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 This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery.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.

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

Why Villains Always Lose and Heroes Are Reluctant

It is odd that heroes in entertainment are the ones who just react to the villain's plan. Superheroes in comic books and movies, the "good guys" on TV shows, and even in literature and documentaries. From Bond to Batman to Brockovich, the individual the audience is supposed to identify with, who conveys the morality of the story, is not the one initiating change. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, it is the passive protagonist who is forcibly taken away from the known world and endures events which unfold around them. Why is it that we are meant to idolize the person in the story whose motivation is to stop the plans of others? This is a question about the psychological impact in the real world on the audience: us. If it is the case that we grow up with the notion (conscious or not) that being a good person means reacting or waiting for someone to rescue, what sort of expectation is that? These are the stories we share with our children. If we expect children are smart enough to pick up on the morality of the tale, do we really think they miss the message that the focus of "good guys winning" is just to stop the baddie from completing their scheme? This is the ideal we inculcate in our society: do not plan, do not attempt to influence others, and do not seek to shape the world, because only villains do those things. Just sit back and allow things to unfold, only taking action when something "bad" happens. Change is aberrant, and to be endured; events are out of our hands and happen to us, rather than because of us. The person who initiates or explores, who takes action, is somehow wrong. This means that having a plan is suspect, and the good act to prevent others from completing their plans. In short, our stories tells us to be reactive.

There are some arguments to note in this examination. First, that this narrative flow arises from human thinking and therefore demonstrates a natural occurrence reflecting the basics of storytelling. After all, conflict is drama, and drama drives interest; it makes no sense to tell a story that is not interesting to the audience. Second, that due to complex social networks, humans benefit from reactivity and passivity. These approaches maintain stability and conserves traditional structures that work, allowing steady and safe progress, rather than upheaval. Finally, that proactivity can lead to overbearing interference or invasive progress. The reason they are villains is that they are over-reaching in their plans, and should seek only to change their own lives, or at least set more humble goals. While these are fine points, they are more complex or deal with rational thinking, and the problem is more like subliminal messaging. The basic idea that good people only act to stop villains is so simple and pervasive that it is only a question now that we are examining it. Before now, it would have seemed unnatural to think of such a fundamental aspect of the stories we have heard all our lives. Most of the arguments around these three points can be allayed quite simply. We can recognize that stories could be just as compelling with protagonists who see problems in the world and begin to construct ways to overcome them, upsetting the status quo and building coalitions towards the betterment of all. There are a few of these stories already.

I will mention here just how good Black Panther is, and how well it illustrates my points. Certainly, one part is about how a prince becomes king, the hero's journey. However, the entire movie revolves around the tension between tradition and modernity, centered on maintaining morality in a changing world. The central character does not drive the action, because he is again reacting to the events being imposed by the outside world. T'Challa's idyllic life in Wakanda is ended by the murder of his father. Afterwards, his smooth transition to sovereign is interrupted by the return of a cousin (N'Jadaka) who was left to die by that same father. We get to see how stability can become stagnation and that the certainty of accession does not grant perspective. Here, we have an encapsulation of the entire discussion about villain versus hero, proactive versus reactive. The villain is right, has a plan, and in the end everyone benefits from his vision; however, the entire movie is about the hero who has to be dragged into the present and face the world because of the actions of that villain. T'Challa was not setting out to discover the best course of action for himself or his nation, he did not even recognize the problems of the world as important, and would not have questioned the policy of isolation on his own. It was only through the actions of N'Jadaka that Wakanda gained a ruler who was capable of appropriately leading.

It should give us pause when the villain is beaten, and the hero goes back to waiting for something else to go wrong. Why are they not planning how things can be better, or challenging themselves to prevent the need for such extreme plans? How are we emulating that reactionary model in real life?

