The Selling Never Stops

With all the talk of AI blurring the line between real and virtual, it is good to remember that this is hardly a new problem. Certainly, the fakery comes with more convincing audio and video, but the basic challenge of discernment of what is genuine has been an ongoing problem for much longer. Whether it is makeup or "airbrushing" photos, people have been improving their looks for the duration of civilization. In the computer era, there has been technology which enables live video and audio replacement for years now. It may be questionable if that OnlyFans model is actually who they appear to be, after all. The real issue is that marketing, promoting, and begging for attention have become so ubiquitous it is tough to know the difference. Because every business is constantly needing to gather more, it requires perpetual effort to find that new "angle" or "in" to "reach potential customers". Advertisements that do not look like they are selling anything, a "recommendation" from an online "friend", or a fake dating site profile are all examples of businesses with a "novel marketing campaign".

There is frustration that comes from not knowing if someone is being genuine or if that piece of mail is junk marketing. Suspicion begins to creep into everyday interactions; the thought that some "offer" is not just a lure but a scam to get one's time or money. Even a friend calling with a "remarkable opportunity to get in on the ground floor!" is met with skepticism (one should be wary anyway, MLM's still exist). In every aspect of one's life, one must be on-guard against such irritating scams and false claims. It is this wearying battle that one wages everyday and creates another barrier to honest, authentic connection. If you find yourself doubting more of the world, possibly this is part of the reason why. Socialization is important, but it gets sabotaged by factors such as this. We need more spaces free from commercialism, where people are able to just be their messy, flawed selves.

 

Edit Nov 24: Pokemon Go players receive shocking news.

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.

Telling on Myself

I sometimes find, looking around at the public-facing aspects of  the world, that things seem so much better for others. This is not about economics or privilege. Here I mean that they seem to have things together, are more organized, and demonstrate a level of competence which seems enviable. It is only through experience and exposure that type of thinking can be counteracted and corrected, because it is not true.

Therefore, I want to comment on process: why it is that posts appear regularly, even if they do not. The trick is not writing as each is posted, but stockpiling ideas and working the post until it is satisfactory. The easiest way to meet a deadline is to already be done when agreeing to a date to finish the project. For example, I have a backlog of ideas that come out as they are ready. The time between posts, I am working on multiple ideas and getting them completed as they take shape. This way, I should be better able to meet my own targets for scheduling. However, there are times this is tougher than expected.

Recently, I had some ideas that seemed simple at first. I do my best to keep these basic and uncomplicated, both so that I am able to feel confident in my accuracy and so posts are easy for anyone to read. However, sometimes I run into the issue that not everything in life is simple enough for an average, non-professional writer to cover. This means that my schedule is disrupted, I get behind, and may need to fall back on a simpler post—or write an explanation. Even this is turning into exposition, commenting on our public expectations being different from our private experiences.

I do not write this blog to make money, and have done my (technologically challenged) best to disable all the annoying monetization widgets that come along with so much of the internet. Still, I do not write just to push electrons around, to paraphrase an old expression. I do wish to offer a perspective that may have something new, to provoke thought and discussion, especially in directions or on topics that are atypical. I am not especially educated, nor wealthy, but I believe this does not (or should not) exclude me from being heard; I hold the same expectation for anyone who reads this. No matter who, where, or when you are, whatever your background or financial situation, I believe your voice matters and should be listened to.

Learning from Lies

We spend a good amount of time listening to music, absorbing news, browsing social media, watching shows and movies, so what are we actually learning from all this? How many people learn exclusively through popular culture or media? How many develop ideas about behavior in a relationship or at work, or other social expectations? What about beliefs, attitudes, or views about what is normal? For example, what are the messages you got from your favorite movie growing up? These are a few basics of media literacy (although more attention has been paid to evaluating validity in recent years). The impact of passive consumption—simply meaning times when critical analysis is suspended—is what we consider here.

