Thinking with Magic

What could be the harm of "magical thinking"? To ensure understanding of the topic, I will briefly give a definition, some context, and then describe what I see as the heart of our current predicament. First, "magical thinking" is simply a natural tendency for humans to ascribe supernatural causes to events. It can be referred to as "superstitious thinking" as well, because it is often found in beliefs about doing something to ward off unwanted consequences, despite having nothing to do with the situation. It is "natural" because it is an ordinary part of childhood development; most of us could likely recall early attempts to make sense of the world with very little accurate information. A few examples: when a child assumes that wearing a particular pair of socks causes rain to fall, a sports player believes a special ritual assures their success, or someone thinks a prayer sufficient to achieve a desired outcome. What separates this from an error is both its persistence and resistance to logic. It becomes a refusal to acknowledge reality—to the point of actively rejecting it by persisting in the belief despite clear contrary evidence. This gives some sense of problems which can arise.

Allowing outdated notions like miasma or 'evil spirits' causing illness, ridiculous ideas like a 'flat earth' or 'ancient aliens', and just wrong beliefs like 'young Earth' or Geocentrism to thrive does more than frustrate scientists. If everyone knew that such ideas had no value or basis in reality, likely there would be no need to comment. Discussing such absurd ideas would be understood as satire, or something equally innocuous, and dismissed after the laughter faded. Many people have personal "theories", odd interests, or frivolous beliefs. Many do no harm such as "hunting Bigfoot", "studying" UFO/UAPs", or "positive thinking"—as long as they are relegated to humorous aside. When a person becomes serious about such a topic, to the point of insisting others are wrong or ignorant, problems arise. Much like addiction, where the problem is not the substance but the person's inability to exert control, the problem is not unexplained phenomena—rather it is the person's lack of boundaries or perspective. It is an inability to accurately evaluate any information that becomes truly problematic, and not just to the person believing the nonsense.

Something like the 'tolerance of intolerance' paradox, whereby intolerance ascends through forbearance, we are seeing ignorance become mainstream. While many have dismissed the "silly"or "harmless" nonsense that some espouse, this lack of critical thinking and "bullshit detection" is increasing illness and leading to deaths. Inability to recognize basic facts about vaccination has prompted a larger percentage of population in the U.S. (and elsewhere) to avoid vaccines so that public health risks are increasing, including a resurgence of dangerous diseases. Further, suspicion of any public health recommendations lead to increased deaths during the CoVID-19 pandemic. The allowance of outlandish ideas can blur the lines between "tolerance" and "enabling" by not acting to stop the harm they create.

Beyond this, there is a larger or more serious problem: the erosion of consensus reality and decision-making. Frivolous or ridiculous ideas become weapons once they are widespread enough to erode public debate or take time away from serious issues. If dealing with nonsense takes up time which could be spent actually solving problems or discussing real concerns, society is harmed. The time lost to dragging the debate away from absurd distractions uses up the patience of audience and participants. This is likely part of the "win" for contrarians, as attention or disruption feeds their agenda/ego. Additionally, delay allows those who benefit from the status quo to continue their activities for as long as progress is hindered.

Finally, where there existed one single group who could communicate easily and agreed on a majority of implicit and important topics, there now exists multiple groups whose identities are in conflict. It is easy to understand that arguing opinion or objective information is much easier than feeling attacked or having one's identity threatened. If one were incorrect about who won the 1983 World Series—even as passionate as sports fans can be—once the information is corroborated, the wrong person can pay the bet and correct their mistaken memory. However, arguing over subjective information and about identity is often an intractable dilemma. Many can easily think of how it feels to be insulted, and how no productive conversation happens afterward. This can be what happens when the discussion includes those nonsensical beliefs: it is not about the content or information involved, but about who the person is. This can be reinforced by an insidious change that takes place when lost people find community in fringe-belief groups: their loneliness and sense of rejection is healed by having comrades who support their unnatural opinions. This salvation is conditional, of course, and loyalty to the group must be repeatedly demonstrated to "belong". This creates a situation where a person's sense of belonging and identity is dependent upon the group. Many will do terrible things rather than lose their community. Contemporary complaints about men falling into toxicity is this same pipeline, as are many religious/spiritual groups; this is an aside, however, and should be dealt with separately. For this discussion, the focus is how identity can be threatened by accurate information and how that makes discourse impossible. So, rather than simply "correcting someone's mistaken information" by challenging the existence of Bigfoot or aliens, one can be 'attacking' another's identity. This is the problem of discussing basic information about the world when it contradicts someone who is out of touch with reality.

In the end, there is no problem with not knowing or having incorrect information. We can learn, we can grow as individuals and change opinions, and we can even correct our worldview. However, this takes a willingness that is challenging for many. The focus on arguing over the information involved is almost a distraction from the deeper issue of inability to evaluate information. However we proceed, it is important to recognize the component of identity and how it has been weaponized to prevent conversation. I hope that this post has illuminated some of the trouble we face, and that it is not too late to correct.

The True Purpose of Philosophy

    Given the current state of things, I was impelled to expand on the topic. I was brought up with a fairly common attitude (I judge) about Philosophy, what it is, what it does, and what it is for. Essentially, the belief is that Philosophy is for stuffy old men who have no real-world skills and it exists within a closed system—a bit like a snake eating its own tail—passing itself as science. This leads to a number of outcomes: it discourages any respect or appreciation for Philosophy, disconnects it from "the real world", discounts anything associated with it, makes the pursuit of, or ever interest in, Philosophy "silly", and undermines the contributions it has made to society and the world. I had minimal exposure, as I think is common, in my education and it mainly left me with the impression that it was something that happened 'long ago and far away'. Words like "ancient" and "lofty" would come to mind if I had been asked to describe Philosophy. Now, this may seem backwards or absurd to those who had any kind of broad education (as I expect most often happens outside the U.S.). I understand if that is the case, but want to be clear that even if this is not universal within my country of residence, it is common enough. In part, I make the point for outsiders looking at the U.S., potentially wondering why so many clearly incorrect beliefs and so much false information continues to make the rounds. In part, at least, I can attribute it to a lack of critical thinking skills because of the above attitudes about Philosophy.