The Land of Propaganda

There is a strange idea that the U.S. has no mythology, that somehow it exists as a country free from such delusions or influences. This is a typical way of describing the idea of mythology: they are fairy tales from other cultures or the hokum of old religions. These stories are derided as "childish" or "quaintly silly" as if the U.S. were immune to such "nonsense".

Of course, that is untrue; there are more fables and tall tales here than are even called such. Beyond the legends that immigrants brought with them and after the rich history of the native peoples, even outside the fables of Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed, or the Wild West, and leaving aside the embellished tales of George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and Abraham "born in the log cabin he built with his own two hands" Lincoln, there are stories which have influenced generations. The stories I refer to are those of perseverance, success, plenty, and superiority. The mythology of the U.S. as a "meritocracy", where deserving people "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", and go "from rags to riches". The fables of "keeping up with the Joneses", having a "white picket fence" around a "Norman Rockwell home", and copying the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" (or "MTV's 'Cribs'"). These myths claim that anyone can "climb the ladder" and "make it big", and, further, that hard work is what it takes. The other side is the belief that someone has to have an exceptional idea or talent in order to "strike it rich". These contradictory beliefs are another symptom of the myth: there is no internal consistency between the various parts of the fairy tale. The lies are especially difficult to recognize because of what we do see. People with no discernible talent or skill who are CEO's and politicians. When one looks at them, it makes no sense and seems to support the idea that anyone can become rich and influential. There are ready examples of entrepreneurs, athletes, and entertainers who manage to climb the economic ladder. These are the exceptions, or exceptional individuals, who come from nothing and succeed through pure talent. Thus, the propagation of the myth of "the land of opportunity". There are many reputable sources you can find that expose the falsity of this opportunity myth, you do not need to take my word for it. Instead, let me point out that the heart of the myth is not about the existence of opportunity. Rather it is about "who is worthy of opportunity".

The point here is that we are told a story: that anyone can do it, either through talent or perseverance. Rather than treating it as just a story, it is sold as the real deal. Because it makes claims of truth about how things work and why they are that way, and persists despite obvious evidence to the contrary, it is a mythology. Just as gods were created and used to explain earthquakes and famine, this mythology tells us why we suffer while others benefit. What makes it a bad story is not just that it is false, but that it is harmful. These fairy tales are ingrained stories that keep us from feeling the disappointment of our reality and engaging to make helpful (and long-overdue) changes. Finally, then, this is what makes them propaganda: focusing attention on illusory goals in order to distract from the reality surrounding us. We cannot see our way to changing something if the belief is that things "just are" this way. It does not make sense to talk about taking wetness out of water when we "know" that it is property of water to be wet. Similarly, we could not conceive of changing from hierarchy and false economic promises until we are aware that they are just a set of stories. It is when a habit is outside of awareness that it can be most dangerous. It is the unacknowledged parts that make up the assumptions and background of every thought which exert unchecked influence. This is because there is no way to guard against what is not even considered a threat, or really, what is not even acknowledged to exist. It is in this place of ignorance that these stories exist and thrive. By recognizing that they are stories, we can begin to change them and our circumstances.

 

Edit October 2022: for better examination of this topic see Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire by Kurt Andersen.

How I am not Unique

When I was a child, I lived with what I now know was an unbearable amount of shame. I believed there was something inherently wrong with me. I was separate, and unique. This belief meant both that I could never be a good person and that everyone else must be-since they could not be contaminated in the way I was. This shame lead to me believing that because others were better, they were also smarter than I; it followed, in this flawed logic, that I was only capable of a narrow understanding contained within the broader knowledge that others had. In addition, I believed they could see and think the same things I did; again, because they had access to better and more in everything. I had to spend my my life hiding my brokenness, because if I were found out then I would be rejected and ostracized. It took a long time to discover that I was not that different, and that others were not "better". However, for all those years, I had to make sense of things from the perspective outlined above.