Of course, no one 'expects' media to be models of how to behave; we are meant to learn those from our families and cultures in childhood. However, the inescapable tendency of being a social creature is to project ourselves into those stories and relate to the characters. This is a power of stories, to make a personal connection and change our awareness through that connection. Additionally, many children are not given tools to evaluate media and parents are too busy working to spend time on more than the basics of child-rearing. The same trap can befall a child who does learn from their parents, but is never given the tools to interpret their parents' examples. Obviously, stories are dramatized to keep us engaged, but does that prevent absorbing messages about behavior as well? This question is implicitly being asked in recent conversations about how news covers shootings, or even what events are chosen for audiences. The very act of including something in a broadcast and spending time on it gives that news item importance. The FBI's own information shows that the U.S. is significantly safer now than in past decades, yet the belief most commonly expressed in media is that of increasing danger.

Just knowing if something is true or made-up is not enough since both create an impact. We need context to accurately evaluate what we experience, and critical thinking/media literacy is about analyzing context. In recognizing how these media and messages are shaping society, we have an obligation to ask critical questions. We are also within our rights to demand these media be responsive to our analysis.

Who is the Best Dog Walker?

You are.

That is the answer, although if you want to know why then you must read on. We can break down the modern system like this: I do not have enough time to walk my dog because I am away from home so much, therefore I need to spend even more time away in order to earn enough to pay someone else to do so. This is part of the endless cycle of consumption and depletion, as we spend our life turning time into money that is then used to buy things with that money which are supposed to save us time. While it may be good for the overall 'capital-e Economy', it does not actually fulfill the promise to participants of freeing them from the spiral into exhaustion and madness. It is the circular logic of needing to work in order to afford necessities, which leads to not having the time and energy for enjoyable activities, only needing to pay for increasing numbers of things; every decision leads deeper into the labyrinth of losing ones' life to working. If the COVID-19 Pandemic has demonstrated anything about our society, it is that there are numerous flaws in its expectations and applications. Many had an opportunity to step back from "the rat-race" and experience a life not dictated by the clock, a job, or other demands outside the home. Why do we spend time on things that do not matter to us in order to be "given" time to do those things which do matter? With news articles and dubious experts lamenting and commenting on the shift away from work and towards life, we can see some of those expectations changing. 

This raises the next question of why is time caring for others not valued? Here, we are reviewing some critiques leveled previously by feminists. Let us take an important example: raising children. Certainly, if we repeat the above example and substitute dog-walking with parenting, there is a clear malfunction in the system. The desire to have children is similarly from a menu of selfish motivations, the most popular being love. This loving motivation makes parents want to spend time with and care for their own children. Now we return to the original question in its new form: since a parent should have the time and resources to care for their own child, why is that not a societal expectation? Why is the parenting role (or job) looked down upon as less important than working for someone else? Why are children made into a burden on individuals when all children grow up and join the surrounding society, which collectively benefits from another generation of adults? Kahlil Gibran wrote, "Your children are not your children." He was elucidating the point that while parents care for children, they do so temporarily and with the goal of turning them loose on the rest of us. It seems obvious that even a selfish person would want those parents to do the best possible job of raising healthy humans. This ought to make some of those flaws in society referenced earlier stand out more clearly. Let us conclude by examining one last aspect of this maddening system. The question of why this is not apparent to everyone and discussed in public as with other important issues we face?

This is a byproduct of the pace of life under the consumerism model. Both because we are trained to think that fulfillment comes from buying things and simultaneously to believe that we are the only ones responsible for our own condition. Also, being exhausted does not lead to reflection in those brief moments between work, shopping, and recovery from those activities. This is why it was only during the pandemic that people could get more of an outsiders' view of these issues, when so many distractions were unavailable. Also, why so many were uncomfortable with the state of leisure, similar to those who retire and do not know what to do with their time away from work. We could say that our exhaustion is a feature and not a bug of the system. The question now becomes what to do with the realization that this model does not serve the majority of people.

What is this "Labor Movement"?

I have often heard the concept mentioned, especially when referring to history, such as learning about early industrialization and the shift to factory work. However, it seems like it is equally distant when mentioned in the news today. It is talked about as if it were somewhere remote or unreachable, like a group of people separate from those I know and detached from society in general. This seems similar to how "the economy" is discussed; it is not talked about as the collection of purchases made by the citizenry, but as some distant and unknowable beast. However, these are similar as they are both the collective actions of all people in a society. This can be a challenging idea in a capitalist and individualistic society.