    We come now to the reason and title of this post. If Philosophy is not just an erudite, ego-stroking, idealistic pursuit of useless nonsense, what is it? In actuality, it is a means to determine truth despite being flawed humans. This is my own simplistic way of explaining, of course, but I came to understand the value of Philosophy once I began to study Psychology and Neurobiology. We learn that human brains are not actually "thinking machines", but are error-riddled assumption devices. There are numerous popular books nowadays which explain that our perceptions are filtered through expectations, our brains manipulate sensory information to make "sense" of reality, and we can be completely convinced within our own thinking of something that is patently false. In fact, all these things happen within every individual everywhere all the time every day. We are not "observing" reality, we are actually "interpreting" the world around us. Once we understand this, it behooves us to find ways to correct for these automatic, internal processes and potentially construct ways to counteract the errors they create. This is, in effect, the basis of Philosophy: to check the things we think in order to error-correct the innate ways our brains process information.

    Let us take a couple practical examples, because there are certainly more esoteric areas. On first exposure to Logic, it can look like a collection of silly "if, then" statements. However, it is a part of Philosophy dealing with how to establish if something holds true and if the steps in arriving at a conclusion actually make sense. Recognizing this, it begins to have more utility to everyone. Next, Epistemology is a big, unwieldy word that seems to bear no resemblance to any other (again, a simplistic excuse to dismiss it). In actuality, it deals with establishing how we know what we know. Quite fundamental, and useful, one might begin to think. Instead of assuming the factual nature of whatever pops into our consciousness, we can interrogate this idea and establish if it does agree with reality. The way that philosophers approach and use this system is part of what makes it rigorous, along with actually making it the basis for much science—in addition to a science unto itself.

Hopefully, this is helpful in some way, and possibly can demonstrate to others who still hold the attitude I did previously how important and practical Philosophy can be. Instead of relegating it to history or uselessness, as it seems happens with most of the education around this topic in the U.S., we might better integrate this into our curriculum. In many ways, it is an oddity that this has not happened already. I do not need to attribute this to any sort of nefarious conspiracy, but it does seem to aid in making fools and dupes out of the citizenry.

Art of the Handshake Deal

It is understandable why one would trust another person when making a deal, as there has to be a certain amount of understanding between the parties. Yet, the expectation is also that there are limits to this trust. Simply taking the word of a stranger that there is a warranty, payments can be missed with no consequences, or even that the item is returnable for a full refund may not be the case, unless there is a written document saying so. The laws about sales, consumer protections, and faulty or misrepresented items can vary greatly from place to place. Especially nowadays, with so much being bought online, and no opportunity to inspect merchandise, the old adage holds true.

However, here we are considering the more traditional scenario of buying something directly from another person. Sales are often in this mode, we agree to something verbally and then sign a document that is supposed to say the same—did you check that? Or a rental agreement, there's the "official" document, and then what the clerk says the rules are—which do you assume is true? These answers will vary, but one thing that can determine whether one trusts the person or the document more is the size of a person's hometown. There are still small towns where people actually have regular contact and their reputations are important. In these places, it is common for a deal to not be written because it is the full weight of the community which is enforcing the terms. This is because if the two parties have a difficulty in resolving any issue that results from dissatisfaction in their deal, the 'injured party' will tell people about it; family, friends, neighbors, and eventually the whole town gets the message that "so-and-so is a crooked dealer". That reputation becomes a real barrier to their life, because others will treat them with suspicion and disdain; they may be a few dollars richer in the short-term, but they lose the chance at future enrichment. This is the mode that persisted for much of human existence, until the advent of big cities where people no longer knew each other. If one never sees the same person twice, it becomes much easier to cheat and escape those reputational repercussions. This is also a trope: the big-city hustler or fast-talking salesman. While such stereotypes may prevent a few from falling prey, most of the time swindlers are aware enough to counteract those warnings. This is part of the reason so many con artists are amiable rather than overbearing. It is a matter not of their own confidence, but of winning the confidence of their target, that is the "art". Additionally, while people may be aware of this in a 'sale' situation, the problem extends beyond this small arena and actually applies to anytime someone makes a claim. Here we find the heart of skepticism: not simply accepting what is presented. Instead, making the effort to understand context—and get it in writing so the claim cannot be changed later.

While there are protections for consumers from some scams, bad deals, and rip-offs, and legal recourse to prosecute such sellers, there is no such protection for society. What I mean is that some people make a living off of telling people one thing and doing another, of selling false hope and quick fixes while collecting large payoffs. Whether this is a religious figure or politician, a celebrity or "influencer", they somehow experience no consequences for their lies. For every Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, there are 5 climate-change-denying oil companies, cancer-causing-denying tobacco companies, or banking-fraud Enrons (a completely invented statistic, because the amount of scofflaws is likely higher). It takes so much effort and time to build and prosecute a legal case against the largest fraudsters that it overwhelms ordinary citizens. The machinations of these individuals and groups seem too blatant, brazen, and counter-intuitive; less "how did they do it?" and more "how did it occur to anyone to try such a thing?". Even more troubling, if possible, is the fact that the very principles and structures which protect these everyday people from such inconceivably large scams have been under attack for decades. The legal system has been eroded from the inside through influence campaigns like from the Federalist Society. Similarly, the Heritage Foundation has worked to change society by imposing doctrine through the legislative and executive branches of government. Personally, I did rot recognize the attack on education and schools until much too late. The call for "school choice" that has lead to siphoning public money to private institutions has been a tragedy not just for public schools and students, but also those who can no longer escape the ideological indoctrination of those private "schools". All this leads to our current situation, whereby those who say one thing and mean another have twisted the understanding of reality and perverted public institutions to their own benefit. These are, of course, large and complex situations with many repercussions, but the focus here is that somewhere in the process an argument was made as to why something should happen and those making that case may not have been totally honest or forthcoming. This is especially the case when they believe that "the ends justify the means". If someone is convinced that something needs to happen and is then willing to do anything to ensure that it does, we are more likely to encounter deceit and subterfuge.