In the time before I was aware of this tendency, it was a tremendously antagonistic world that reinforced my shaming beliefs. Because I thought everyone was seeing the same things in the same ways as me and drawing the same conclusions (because "it is just obvious given the information at hand"), I assumed that every act contrary to my own thinking was an intentional insult. It was as if someone were pointing out my faults through the circumstances. If there was anything wrong in a situation, it was because of me (being that I was the broken one) and everyone was going to see how wrong I was. Every error was a chance that someone could find out my secret: that I was semi-human and a danger to others. It is an incredibly complex dynamic that I am simplifying here in order to focus this discussion. There were compensatory mechanisms whereby I would point out the mistakes of others in order to bolster my own ego, or pretend indifference to avoid rejection, or many other methods to combat the central belief around being broken.

The impetus for writing this, and the title indicating that I am not alone in these things, comes from an understanding that not admitting it is part of the problem. I was convinced that anyone who found out the "truth" about me would expel me from from society; however, I have learned that is not true. Secrecy is the lie that shame uses to shield itself from discovery, because exposure is the event which leads to recovery. At this point, I will recommend the work and writing of Dr. Brené Brown for more on the topic of shame. My own efforts here are a further exposure of my shame in order to continue to diminish it while empowering more helpful beliefs. Moreover, I think that you, in reading this, have underlying assumptions which guide your own thinking. It may be that you have shame, or another harmful dynamic, at work keeping you from even contemplating the possibility of connecting with others and of being vulnerable with those important to you. Or of sharing with those who are seemingly different from you.

Given how divided and divisive these times are, I am hopeful that this brief story can introduce the idea that we are all not that different. None of us are so unique that we cannot connect with others. Others likely saw an egotistical, aloof, solitary, belligerent, and angry man when they looked at the younger me, yet all that came out of pain and self-hatred. No one is so far gone that there is no hope. Consider only that it may be our own shortcomings, or those issues that others are facing, which get in the way of attempting to bridge those divides.

A Word on Shame and Language

I have been grateful for the work of Dr. Brené Brown and personal experiences with emotional intelligence skills for my understanding of shame. I heard something on the topic recently that just did not sit right with me, and I could not find the words in the moment to express why. After reflecting on it, I felt it important enough to publish my thoughts here. First, the statement centers around the idea of "healthy shame"; I heard this explained in the context of society v. individual. Supposedly, the idea seems to be that shame is healthy when it is used to keep people from doing harmful things in public or social settings. We will come back to why I had an immediate sense of how wrong this is, but first I need to explain a few basics so the conclusion is clear.

My understanding is that the central difference between shame and guilt is the locus of responsibility or fault. This is often expressed as "Guilt is 'I did something wrong', and shame is 'I am something wrong'". Either I am separate from my choices or I am my choices; it is external or internal. This is an important distinction because actions can be changed more easily than selves. When I believe that I made an error in judgement and have learned that lesson, I want to change my behaviour to have better outcomes in future. My healthy self-image is not tied up with my choices, and I have a number of comparable paths to choose from. However, when I believe I made that choice because of who or how I am, it has a couple impacts. One is that the feeling of shame is reinforced, making it apparent that 'I always screw things up'. The other is that because it is who I am, I would have to be willing to change myself fundamentally to stop these mistakes in future. Furthermore, there is the learned helplessness of individuals with shame; nothing they have ever done was good enough, and no matter how hard they tried they could never change it-they likely will have given up hope that change is possible. To a person who is shame-filled, there are 'right' and 'wrong' choices, and every choice carries the weight of being the wrong one. This indicates that shame is intimately related to thinking in absolutes-often referred to as "black-or-white" and "either-or" thinking. Shame can come from a child hearing things like "you're such a screw up [no one else would do that]" instead of "oh, we all make mistakes-you'll do better next time." The former is being uniquely separate from 'normal people' and inherently a "screw up". The latter is being the same as everyone else and able to change. Incidentally, this is a good argument for using "people-centered" language, for example: "a person who has X" rather than "an X person". Now that these things are more clear, we can return to the original issue.

