy droplets), and now his least favourite of all, 17. Rain type 17 was a dirty blatter battering against his windscreen so hard that it didn't make much odds whether he had his wipers on or off."

Stockholm is Everywhere.

I will argue that what has been described as "Stockholm Syndrome" is a common and necessary part of society, indeed a vital part of being human in any culture. It is widely recognised that the mechanisms behind this psychological condition apply to not only hostage situations but commonplace, everyday relationships as well. The reason for the ubiquity and necessity of this dissociation of mind and reality is twofold: there are societal forces coercing us to accept lifestyles which it also pushes us to resist and there is a natural predisposition towards insanity in the human psyche.

Throughout evolutionary history there have been adaptations, made by individuals and groups, which maintain homeostasis with the surrounding environment. That includes other peoples, other societies, and so there had to be a way to overcome the essential differences in encountering these foreign cultures. To whit, if one were to join another culture, by choice or by force, one needs to have some way of dealing with the new expectations and duties. This is important since the taking of prisoners and slaves is historically near-unanimous throughout all societies. The ability to empathize and excuse one's captors is vital in situations where escape is not an option. Not only does this facilitate physical self-preservation, but also as a mental measure. The constant rebellion against a situation, such as a rejection of ones' status or role, will lead to an increasing pressure upon the mind of the person. This will become unbearable if that individual cannot change that situation, even if only within his or her own mind. Imagine you believe yourself to be better than everyone around you and yet you are treated worse because of societal expectations. That belief will persist within your own mind, inescapably reminding you that you are not fulfilling your duty or potential. Not losing one's mind from all these conflicting stresses and messages is indispensable, especially in the daily life of modern times.

I mention the inherent instability of the human mind, and I do need to explain. I mean by this the capacity for deception: lies, to self and others. The ability to deceive others can be seen as an evolutionary adaptation, something that will contribute to survival. The capacity for self-deception, however, is different. It would seem to actually be contrary to ones' interest in most cases. To not be sure that ones' perceptions are accurate, means that one can never be sure that what one thinks is real actually is. This seems to be a maladaption, unless we factor in the nature of human culture, where this ability becomes useful and, as I've said, necessary.

"It's Perfect!"

Sometimes we may be tempted to wait to do something: to improve the item, take stock more fully, or study the problem and find a better solution. If we put off doing it until it's a better time, we risk not doing it at all. It becomes a trap we fail to recognize, and we end up not accomplishing anything. I imagine that many artists, leaders, scientists, and presenters have been dissatisfied with what they put out. I could even picture Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. being unhappy about the content of one of his speeches, as amazing as they are to this day. It is easy for someone to find fault and nitpick their own work, to think they can do better. It isn't important, because if it were any more refined it might seem unnatural, or it may fly over another persons' comprehension. It is better to do the best one can at the time and go with what one has. The only reason this is here for you to read is that I finally gave up editing and just posted it! It is better to make a move and trust in, and hope for, the best than stand rooted and not accomplish anything. Don't wait until it's perfect, because it never gets there.

Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

People enjoy their legends, their superhuman heroes-they wish they could emulate and strive to become those people. Our history is dotted with examples and stories: Beowulf, Jesus the Christ, Buddha, Superman, Robin Hood, Mahatma Gandhi, Valentine Michael Smith, Abraham Lincoln, the Kwisatz Haderach, Mohamed, and so on. We have to ask ourselves then, where are our modern-day heroes? Who do we look up to as these people have been celebrated? Do we wish to copy Bill Gates? Are we really supposed to idolize George Bush or Tony Blair? Or do we favor the Hilton crowd, the Anna Nichole Smiths and Britney Spears of the world? Because it seems more and more that people are respected and idolized solely for being famous instead of doing something to deserve that respect. In fact, the whole notion of these people being role models is absurd because they do nothing that can be emulated. Unless that is the goal, now; if it is fashionable to instead lead a pointless life filled with trivia and never use ones' gifts to improve things. If the pinnacle of success is to have everything done for you, then it is no wonder people feel so unfulfilled all the time. What is there to strive for if when one arrives nothing is there: no meaning, just continued existence? Life is only worth living when it has a purpose, when there is a reason and a goal one is attempting. Since that is the case, what we need are idols who never stop trying and helping. Some leaders who can show us how to keep our interest in ourselves and our lives even when we've "made it". Who do we have that is leading a revolution, who is on a mission to save us all and lead us to a new dawn in our poor world? Is it really that we have too many options? Are we bombarded by people who claim to have "The Answer"? Indeed, we must ask how many are trying to help everyone rather than just themselves. That is the only way we can tell who actually has it.

CTR-Choose The Right

Something that we can comprehend is something we are equal with or superior to, I mean it is not beyond us, or our level of understanding. When we understand something it means that on some level we have to accept that we can understand it. If we cannot, or do not think we can, understanding then will elude us. I mean that we will never understand if we don't allow ourselves to, even if we have the capacity. This is such a fundamental concept it seems to be lost on most, people so often overlook it. It requires both that faith in ourselves as well as the basic ability to understand. It is actually in our nature to want to understand and be able to do so. Further it means the knowledge is accepted, something we become a part of and which becomes a part of us. Once we know something, once it is understood, we cannot be free of it and will never be the same as before we knew.

So, claiming to know the mind of God, to understand what the message or messiah (messenger) means is hubris. From the Judeo-Christian standpoint (as well as those of most other mono-theistic religions), there is no way to know these things. This is because to understand this, as we have discussed above, one would have to be on a par with The Creator. Placing oneself alongside God in this context is absurd, since the basis of the religion is the inherent unworthiness of humans. It is necessary to repent and/or make oneself worthy enough just to get into Heaven (or whatever it is called). The plan behind the Word is shrouded in mysteries we are not supposed to understand, according to most religions' acolytes. Yet somehow they have, at the same time, hit upon the solution to the mysteries while still remaining devoutly and totally observant of the religions' tenets, including the need to repent.

To live in a way that you will be accepted into your Great Reward, you cannot presume to know the mind of the Almighty. Yet one has to do just that in order to know what to do to be worthy. It is a Catch-22 that is absurd in its scope and consequence.