We've had someone in the office of president of the U.S. who seems incapable of uttering a single truth, and—bizarrely, unbelievably—has returned to that same office. Any attempt to hold this person accountable has utterly failed and—equally incomprehensible—people seem to act like these blatant lies are somehow explainable and/or acceptable. While this is the epitome of our problem, let us not focus too long on a single individual. This is a systemic issue, as evidenced by the ascension of such an individual, and the only real solution is to prevent such criminals from insulating themselves from prosecution. To do this, we can strengthen our education system and include critical thinking skills as core curriculum, we should better define legal issues like "bribery", "graft", 'collusion", "profiteering", and "influence", strengthen governmental apparatus like courts and insulate them from monetary and ideological influence, and overall continue to expand democracy by elevating the many rather than the few.

A Group Effort

It is problematic that benefits accrue to those who already have them—things like being approved for loans for because of having assets already. Being let go for a minor offense because of not having an arrest record. However, it is not be unfair just because of a particular "-ism" involved, but because of the underlying assumption that someone is more deserving or "should" be treated differently. There is a common trope that "X would never happen if we had a woman president", or "some [group] have natural rhythm/can dance", "you know you can't trust anything they say because those people always lie". Whoever is included in that group can change; we saw it with waves of immigration in the 1800's. Whichever was the largest group last off the boat were the scapegoats. "White-ness" (aside from being an invention) was ascribed to longer-standing immigrant groups and withheld from the more recent ones.

Here is the heart of the problem: as long as someone can be marginalized, anyone can be. If some negative stereotype can be given to a group, it can be given to another. As long as it is accepted that there are different "kinds" of people, that some are inherently better (or worse), and that there exists some sort of "natural order", we are at risk of this happening. The only solution is to do away with all of them altogether.

Once no one can be labelled as "the problem" or "those people", then we will have peace. Until then, while we may make progress, it will be a constant vigil that another group is not vilified.

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.

The Invisible Fence

Every student in the U.S. is exposed to these phrases: "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "...with liberty and justice for all." Because we live within the confines of an established, artificial system, it makes sense that we must understand the limits of those constructs. However, there seems to be an increasing amount of disagreement about where to draw the line on liberty. Since this concept is central to the founding and existence of the U.S., who is it that decides what it means? There are numerous laws and legal interpretations, but no particular committee or public office devoted to exploring what liberty means as times—and technologies—change. Additionally, how do everyday people conceive of liberty? Do we understand it as static, or as something adaptable? Do we only think we are free because we are told that? Is it that we are surrounded by media and other influences which tell us that this is what "freedom" is and so we accept this? Are there natural limitations—or only artificial ones—in modern society? These are more than "academic" questions, removed from the mundane concerns of regular people. In fact, they are questions essential for every citizen to consider because they lay the foundation for all questions that come after. Our understanding of liberty sets the limits and expectations about all decisions and questions which follow. If one thinks that liberty extends only to here, then one has difficulty asking what lies over there. These are the beginnings of liberty: thinking there is something which I have that allows me to take action or something I lack that keeps me from taking action.

There is—once again—an interesting aspect to games which is pertinent here. In part, this is because games are also artificial systems. Any game establishes what is allowed or prohibited on the path to victory. These rules are the freedoms players are allowed within the game, but they also reflect the degree to which players give up doing other things which might benefit them. The only succor we may take is that every other player is also bound by the same rules. Additionally, there are the physical parameters to games, but then there are the "soft" limits which determine optimal strategies and "hacks","cheats", or "exploits", especially in video games. Knowing how to work within the game's confines, yet still make marginal advances over other players, can confer large gains over the course of play. This analogy for liberty in real life is especially pertinent in video games using progression, quests, or achievements. These are things which limit a player's development until met or confer advancement (or extra benefits) when completed. They can provide incentives to play certain ways or make particular choices when they are solely achievable through the methods a game maker decides. It then behooves us to ask "who made the rules to the game of 'real life'?" and what have they incentivized or prohibited?

The overall concern of this discussion regards infantilization and disempowerment. Infantilization is the process of keeping or reducing someone to a less active status, to make decisions for them, and/or hobble their development. This may seem like it creates a dependent who then requires care-taking, but is often done for power; either the feeling of having power over another or to add that person's power to theirs. To act on behalf of another confers the power of the other onto the action-taker. This is the basis for representatives in a "representative democracy": the power of those citizens is conferred to their elected official who acts on their behalf. However, it often seems less like representatives actually enact "the will of the people" but are utilizing their power to benefit themselves. It seems self-evident that everyday people will vote to give themselves more control, liberty, and power over their own lives, yet their representatives are often doing the opposite. Instead of having more freedom, more free time, and better education to make informed decisions and participate in their lives (including governmental decision-making), people in contemporary society are infantilized. We are told that people are selfish, ignorant (if not downright stupid), panicky, greedy beings and it is better they do not have too much freedom. It may be better if we challenge those assumptions and demand remedies instead of accepting such a disempowering message.

Transactional Relationships

Words are wonderful tools for understanding concepts and discussing them with others. This particular phrase has shown up frequently in recent days, for better and worse. First, let us be clear about what it means, and then we can see where it is impacting the culture.

"Transactional relationship" simply refers to having an interaction (either one-off or longer, on-going relationship) with someone which is based around providing a benefit to both parties as the basis for said interaction. Simple, yes; deceptively so. It may be self-evident that a purchase from the market is a transaction. What about the waitstaff at a restaurant? Or the 'crew' of a fast-food joint? In traffic, does my waving another driver through the intersection count? How about two co-workers who plan a social activity outside work? Finally, what about intimate relationships such as marriage? Truly, there are aspects to this concept which muddy that simple idea we started with.