If shame is about the "who" someone is that they cannot change and locks them into "being" their choices, then how could that ever be "healthy"? Especially when the idea seems to be that this would change problematic social behaviours. I will suggest that the idea is more closely related to other 'feelings' that Dr. Brown has talked about: embarrassment and humiliation. These, again, can be divided into "internal/external" and  "healthy/unhealthy", but also don't quite explain what is really expressed by the notion. For that, we would look to social constructs: pressure, norms, and mores (the last is said "more-AYs"). These are essentially the social controls which keep people "in line" and from acting outrageously in public. When people talk about "pro-social" and "anti-social" behaviours, they are based off the aforementioned social constructs. They are what we learn without being told and what we fear to breach lest we are ostracized. Finally, this is where we encounter what "healthy [social] shame" actually is: the threat or action of casting out a member perceived as non-conforming. I think this exposes the intolerance and impracticality of the idea, which I hope leads us to healthier methods of encouraging pro-social attitudes and actions.

Mental Illnesses and How to Treat Them

First, because litigation has replaced dialogue as a form of communication, this is not medical or legal advice. This remains the blog of a layperson who expresses a perspective in order to challenge and support others to explore various topics which concern us all.

I will propose that we are still in a Dark Age of understanding mental health; even though we have gone from chaining patients in cells to giving them pills, it is only a first step. Let's briefly review some history of medical knowledge to draw some analogies. Even though intricate knowledge of the human body has been available since ancient Egypt, how to treat diseases was subject to debate and misapprehension. Most people know that prayer, bleeding, and trepanning were all considered actual medical treatment at various times in history (and many discredited 'treatments' still have adherents, sadly). Only in the last 200 years have necessary items like antiseptics, anesthetics, and antibiotics been understood and used generally. Out of thousands of years of recorded history, only the last couple centuries have contained advancements we now consider fundamental to restoring physical health. We still cannot regrow limbs, treat genetic diseases by altering DNA, nor even repair nerves to correct paralysis. Our medical knowledge has finally reached an adequate level; most people, most of the time, can be treated and restored to a physically functional level.

Similarly, our understanding of mental health has advanced. Whereas what has been seen as insanity (or aberrant behavior) must depend upon the surrounding culture, history does have records of various conditions. What we call schizophrenia, for example, shows up reliably; it may be supposed that religious figures who heard, saw, and/or felt things no one else did could have had it. This actually leads to my point: what is a mental illness? In the history of modern psychology, sexuality was grouped in with mental illnesses. Until about 50 years ago, anything other than heterosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Again, some still hold this absurd, dangerous, and disproven idea. PTSD was recognized by the mid-1900s, and has only seen significant treatment in the past 20 years. This, I think demonstrates that we are subject to the ongoing discovery of how our minds work and how to treat disease and injury of the mind. This is not to denigrate the advancements or profession of healthcare, just to recognize the limitations.

Now, I will suggest that some things we do not currently consider mental health issues could be, such as prejudice, conspiracy theories, and procrastination. Even if it turns out to be inaccurate, possibly using the model as laypersons could be helpful in our everyday lives. For example, rather than thinking of someone who is racist as a 'bad person', just think of them as struggling with a mental illness. Just as we can have compassion and sadness for someone with an anxiety disorder, we could think of the conspiracy theorist as deserving empathy. Additionally, this allows us to separate ourselves from those peoples' conditions. Just as I can acknowledge a persons' cancer, lupus, or other self-sustaining pathology, I can put aggression in its proper place. It is something that they suffer from and I can only see the outward signs of, but it is not contagious and I can take precautions to prevent being harmed by their disease.

We do what we value, and value what we do

 While this sounds simple, I will expand on the axiom in order to unpack it and demonstrate how it can have an interesting psychological effect.