The labor movement is you, and me, and them. It simply refers to the collective actions of workers, and it can be beneficial to workers or to owners. When employees know and demand their rights, the labor movement is stronger than when employees are cowed and allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Believing that employers have the power at work keeps the labor movement from acting. Every time someone is paid less than another, time off work is denied, an employee is told to find their own replacement when ill, pay raises do not keep up with inflation, or a worker is fired for no good reason, the labor movement is weakened. It is imperative that the labor movement be strong, as it is the only balance to the overwhelming power of owners who gobble up more of society and the planet.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

Rather than something like selfishness or egotism, this is referring to identity and self-perception. It is, in fact, about the commodification of those central issues and how difficult it can be to actually place ones self into the center of attention. First, let us examine what many people use as substitute for identity and then we can contrast that to what could be a more healthy construction.

Generally, when we talk of ourselves, we use job, status, and affiliation; this is not to disregard the value in having quick shortcuts that others can easily understand. However, by focusing on these items, we see our self and others as these labels rather than as a starting point to understand more. It becomes problematic when we are handed these definitions and given no choice about what they mean or how we are shaped by them. Rather than the label being an extension or expansion of who we are, it narrows or stunts that self-expression by deciding what we say or do. Some examples include "liberal" or "Republican", groups that give political distinctions and have developed numerous connotations over the years. If one expresses something different than the generally accepted view of what that label is, then one "is not really liberal." Whether one is a football or music fan, which team or artist is supposed to say something about who one is; whether "we" are winning this season, or if our artist is popular or obscure (and hence we are mainstream or counter-culture). Or we do not watch and follow sports and therefore are not a "real man", one of the most dangerous labels in society that leads to all sorts of twisted logic and harm. What all these labels or affiliations end up doing is inverting the expression of who I am by subjugating my identity to a team, party, or organization. How those are seen by others then effects how they see "me" because of my affiliation. When a political party leader or team coach says something I do not agree with, I am forced to do the work of distancing myself from that party or team because of the automatic assumption that as part of that group, I must agree with everything it does. There is a strong tendency to remain unaware of all these pitfalls and simply take the package of assumptions that come along with any affiliation. Many people act as if a descriptor determines who someone is; that by knowing one single label they can determine who that person is in toto. By pointing this out, the absurdity should become clear.

Rather than using the map as the terrain, it would be better to raise our eyes from the labels and affiliations to see the actual person before us. This does not mean to disregard that these groupings exist, but that they are expressed and experienced differently by each person. What it means to be part of a club can vary and mean different things to different people; being curious about what those differences are can lead to better understanding and connection. "I joined because they have cool hats", "I enjoy the durability of their products", or "I think they have answers for the problems we face" are all valid reasons for people to choose a group to join. They are, however, very different reasons and demonstrate how important it is to understand what someone's connection to a label is. For ourselves, recognizing that even belonging to a club does not define us is a start. The tendency towards para-social relationships, especially when we lack real-world connection, is strong and encouraged by business interests. Instead, we can remind ourselves that this label expresses one thing about us and not the entirety. We can even recognize some aspects that do not fit who we are, and make a conscious choice about our affiliation and it's limits. The main thrust of this is to not mistake one part of a person for the whole of who they (or we) are.

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.

Controlling the Narrative

There are things you don't want anyone to know, for fear of judgement; they may be things you're struggling to understand and are uncertain of how to address them. How far can this be taken before it is harmful? Can it ever be healthy? On a basic level controlling (or attempting control of) what is known is distorting reality-also known as lying. If every part of each aspect of a situation were known to others as I know them, there would be no mystery or deception. When I work to keep information from others-in part or in whole-then I want to shape another persons' perception. I do not want them coming to their own conclusions; rather, I want to control what they think. This may be an extraordinary interpretation, but it is not an irrational one. It is commonplace, and often unconscious, to tell only part of the story-even to tell the story which places us in the best light. Whether it is malicious or harmful is separate from the fact of it happening. Note that I will use "lie" as the root word for this discussion for the sake of brevity and simplicity.