The above examples are provided because they can certainly be transactional. Even though many cultures have moved away from dowries or bride-prices, marriage for love is still a recent convention, dating back only a few hundred years. However, money being directly involved is also not a determinant in this concept. Being "the beard" is a transactional relationship, but can be of social value to the parties rather than being a cash- or housing-based arrangement. Also, this introduces the aspect that one party can be ignorant of the true nature of their interactions because of assumed or undisclosed intentions. Similarly, if two co-workers seek to commiserate, it could simply be a trade; "give-and-take" or "quid pro quo" are other terms for transactional relationships. However, if one coworker is spying for the company or has romantic intentions, then it becomes a different dynamic. In driving, I could get something out of an interaction with another driver, but it could also simply be enforcing, or reminding them of, the 'rules of the road'. Causing others to adhere to accepted norms is part of social convention, and is less individual choice and more collective conformity. Both "waitstaff" and "crew" above are understood to be "servants" and the customers, "masters" (not the words typically used, but a replication of that traditional dynamic). Both provide customer service, are employed by the establishment, would not interact with those patrons except for the venue, and are limited by their role—but only one gets gratuities. This power differential only further complicates the issue, but neither determines nor precludes a transactional relationship existing. Anytime staff are providing customer service, however, it interferes with any other type of relationship; in other words, there is a transactional relationship as long as at least one party is acting in a professional, business capacity. All this demonstrates the complexity of our interactions and that a solely transactional relationship is rare. Especially if there is the possibility of multiple encounters, people tend to introduce kindness or other social aspects to the process. Think about if you witnessed a person purchase a drink and all they did was state the order, make the payment, and take the beverage—no eye contact or speech beyond "give me a [drink]". It would seem odd, rude, or downright antisocial for not engaging in the niceties we expect—to not even respond to a greeting, nor acknowledge the other individual's person-hood.

Now that we have this basic understanding of a transactional relationship, let us turn to the impact on our experiences. What is happening in the culture that makes this a noteworthy concept? Firstly, we can consider the reduction of social interactions into tools of profit. Secondly, how the culture encourages this approach and who benefits from the tendency. Finally, whether this is something which requires correction, and is that possible? Without going into an exhaustive—and tedious—list of examples and trends over decades, this is certainly a problem. Wave after wave of induced social phobia (things like "stranger danger" the 1980's, the "super-predators" of the 1990's, and the fallout from September 2001—again, from a perspective in the U.S.) caused many to increasingly think of the world as so dangerous that it would be better to just not risk interacting. This constant anxiety and withdrawal has become a self-reinforcing tendency; the more people lack in social connection, the more uncomfortable any interaction seems. Just as vitamin deficiency can easily be treated by adding the required nutritional sources, so can many issues be addressed by increasing socialization. As people double-down on their sickness, by giving even more hours to work (or other isolating tactics) and retreating from shared spaces (and other social adventures), it worsens the symptoms. In typical fashion, rather than acknowledge and address this issue, we are sold any number of remedies. This is akin to ignoring the vitamin deficiency and insisting that surgery is needed to treat the symptoms. One such idea is better living through accumulation: that acquisition can soothe the ache of longing. All this denial leads to the idea that we can buy our way out of any problem, which lends itself to settling for transactional relationships. As the idea that the only things which matter are those that "provide 'value'" becomes paramount, the very things that give meaning to our lives fade and wither. In part, this is because treating symptoms is more profitable than curing illness. Additionally, the tendency to invest in the system which makes the rich even more rich incentivizes them to maintain such a system.

In conclusion, I will answer in the positive: this must change and that change is achievable. Such changes are often as difficult as they are necessary, and begin with acceptance that our ideas have been wrong. Suffragettes, abolitionists, and various other civil rights movements throughout history have attacked oppressive systems, in part by alerting people to injustices perpetuated by the underlying assumptions of those systems. The lasting changes we need are only made when people come to understand the structure itself is the problem, and we must address both the symptoms and the cause.

A Nation of Placebo Addicts

Essentially, it strikes me as dis-empowering and potentially opening people up to exploitation that we do not address the role of placebos. Many, if not most are aware of their existence, but the ramifications seem to make no difference in how we approach healthcare, as well as other areas.

The power of the placebo effect is essentially to "trick" a person into feeling better. That is, by applying a neutral intervention (therapy, pill, or other treatment), the person is able to heal or to speed recovery. This improvement is often attributed to the "natural power of the body to heal itself", but there seem to be a couple components that make it more than just wishful thinking. First, of course, the 'patient' believes that the intervention will work. This is crucial, and the part that leads to mis-attribution to super-natural causes. The second is the setting and/or provider, which lends credence to the intervention. Think about the difference between getting a prescription from a respectable, older-looking person wearing a white lab coat in a clean and modern clinic versus being tossed a bottle by a ratty, greasy guy in torn jeans outside the local mini-mart. Similarly, the difference between listening to your favorite music on a quality sound system at home versus sitting quietly in the audience of demure sophisticates at an intimate performance versus being in a raucous crowd of drugged-up hippies at a standing-room-only event. The setting influences your experience, for better or worse. These two factors, personal expectations of and the setting around an intervention, lead to how successful a placebo is. Being explicit, or telling a patient, about a placebo can actually have little impact on the outcome.

How much better would it be to use this power intentionally? Properly asserting that the power lies with me, rather than outside myself, we could build a more whole society of confident people. Of course, it would be vital to acknowledge the limitations of placebos, and continue to rely on appropriate treatment for medical conditions. However, adding in that it is important how we perceive our own treatment—the positive or negative attitude we hold—could improve our odds of success. At the very least, it highlights how treatment is a joint effort between provider and patient, rather than a supplicant begging for healing from a god-like Doctor, as it has historically been portrayed. This is where the dis-empowerment comes in.