First, many may be familiar with choosing what to do with their time; be it donating to a cause, pursuing a career, or visiting friends and family, our choices reflect priorities. Currently, I am doing what I value by writing here-I am choosing to reflect my values in my actions. What about the inverse, or second part of this axiom? Does it just mean that we value completing a task? It's actually less clear, and potentially insidious. What this points out is that once we make a choice (or pay a cost), we unconsciously seek to validate it. In part, this effect seeks to resolve cognitive dissonance by reaffirming that a previous loss was the correct choice. If we apply this to my writing, it could be that once I started this post (or the blog itself) I was invested and therefore would have trouble stopping; by taking time away from other areas of my life or 'paying the cost' I would need to defend that choice. This defence comes at a lower or higher intensity depending on the cost. If I were to give 90% of my money to a cause, I am likely to vigorously defend that choice-even or especially after it turned out to be a fraud! This is because the news that I was taken advantage of clashes with my self-image as an intelligent and cautious individual; the news that I was defrauded threatens my very belief in myself, and therefore must be combated.

This is referred to sunk-cost fallacy, and has been widely studied. Because it is already well-known, it can be found in many areas of life outside business and behavioural psychology. I have encountered it reading about self-help/self-improvement topics. Often, the advice is to spend money on a gym membership or exercise equipment in order to jump-start the process; "I've already spent the money, I might as well use it!". However, it also pops up for individuals looking to 'win friends and influence people'. You may even have encountered it a few years ago in popular articles describing how to get people to help you. It basically amounted to using this effect to manipulate others into giving more than they get; "have them give you something small, then when you make the big ask they are primed to agree."

My goal with this post is simply to acknowledge that this bias/cognitive error exists, hence the pithy title which I often recite as a reminder. As with most things, this is a tool that can be used for good or ill; it depends on the user more than the tool.

Confirmation and bias

It seems there is a portion of the population which struggles with accepting the world the way it is. People who hear what they want to hear, and anything contradicting their worldview is automatically wrong. However, whatever they hear – no matter how outlandish – as long as it fits with their established perspective, is given credence.

One might think I'm discussing religion zealots, however this applies to larger proportions than those who identify with a religion. It is a human tendency, whereby our lazy brains want to use as little energy as possible in order to solve any problem. It allows us to short-cut the process of information evaluation, and especially now that information is so readily available, this is appealing. Finding definitive answers that stand up to rigorous scrutiny actually seems more difficult, now that there are so many sources and varied interpretations to evaluate. It can be understandable to avoid all that work, and focus on more important matters. This may all indicate an underlying discomfort with uncertainty, whereby an answer must explain everything under all circumstances to be valid and any explanation that only deals with parts of a question must be entirely worthless.

 

However, a larger problem is that it can lead to dismissing others' opinions and insurmountable disagreement. If I have to hold on to my opinion no matter what evidence arises to contradict it, then I cannot hear what someone else has to say on the subject. This results in unwillingness to have simple conversation, and avoiding entire topics which can be vital to resolve. I am not advocating an entirely relative perspective, where we cannot know anything for certain and therefore must listen to any new opinion with equal credence. I simply point out the difficulty presented by the current system which lacks the ability to resolve anything, regardless of controversy or validity.

How Rocky Ruins Expectations

Initially, I was planning on demonstrating my thesis by using the film as an example of absurd wish-fulfillment that feeds viewers lies about achievement and twists expectations about success. However, I went back and re-watched the film; my narrative did not entirely fit the actual film. With that in mind, I am re-working this post, and therefore it may seem mildly disjointed. I think this may fit with the topic, although I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Rocky is the quintessential "American" story. It is about one man who overcomes all obstacles and wins a championship despite having many disadvantages. It is, in fact, the persistent drumbeat that anyone in the U.S. is familiar with whether they acknowledge it or not. I will add that it is an emotional and dramatic movie, and does display some of the struggles regular folks face. This is the reason I cannot use it as my example, although it still bears examination and demonstrates part of the message I seek to convey. In fact, the best examples of this issue are social media and video-sharing sites. The latter made it so any person with an account could upload videos of anything they like which visitors to the site could view, instead of needing expensive recording and broadcast equipment. Both are platforms which were initially purported to allow everyday individuals to easily distribute their messages to other users/individuals. They have not necessarily lived up to that early promise.