Positive public relations in business puts a "spin" on things by only giving out particular information. It is a recognized form of public affairs, and can rely on claims of "intellectual property" and "trade secrets". This can move from complete and factual statements about something into "cherry-picking" only positive aspects, even to suppressing vital 'negative' information that consumers would need in order to make a fully informed decision. The need for private companies to be seen as beneficent entities leads to dubious statements. Naturally, this has extended into advertising, with companies making claims about products that are rather ridiculous lies. Similarly, individuals in the public eye (i.e. celebrities, politicians, and spokespersons) can have personal and professional needs around public image and control of information. We can see this in various campaigns and agencies. However, sometimes "staying on message" can be a form of disinformation-a special kind of lie. Again, we return to the idea that not everything is exposed; there are some things that those advertising their wares are scared of coming to light. These examples can have a far greater impact than those of an individual. I skim over this aspect because it is not the focus of the post, and deserves more exploration another time.

When it is an individual controlling or seeking to decide what is seen or known, we may call it 'privacy', 'secrecy', or 'confidentiality'. We may have select friends we tell all things to, while others receive only cursory or superficial versions of events in our life. Social media is an excellent example: the struggle to always appear positive and likable, as having it all together. It may go beyond "polite" topics, and become a neurotic competition for approval. However, in these situations the harm is fairly restricted to a few individuals around the liar. While it can lead to fervent defense, shame, and "family secrets", it will not have widespread impacts. There's more going on, and as much denial as is put into it, a person cannot succeed at 'spin' and remain authentic.

This is where the topic becomes more intriguing, because an unintended effect of lying is one of denying authentic connection. Rather than letting ones' mistakes and limitations be known, one chooses to obfuscate and deny their existence. This places a barrier between parties, known on one part and sensed by the other. The liar must guard against the lie being found out, for fear both of being judged for the original action as well as for covering it up. The other party begins to place the liar out of reach, as being 'other' in some way; they may not suspect lying, but know that somehow the liar is different. We all know that we are imperfect, and either we have a damaged self-image and think we're alone in that or a healthy self-image and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. If others don't own up to mistakes, we have to suspect something is wrong somewhere.

Finally, it is this social aspect that is at the heart of the matter. Because we are social creatures, and require connection, how we achieve that connection is vital. Basically, either we can connect to others through control or through vulnerability. There is a part of being around others that involves the challenge of judgment. The fear of rejection is the most common motivation for lying. Yet losing connection is the biggest risk of lying. This is an inherent tension of willing to be known by others. Additionally, others cannot struggle with their own judgements if I am not putting who I am in full view. This-again-is part of being human: to experience judgments. Here it is both judging others and being judged by others. The opportunity to be challenged by differing judgments or facts. These judgements are separate from truth or self-image; however, they matter because a healthy human requires the acceptance of other humans. That challenge of facing a difficulty and encountering it directly builds a more solid individual; we could say that it builds character.

On Discussions of Human Nature

I propose that the discussion of the nature of humans is actually less a point about how people are than it is about the nature of discussing humans. What I mean is that while we go on arguing about people 'being inherently good/bad' we are using words and concepts that are contemporary and mutable ('good' can be defined differently throughout millennia). There may or may not be any true "human nature" that we all share, but the long history of making it out to be one thing or another demonstrates the evolving views of those who discuss it. For instance, from "Satan" to "humours" to "astrological influence" to "biological determinism", these ideas simply show where public opinion leads to thinking on the subject. It does not actually reflect on how we are as a species, only our limited and temporal (temporary) thoughts about ourselves.

Another issue with this topic is that thoughts may come from individuals who have either done or not done their own 'personal growth' work. Here, I introduce the psychological concept of "projection", whereby things I dislike about myself get assigned to others around me. My point here is that someone who believes humans are essentially evil or sinful may not have confronted their own demons or Jung's concept of "shadow", and therefore has little real understanding of others. These individuals talk about their own opinion or understanding of the world from their own skewed viewpoint and make their own shortcomings about others.