Additionally, there is potential in utilizing this tendency in order to dismiss quackery and scams. By assuming that a positive belief will tend to improve chances of success, we can analyze failure more critically. Recognizing the tendency to 'fall for' something we want to work, but that does not perform, could be important. When something succeeds, we may be more likely to examine whether it was due to sheer placebo effect. From media to "alternative medicine", knowing that we are improving conditions for ourselves just through our approach. Because we believe in the TV personality (the 'setting' of the 'treatment'), we could question whether it was the placebo effect all along. Rather than relying on "experts" we could get better at spotting quacks and fraudsters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

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.

The Trouble with Philosophy

First, because it is too easy to assume that we share an understanding of what is meant by a word, let us agree on a simplistic definition for laypeople. Philosophy means both thinking about general principles and the overarching beliefs about how things work because of those general principles. Throughout history, philosophy has drawn from outside human society and psychology for rules or understanding of the ways in which things work. From prehistoric religions to the Hellenistic Period of idealized forms, the guidance philosophers offered tended to disregard the human in favor of the super- or extra-human. For example, Pythagoras theorized some very real mathematical instruments still in use, but was also responsible for a religion around mathematics. The heart of religion is bending reality to fit belief, rather than forming understanding based on observation of reality. This insistence that the world acceded to numbers, or that certain numbers were 'sacred' and 'powerful' and could influence reality, was important to Pythagoras and his followers. Despite it's popularity, it did not actually describe a truth or become the basis for a science or society. There are diverse more recent examples, more or less connected with academic philosophy. It is also important to note that our typical interaction with philosophy is informal and generally comes from family and community. This is because we can overlook our own philosophy, since we do not immediately think of it as being such. It is simply the underlying set of assumptions that silently guide how we interpret the world around us, our worldview.

Certainly, philosophy as a discipline has given and continues to give us tools to explore reality and question how we examine it. The fields of ethics and logic are contained within the realm of philosophy. This post does not seek to undermine its real work and advancements, but only to interrogate its limitations. Specifically, has this historic tendency to treat philosophy as an outgrowth of mysticism been a hindrance? Has it created a shared fallacy of some "immutable, eternal truth" or constant, unwavering order to existence? Rather than allowing us to accept that we have an incomplete and ever-evolving understanding of reality, or that we understand the universe through our own (limited) lenses, does this pursuit of perfection blind us to our role in that understanding? The point being that the desire for or expectation of an immutable and total answer may stall our advancements. Blindness to steps taken and insistence that an eternal truth is the only acceptable measurement could be a real threat to progress.

Further, if this has been the case, have we shaken off that tendency? Even after the Enlightenment and Humanistic advancements, this could still be a factor. Have we divorced our philosophy and philosophical pursuits from the need for a mystical basis? A belief that our flaws make us incapable of arriving at valid, if incomplete, conclusions could persist. Have we accepted that we will not arrive at an eternal and immutable truth via our philosophizing? That we are not seeking to understand a rational 'actor', but rather that we are examining an imperfect species' view of a neutral universe? If we do not accept and embrace these tendencies, and factor into our philosophy that central tenet, we may still be sabotaging ourselves.

I suggest that answering these questions could only benefit the field and humanity.

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.

Country Folk, City Folk

Often people point out the divide between urban and rural, most often emphasizing beliefs that result in greater disconnection. For example, "folks in the country are all uneducated and backward" or "city folk are rude, stuck-up, and useless". Having lived in both areas, I think there is a fundamental attribute which is misconstrued, and there is much more in common than we give credit for. Many who live in tight quarters will romanticize the spaciousness of "country living" and imagine having nobody for miles around as some idyllic existence. There are strains of "rugged individualism", of course, running through this idealized rural setting. Also, some notion of it being a place where people can "really count on each other", that "folks still know their neighbors", and where a handshake counts as a contract. These are, of course, characterizations and stereotypes that may bear some resemblance, but do not encompass the reality of their lives. The same urbanites who simplify the rural life also distort their own experiences, seeing themselves as sophisticated, progressive, and productive while not having practical skills or producing great advances for society. It is true that in the city, folks are more free to pursue their interests and have anonymity to make mistakes. There are innumerable opportunities, as well as like-minded people to share interests with. The flip side of "the city never sleeps" is that it is noisy, crowded, and littered with the waste of all that living--not all of it wrappers and chewing gum. Country folks will imagine that a crook or druggie is hiding behind every corner, and there is nowhere to find any peace. Someone owns every square inch of space, and you have to pay somebody to do anything in the city, even just sit down. It is also easy to interpret that city "sophistication" as arrogant or pretentious. Conversely, rural folks will disregard all the difficulties of being away from cities as a 'small price to pay'. Less money in taxes does mean fewer services and poorer outcomes a greater percentage of the time. There is also just as much of a problem with mental health outside the city, although it can look different. Rural people either discount it as "just the way they are, they're harmless" or don't see it because those struggling never come into contact with others. These are just some of the ideas that seem to circulate and infiltrate the two groups' thinking. This leads to wondering if there is anything to connect them, so vast is the divide. Here is the central problem which all the emphasis on differences creates: it seems as if all that exists are differences.

However, let us turn to a simple example to examine how a fundamental difference in circumstances can create these divisions, despite having so much in common as people. No matter where one lives, there is always the opportunity to encounter disaster. For those in rural areas it is a matter of course to be prepared for such events, since there is no guarantee of rescue. Folks in urban settings do not expect to be facing the emergency alone and may only prepare for short-term needs. This brings up the reason behind these differing approaches, which is, once more, a circumstantial rather than an innate difference between the two groups. City folk are accustomed to being surrounded by others, both living in close quarters as well as having an abundance of services. It is unimaginable for urbanites that they would not be able to obtain some random item in the middle of the night. It becomes the underlying expectation and seen as a positive; if a drain clogs, someone gets sick, the power goes out, or a chair breaks, the urban person has a plethora of options to call on. In the country there are limited services available during any situation, and one can only hope the hospital is open past 9. The point being that these circumstances create the conditions for different expectations and modes of living. A person from the city encountering trouble in the countryside could be forgiven for not knowing how to handle adversity in an unfamiliar setting. This situation could lead to those rural folks thinking the urbanite "foolish, unprepared, ignorant, and pampered"—but only judging by rural standards. Similarly, the country bumpkin fixing their truck in a parking lot of the city is practically a trope. A rural person in the city might come prepared for everything that could possibly go wrong and believe no one is friendly. This could be seen by the urban individual as "paranoid, un-trusting, stubborn, and embarrassing", since they have such differing expectations. This is each judging the other by their own standards, and being unfamiliar with the ways of that other. The urban neophytes who fantasize about a rural life fail to recognize the basic similarity to their own situation. Shared in common is the need for support from time to time. Country neighbors do not help because they are more idealistic or a better breed, but out of the same necessity that drives those in the city: reciprocity. The truism of "this time you, next time me" is the same all over. It is a simple calculus that we cannot do it all on our own and therefore need to be that good neighbor so someone will be there for us next time. It is an almost-unrecognized necessity that 'of course we help each other out, because we are all we have'. This is not exploitative, altruistic, pessimistic, nor noble, it just is. Folks in both settings will disregard the importance of others in their lives, because it is the unrecognized background of living.