How does this show or even relate to expectations and their ruin? Both types of platform contain only the best, polished, edited version of what users want others to see. What I mean is that you won't find people's failures or mistakes on display, unless it's for ridicule. With the introduction of "likes", videos that do not fit this mold are voted out of mainstream. Typically, anything short of perfection is edited out, leading to much worse than simple jump-cuts. Only our best successes are allowed to be broadcast, the exotic vacation or fabulous event that gets posted. My criticism is not that people's triumphs or pride should not be seen. My point here is not about gloating or hubris. It is more about the underlying messages to both creators and viewers. There are three fundamental errors or injuries that arise from this system.

The first is found in the axiom "life is not a straight line". It is an immutable fact of being human that we do not learn as much about something by getting it right the first time. An exemplar of this is children. While adults know how to do things the child needs to learn, no adult can learn the experience or skill for the child; no matter how caring the adult may be, they cannot short-cut the child's process to learn for themselves. In fact, proficient individuals can learn from watching inexperienced persons build proficiency-it is helpful and desirable to explore ways to fail at a thing because that builds expertise. Failing to recognize or demonstrate this leads to individuals who think anything less than success is unacceptable or wrong.

This leads into the second error, that if one only sees success then failure seems aberrant. The problem is that there is harm done by ignoring the fact that everyone messes up and fails at times. If the expectation established by these platforms is flawless performance and immaculate appearance, how can I keep up in everyday life? It leads to thinking that if everyone else is doing this thing, then by not doing (or even being able to do) it I am wrong. The most proficient athlete, scientist, or chef will make a mess and have to clean it up. There is value in acknowledging this, even to witnessing or hearing the story of this mistake. It normalizes the fact of human fallibility, and allows individuals to have compassion for themselves and others. This creates greater opportunity for connection and forgiveness.

Finally, the third error around expectations. The entire exercise is inauthentic, meaning that I do not show who I actually, truly am. If the goal is to be able to share my life with social media, how do you get to know me when I only show the "good" side? This is more of the same as in everyday life where we want to be seen as admirable and capable. Any failures or limitations count heavily against us, and we work hard to deny or prevent them. It is not authentic to hide our shortcomings because we all have them and they are as much a part of our selves as the parts we want others to see. I will suggest that living a lie is barely living, and the constant fear of being "found out" leads to real, negative effects.

This is why it is a cultural and not a personal failing-that we are encouraged, if not required, to show no weakness or flaws. This does not lend itself to resilience or grit because it is an impossible standard to meet. This pattern of success-centric content creates unrealistic expectations whereby I think I should just be able to do something with minimal effort or "if I'm not good at it right away, I'll never succeed." This thinking does not recognize or include the tremendous amount of work that goes in to every piece of media, even a photo. Anyone who has sat for professional pictures received a glimpse of this.

Another Try

There is an old idea expressed in a contemporary manner: "Do, or do not, there is no 'try'." You may recognize the words of Yoda here (from the original Star Wars movies). I have adopted this idea for a variety of reasons, the main of which is the notion that I want to give my all to what I do.

When using "try", the focus is on the operative word of the sentence and what that word means. Therefore, rather than saying I will fix a car or clean dishes, it's about how I will "try". Instead of expressing clearly what I want as the outcome, I water it down. I'm not 'going to get my homework done', I'm just going to do what I want and the rest will wait. I'll 'try' to make it on time, 'try' to be nice, or 'try' to help someone. In the end, it doesn't matter whether I actually succeed or help, just that I've 'tried'. As long as I even thought about doing the thing, it can count as a try. As long as I set the bar to that level, I barely even need take action.