Of course this is not the explanation for every difference or contention, as stated above. However,  because we live in times with such apparently insurmountable differences, it can be helpful to recognize how such a basic issue could create ill-will between two peoples who are not that different after all. Possibly, instead of focusing on the perceived differences we could begin to notice the similarities, and that could lead to better understanding. Once we begin to see that there are alternatives to the distancing stories that people tell, maybe there can be bridges built and improved relations.

Everyday people

There is a great difficulty in being a typical person, one of the crowd, or un-exceptional. The struggle is for validity, for self-esteem, and the basic belief in one's own worth. There is rightly much talk about representation in media, and how important it is for people to see those like themselves in popular formats. While this is especially important for marginalized and targeted groups, there is value in the great majority seeing themselves as well. Similarly, as much of the news is devoted to celebrity and wealth, there needs to be a move towards placing those exceptional individuals into a larger context. To begin with, any typical news story must be outside ordinary, everyday life; it is only when the dam fails or another tragedy that it receives attention. The news does not report the hundreds of people helping each other through tough times, the thousands who take time to volunteer, and the millions of interactions that go off without a hitch everyday. These unremarked events are so commonplace that they become invisible, yet they form the basis for society and civilization functioning at all. The mundane is what actually keep things going; the same is true of people: it is the mass of average, everyday persons who are more responsible for things going smoothly. Overall, the focus on outliers leads to a skewed outlook on the world as it makes those outliers seem more important. To have a more accurate view, we can recognize that most of the people (both currently and historically) are basically very alike in lifestyle. They do not hold fancy titles, earn elite recognition, or accomplish once-in-a-generation feats. The very word "exceptional" contains the clue that those celebrated are exceptions to the general rule. However, there is no concomitant recognition that there is no loss of worth or diminishment in humanity in being common (or, in the current vernacular, "basic"). This insidious reinforcement of the message that only the uncommon matter is ever-present and oppressive. While many assume the question is how to be noticed and become exceptional, that is approaching the problem from the wrong end. The answer has never been to change into some version of these unusual celebrities, but rather to be our self and have that be worth celebration. The issue is the expectation that those celebrities are the only ones deserving of our attention. Once we take away our attention (and money), the so-called "powerful" begin to lose that power, as it is based on the collected support of the mass of common folk. Rather than buying the latest in an endless line of "hot" celebrity schlock and fads, we would be better off supporting worthy causes we believe in and spending our time with people we care about. By taking our focus away from the trivial (celebrity) and placing it on the important (everyday people), we can begin that celebration of the truly meaningful: ourselves.

Why Does Context or Intent Matter?

While in philosophy, we could speak simply of utilitarianism (consequence or impact) and deontology (moral duty or intent), let us take a more pedestrian, and relevant, approach to understanding this question. Most often, in the news and in law, people are focused on outcomes. It is too messy or time-consuming to investigate, report, interpret, and adjudicate motives. Psychologically, it is difficult to narrow down behavior to either intent or impact, as there are so many influences and factors. Individuals may consider both when choosing, but are also motivated by drives separate from either (i.e. illogic, coercion, trauma, etc.) as well as various impairments. Additionally, it is important to note that every choice is made with incomplete information; no one knows what the outcome will be, it is just a best guess as to what seems most likely. Some may say there is only one way to do things, and therefore no need to question intent or impact. It is more accurate to say life is open to interpretation and allows for numerous successful approaches. Otherwise, there would be neither need nor ability to improve or discover. Once we accept there is no predictably "right" answer, what is left is to determine how to learn to make better choices. Given the liberty that most expect in the modern world, learning how to do that can be a difficult, protracted, and harm-producing process. This leaves the culture considering outcomes and ignoring context in arriving at those outcomes.

A particularly destructive result of this tendency is to eliminate understanding or finding of common ground. These similarities exist, even in the most intractable fight; being that we are all human, we share fundamental traits and desires. Wanting to feel safe means different things to different people: it could be carrying a gun for you or me knowing that no one has a weapon. That fundamental need for safety is shared, even though we meet that need in different ways. Once we begin to relate, it becomes less a question of whether we can agree than how we resolve the issue. To those who question this, or think that "if it is so easy, why isn't everybody doing it?", I raise two points. First, I never said this was easy; it is challenging to do, and ever harder to do well. Second, I refer you back to the fundamental question "qui bono?": who benefits? Who benefits from the masses thinking they face intractable differences everywhere? Who gains or retains their power by giving frustrated people simplistic answers that allow for no compromise or alternatives? For whom is it easy to let others make difficult decisions instead of facing uncertainty and correcting their errors? Who prefers not having to explain or confess dire circumstances, or risk not getting what they need by involving others? The answer, of course, is that everyone has some benefit from the current system. As with many such problems, it works just well enough or does not fail enough to overcome the shared resistance to change.