This pattern admits fear (possibly an incapacitating subconscious fear) of failure or commitment. Instead of definitely stating to another person that I will do this thing, and accept the consequences of not doing it, I will let myself "off the hook" by only setting the expectation of 'trying'. I don't recall anyone saying they would "try to go to the store' or 'try to buy groceries", they just say "I'm going to the store." The point being, if it's commonplace, we feel comfortable fully committing to 'doing'. However, when it requires effort or is unusual, we resort to 'trying'. I recognize that I'm not doing the thing as well as a professional; every skill takes practice. However, part of learning to ride a bike is falling off.

Finally, part of this is about clarity and direct communication. I see using 'try' as a way to avoid saying "no". This can be a conflict-avoidance technique, where I risk discomfiting another. I'm not advocating for conflict-seeking, rather that we and others accept and navigate rejection. By claiming that I will fulfill a request ("I'll try"), I falsely let the other person believe that it will be done. I know I don't have the time, but I want to please the other person, and so I say the words. However, at some point the work has to be done, and they've relied on me and no one else to accomplish it. Because I only committed to "trying", I can claim that I fulfilled my end of the bargain, even though the other person still needs their task done. They have less time to find this other helper, and likely will pay a higher price in some way for my delaying them. If I had been upfront at first, and said "no", they could have found someone else immediately.

There is nothing wrong with being unwilling or unable to do something. There is something undesirable about misrepresenting my intentions.

How it Gets Done

Start with the assumption that whatever is popular or getting attention is a ruse or in actuality trivial. The arguments about politicians trading insults, what team is at the quarterfinal or play-off, lottery winners, which celebrity is having an affair, or cause du jour (KONY, Arab Spring, Apple sweatshops, boycotting the Oscars, etc.) is distracting from actual important issues. Acknowledge that the difficult, long-term, prolonged, ongoing areas are the actual fight. Where does that put us?

The boards, committees, agencies, and departments are where we should be packing the benches, standing in line, buzzing and tweeting about. Because the less glamorous, the more un-sexy it is, the more substance it actually has. Development and zoning proposals are actual work and how things are done on a regular basis. The most arduous task is the grinding wheel of bureaucracy; those who can weather it are those who get things done. Certainly, it's easiest to pick a fight, to flip the bird, or pull the trigger.

Strength is strategy, persistence, and diplomacy; those who expect a different president to fix anything are shortsighted.

Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)

The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.

To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.

It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.

Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.

The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.

Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.

The Presumption of Safety

I believe others would agree that the illusion of safety is not actual safety. The things that we do every day are dangerous, but there is an inherent difference between accepting danger as reasonable and necessary and ignoring danger as though it were nonexistent or negligible. I think we typically operate somewhere between 'there is a possibility of a meteorite landing on me' and 'let's have a pushing contest at the edge of this very high cliff'. This brings up a question of what is truly safe, and how it is different from what we only think or presume is safe.

I like the example of speeding because it is ubiquitous in developed areas, and common to think "it does not hurt anyone to go faster than a sign says." However, ignoring a posted and legal sign is a distraction from the actual issue. I do believe that humans make rational decisions that support the common good; the possibility exists to go faster or slower than a speed limit dictates. However, is this decision made rationally or out of frustration, because "I'm running late," or "my passenger will die from blood loss if I don't drive fast enough"? Not paying attention to the speed I drive has an effect, and it is different than when I choose consciously to drive faster because I checked and it is still safe. The point is to recognize, understand, evaluate, and accept the inherent danger instead of ignoring it simply because it has not resulted in death and/or injury yet.

Why? This goes to the 'right' fear preparing us for what we should actually be wary of. For example, if I am a woman, I am most at risk of violence from an intimate partner-not a stranger. If I am a child, the most likely person who kidnaps or murders me is a parent-again, not a stranger. It is important to dispel the illusions we carry regarding our safety. It is vital to become aware of actual dangers. By guarding against illusory threats, I'm ignoring or don't have the energy to watch for real ones. When I don't pay attention to real danger, I put myself-and potentially others!-at greater risk.