I propose the real issue is treating people as disposable, which feeds into and is fed by the disregard for motivations. Rather than determine the cause of a crime, people will say "It doesn't matter, a law's a law," or "Some people are just criminals". These platitudes are verbal shrugs of surrender and passivity that signal "people are disposable, so circumstances don't matter". This black and white thinking leads to executing someone stealing food for their child. There are circumstances that drive people to do the otherwise unthinkable, which is the context. Outside of that situation, the same person would not make that choice. Maybe they would even stop another from taking that action; we evaluate choices differently when they are ours to make, after all. That mutable aspect of human nature demonstrates how adaptable we are and that we are shaped by our environments. The truth is that people are reachable, and able to change; however, ostracizing them does not lead to change, improvement, or re-integration. It takes more effort, and self-examination, but it is possible make the necessary social adjustments. I say self-examination, because to enact changes that will work means tackling assumptions in the culture that most prefer to avoid. These includes underlying beliefs that people are disposable, that there is only one way to be or act, and that change is impossible.

In the end, understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing. Discovering the cause or context is more like diagnosing an illness, as it gives us the information needed to treat that dysfunction and make things better. It is what allows us to correct a problem, rather than suffer it and feel powerless. We cannot correct something we do not understand, and an aversion to nuance and exploration of how things happen keep us from knowing how to prevent them. We need to ask the question "how could this happen?", investigate the actual causes, and be open to the answer so that we stand a chance of stopping the next such event. We need to compassionately understand the motivations of others, and allow that they can be good people, in order to prevent further harm.

Why More People Should Feel Entitled

I was struck recently by a strange realization, during a perfectly normal conversation about what kinds of foods I ate growing up. As a child, we lived in some amount of poverty, though not severe. What occurred to me is that while I did not eat what I wanted, it was also not what my mother would have wanted. Rather, it was determined by what we could afford. Of course, this is also fairly commonplace, as many who live without adequate income do the same. What is remarkable is the impact it had on me, and this is the odd part. It is not just the food choice, but that along with other factors of poverty that all boiled down to a profoundly dis-empowering message: what I want does not matter.

Let that fester for a moment, and especially if it has never occurred to you before. Try on the idea that what you want has no impact on the world around you. Hungry? Unimportant, you will eat what and when you are fed. Tired? Inconsequential, you must get up and get busy. Need a break, want some help, a birthday present, to see friends? Does not matter; what you want does not matter.

That should be a horrifying sentiment, and one that never enters a child's mind. To be raised with the idea one can never get what one wants should be something we all agree is unacceptable. Consider the immediate impact of devaluing the child, and how that begins to influence how they see themselves. Because this is not about winning or losing a fun game, this is about their sense of who they are. Even if it seems a minor issue, or one that can be overcome, why would it be one we add to the difficulties inherent in growing up? Further, if this thought is allowed to take hold, it can be debilitating and impact so many aspects of a person. Imagine living with such a person, one so monumentally unmotivated to do anything since throughout their whole life they never get what they want because wanting does not matter. Even if these were "just" coworkers, their basic lack of motivation would make getting any work from them a struggle. What other impacts to society, and everyday interactions, stem from these people having a hopeless and futile feeling about agency in their own lives?

Personally, I took that message to heart; I believed it and it became such a part of my world that I forgot that I could have wants or even preferences. I was well into adulthood before it even occurred to me to question that bedrock truth: what I want does not matter. This is not to excuse that belief, nor to blame anyone else for my own failings. As ever, there were a number of factors involved. Understanding and explaining something is different than forgiving or excusing that thing, and is a topic for another discussion. I simply point out that throughout my own life there have been a number of negative impacts because of this simple, fundamental belief; the only positive has been that I was remarkably easy to get along with, which could be accomplished through healthier means.

With all the talk of an "entitled" younger generation, I would encourage folks to remember how harmful the opposite tendency is. Celebrate people knowing what they want, and expecting the possibility of obtaining it. A world full of those people is at least a hopeful world,

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.

My Will Can Beat up Your Will

There is an odd idea that seems pervasive throughout U.S. culture and exists without much context or discussion. You may readily think of any number of examples where that could apply, but I refer to the notion of "will-power" as the determining factor in a conflict or contest. It struck me quite profoundly as I watched a scene in Marvel's movie Avengers: Infinity War. It has been mentioned elsewhere online and likely argued over by nerds everywhere since its release in 2018. The scene happens towards the end of the film, where Captain America holds back Thanos for a second. It has been established that Thanos is  a super-humanly powerful being, and him being the only one with the will to see his plan through. While Rogers is an enhanced human, he should be no match for Thanos. Yet, what defines Captain America is his refusal to stand down; he has faced unfair odds all his life and never hesitated to fully commit to the fight. The message is clear: this moment is not about objective or physical strength, but all about a will to win. Those few moments of struggle convey much of the idea which I am suggesting is problematic in real life.

Fantasy may be a grand place for such notions, where the very desire for an outcome creates the result one wants. However, it is too easy for people to delude themselves that such things are possible in reality. If you think no one could fall for this nonsense, remember that people pray for things or talk about "manifesting" their desires. I will include another aspect of comic/superhero tropes: the strength, agility, stamina, and other attributes that characters have without having to work at it. On a practical level, it allows the story to move quickly and focus on drama or action within the limited time of a book or movie. However, this also conveys ideas around innate, rather than learned and trained, skills. It seems connected to this "I should have this because I want it" ideal. Also, it is important as it relates to "fixed" and "growth" mindsets, which are worth exploring outside this post. Both these notions (will-power and innate talent) reflect ideas of worthiness and competition. I also recognize that we are dealing with the influence of media and entertainment upon consumers, and how people integrate the ideas they are exposed to from an early age. This is another topic for its own discussion. You may notice I am also not criticizing willpower in general. Grit has recently had a turn in the spotlight, and received a deserved discussion; we do not need to examine that here.

To return to the subject at hand, the psychological term for the belief that we can get something just by wanting is "magical thinking". This term is usually applied to and descriptive of the minds of children. Simply put, a child thinks of something they want and it then happens: someone they were mad at gets hurt or the sky clears of clouds when they want to go outside. There are a number of cognitive fallacies having to do with cause-and-effect, which are abandoned as we learn about the world. Magical thinking can be pernicious because of social pressures and/or personal experiences. Another component of this is children being egocentric. It is normal development for young humans to have no innate understanding that parts of the world are separate from them and their concerns. To a child, everything that they experience is about them and because of them. It is estimated that we develop empathy (here meaning an ability to consider others' experiences) by roughly 8 years of age. As with all abilities, empathy requires support to fully develop, so this depends on individual experience. Along with empathy, it is likely we also differentiate our self from the rest of the world during the same process. After all, it requires understanding that others are separate from ourselves in order to empathize with their differences. To believe that I should get what I want simply because I want it, or want it "more" (what scale measures that?) than someone else, is a selfish and egocentric belief. Once we are able to understand that others have similar desires, we can start to outgrow this tendency. We find it is just part of living with other humans that only sometimes do we get what we want. Unless there is an unlimited supply of something, we must take turns. This knowledge can inform our social development, as how we seek to fulfill needs comes into contact with others.

Above, I mentioned "worthiness and competition", and now these ideas come into focus. We must have methods for sharing, determining whose turn it is, and mitigating disappointment. These "wins" and "losses" can influence how we see ourselves, and how deserving we believe ourselves to be. It may be tempting to construct some superhuman entity which makes these determinations, thus relieving us of the burden of being the winner. Seeing others lose out hurts us because it is natural to empathize with them. We also know what it feels like because of our own turns as the loser. However, that magical thinking denies our agency in the very things we want because it eliminates the work and sacrifice of "taking turns". It gives up our self-determination, as it becomes a matter of some "universal force" making those decisions. While it can be a mitigating strategy ("I just was not meant to win" or "God willed it so"), it allows little room for improvement and skill-building. This is why it is so closely tied with fixed and growth mindsets. For any number of reasons, the creation of a supernatural force determining who "wins" is problematic. Now that we have arrived at some understanding of the developmental and social factors involved, we have opportunities to influence what sort of world we live in. Do we prefer a competitive world where each must develop methods of manipulation (of both self and others) to achieve goals? Do we prefer a cooperative world where we accept and encourage rational and honest ways of interacting?

Why Should Religions Pay Taxes?

There is a long history of debate and numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. I am not here to reiterate those points, nor would I be the person for that. However, I do have a couple points to make I have not heard before. First, it is important to know that the central issue behind tax exemptions for religious groups here in the U.S. comes from the old slogan "No taxation without representation". The reverse of the original statement is that if one does pay taxes, then one should receive representation for that payment. Because of the historic separation between religions and federal government, the notion that taxing religious organizations would entitle them to a say in the government was a deciding factor in exempting them. Second, the current state of government and all entities (religious or not) that operate within the U.S. is that everyone benefits from taxes paid. Roads, emergency response (although not all--a topic for another time), and public assistance are a few of the notable items which all citizens and entities gain from having in place. Whether or not your house or office burns down depends on your neighbors' as much as your own fire prevention. Similarly, if your neighbor draws from public assistance, you benefit by continuing to have a stable neighbor who is not incentivized to commit crime to survive. These facts adequately demonstrate the inter-connected-ness of all in the society. This includes religious entities, who draw from the public citizenry and utilize all those same services as other private and public institutions.

On to the big idea. I propose that the benefits religious organizations enjoy should only be extended to groups like Amish, who truly separate themselves and adhere to a dogma which does keep it from engaging in public life. All the other ones should be taxed, regulated, and expected to contribute as any other business, which they are. If religious organizations had no need of "act of god" riders in their insurance policies, and did not influence the insurance of others by their claims, then fine. If they truly were non-secular, uninvolved in contemporary affairs, and not subject to the benefits of government already, then I would support (and agree with others about) religious tax exemptions. If they did not involve themselves in government and have influence over elected officials, I could see how there was a separation. However, those are not the case, and they do all impact the society at large. Even without investigating their impacts on public opinion, policy decisions, and debates about various societal topics (which are many here), it is clear that the so-called separation is a contemporary illusion and needs to be addressed.

Vampires, Werewolves, and Aliens, oh my!

For modern audiences, the "horror" genre has an appeal which seems inexplicable to some. Whether the gory type where blood spurts into the camera or the alluring, Gothic creatures which seduce the audience, there are monsters which entrance watchers of all ilks. The recent zeitgeist of The Walking Dead may be the apotheosis of the movement. All these characters are prevalent in popular culture, and most people have a familiarity with the monsters and tropes, even if they are not "horror fans".

Because of the "in-group/out-group bias", I wonder where the line is between "us" and "them" when "monsters" are made to look like us. When the shape-shifting alien, transforming lycanthrope and vampire, or freshly undead become a stand-in for those we fear live among us undetected. How movie monsters allow for a more socially acceptable expression of the revulsion people feel towards target groups. This leaves aside the intent of the writer or director in the genre, and instead focuses on the experience of the audience. Do audiences find catharsis in the opposition to and killing of movie monsters as a a way of resolving their own frustrations with others in real life? There can be a tremendous appeal, as well as relief, to having a simple answer in difficult and complex situations. In the movies, the enemy is clearly shown to have a weakness, are distinct enough to be easily detected, and all characters agree that the monsters' deaths are righteous.

In various instances throughout recent history, the portrayal of target groups as "sub-human" and "a danger/pollution in our midst" is common enough. This is often used as a pretext to escalating violence against those in the target group. Enslaved blacks in Colonial America, German Jews in WWII, and Tutsi in 90's Rwanda were all described as "looking human" while actually being something else. This is a step which makes it easier to hurt and kill someone: to consider them as not human. In essence, this is not a critique or dismissal of horror; rather, it is an acknowledgement of how influential such entertainment media can be. I would caution folks to be aware of this tendency and, likewise, not dismiss the possibility of this pervasive notion: the alien among us, the monster who looks like us.

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.