I believe the privileged have the illusion of safety, where we assume that we are safe whatever we do. This may come out of a history of not experiencing everyday violence or imminent danger. This does not preclude responsibility to become aware or maintain vigilance of possible threats. Complacency is not safety, rather it is an invitation to harm.

"You Know"

This may be a pet peeve masquerading as an erudite post, but I think there's some value to bringing it up. I certainly own that I dislike the expression, "You Know," I think it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. The main problem I have with it is it's overuse. When I hear the expression more than I hear actual content, then it's a problem. If it takes the place of real words that convey meaning, then it's detrimental. This is exactly what I witness, time and again.

It's not communication because if I already knew, then I wouldn't need to listen to you. What I'm listening for the words that inform me of your meaning, those that let me understand what you felt, experienced, or think. I can't do that just by imagining what I would feel or how I would react-because those are my own things. What "I know" is what is already inside me, and those would be assumptions, projections, and most likely wrong if I applied them to you.

So, for my sake if not your own, please take the time to find words that mean something and actually allow me to understand you. Maybe we could even find a "You Know"-free day, a sort of national holiday without this inanity.

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.

The Cult and Culture of Cars

In so many ways, the automobile has taken over our lives, even beyond when we are in one. This can be seen not only in the way we design cities and states with roads and parking for cars in mind, but also in the way we think of where we live; in relation to friends and work, for example. Really the basic function of the automobile is to make travel a less onerous task. Yet it has become an extension of our selves, another symbol and, in turn, another way to judge others. It has, in such a short amount of time, come to where it seems all our cultural personalities and institutions can be expressed in terms of cars and traffic. This extends to art and entertainment certainly, but also language, societal expectations, and self esteem. The very idea of not using or having a car has become ludicrous or foolish, although I am glad to say there are people trying to counter that. We don't just move further away from our family and the places we were born, we use cars to escape from the world. By getting in and turning up the stereo, by taking a long and destination-less drive, or just by going really fast, we are trying to get away from the rest of humanity that causes us so much upset. We complain about all the other drivers...please examine the hypocrisy of that thought. We all get out on the road together and think that none of the other drivers should be there.

Thank you for examining that; it is, of course, just a symptom of the selfishness of capitalism and competition so prevalent in culture today. However, these tie so closely with traffic and the auto as to be indistinguishable. Yet we should ask ourselves the basic questions: "How does this help us?", "Is this really good for us?", and "Can we do better?" The competitive approach to driving is what inspired this post, because it seems rather than improving the way we get where we are going, cars are just another way to "beat" each other. There are "sports events" entirely devoted to and consisting of cars and trucks and things that go vroom. In everyday life there are those who try all sorts of ways to "win" in traffic. The person who dodges and weaves around others, another who shoots off to the next traffic light, and especially those who drive as though no one else is on the road. I don't believe this attitude or circumstance is intentional, that we set out to create it. However, we can and need to overcome what has happened, not just to be safer on the road, but to instigate change in other parts of our lives, which suffer from the same basic problem.

I recently heard about a book that seems to fit with this subject, which I am excited to read, called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.

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."

Discriminating Tastes

Let me offer one simple post here, everyone can follow this and I promise I'll be straightforward. Discrimination is discrimination, prejudice is prejudice, and bigotry is bigotry-and they are all the same. It's very obvious that whatever you call it, "reverse-racism" or "double-back flip, half-gainer", however you adorn it, it is what it really is. It doesn't matter if it's "reverse-" or "positive-", because that's just one more way of having a prejudice in the very language of discrimination. Being race/class/sex/etc.-ist is discriminatory and being bigoted is having a prejudice. None of it is good or acceptable and there's no need to complicate it.

That's it.