 It is nearly impossible to see things objectively, as we are all seeing the world from a necessarily singular, individual viewpoint. Instead of demanding that all people are one way or another, it may be more helpful to consider each person as they are. Rather than demanding that 'everyone is selfish' and behaving as if that were true, find out how each person is on their own. We can, at a minimum, acknowledge that-despite a possible 'nature'-all humans are able to change and grow. This would allow us to accept how we are now while working to become better versions of ourselves.

How Seeking Identity Sucks

While the push for individuality is prevalent and seen in diverse media throughout daily life, it is juxtaposed with the fundamental refusal of self-reflection within the U.S. culture. Briefly, this refusal is demonstrated by the constant blame of "others", denial of wrongdoing by "me" (whoever is speaking), and lack of transparency in discourse or dialogue. This dynamic becomes an inauthentic parade to display for others rather than actually express ones' individuality. Without the ability to find and accept who one is, the result is the suppression of self and taking on of roles. This can be seen in the way people talk about each other, as family, friends, coworkers, etc. Labels like "my rock", the "fun friend", "Blanche to my Dorothy" (substitute your own pop-culture reference), or the "go-to guy" are prevalent. One may seek to 'live up to' a reputation, or to use one of the above labels in order to be unique or, more precisely, to have value. Believing one only has value as an individual because of being witnessed and judged as being an individual does not indicate a healthy self-image.

 

A part of the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is the futile flight from conformity. Individuality can be an internalized form of domination when people are trapped by thinking that their value only has to do with money. The fear of being seen as the same as everyone else (especially potent in an individualistic society) means that wealth is the only way to be oneself since the wealthy are the ones seen as expressing individual flair (and deserving of the label 'iconoclast'). The Lego Movie shows us the danger of conforming, and how forgettable Emmet is before becoming 'The Special'. Even Wyldstyle disdains him openly for not being a Master Builder. The initial message is that anyone who has no discernible outward or visible difference is nothing. It is only at the end of the movie that we find the concept that every individual has something to offer as themselves. This mirrors the reality that people can feel and see, where social media and popular culture are filled with sensational, odd individuals and stolid, sensible people are dismissed.

 

The question of self can also be found when I blend in to various groups and don't seem to have a solid "me"-sometimes people will say they are a 'chameleon'. This is actually an example of humanity, universality, and commonality amongst all of us. It is not a problem or suspicious to be able to relate, since we are all more alike than we are irretrievably different. It also relates to the concept of code-switching, an important ability to act appropriately in different situations.

 

Finally, what would it mean to have an identity? If I do accept myself, does anyone else? Is the essence of who I am only valid without influence from anyone else or despite those around me? We are a social species, and depend on the social environment we swim through everyday to offer cues as to "how we are". What this means is that prejudice is learned through our surroundings, just as oppression is internalized. Contrarily, celebration of differences and equity for all can be learned through exposure to others. My ability to find and celebrate myself is a prerequisite for doing the same for others, so I hope we can make this process less daunting with time.

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.

Gaming for Those Who Do Not Game

I propose that social media are MMORPGs for non-gamers. What is a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG)? People think of World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and others [see Wikipedia]. Essentially, it is an online game environment with artificial rules and imposed goals. Create an avatar, interact with others inside the game environment, and collect items and experience that demonstrate ones' coolness. People complete in-game actions together and can make real-life friends; others join to enjoy time with friends they already know and bond more.

What is social media? An artificial environment where people create profiles that reflect what they wish for themselves, post only what appeals, mirrors the experiences that others will enjoy or envy, and has pluses and minuses (votes) to demonstrate ones' status. Instead of prehistoric, futuristic, or fantastic warriors or wizards, people choose from the 'perfect spouse', 'renegade', or 'enviable go-getter' roles. These take practice as the rules are not clear at first; the longer someone plays the social media game, the better they are able to do it. Again, some join and meet up with others in-game; some join because they know people who already participate.

This is not just an amusing example of unconventional comparison. I think this is important to recognize these parallels because they are both games. Only one of the categories, however, is recognized as a "frivolous game", even though they both are. Some people, in both camps, take it seriously, and create real-world consequences for themselves and others. I think that adjusting how social media is perceived could relieve the pressure that participants can feel. It's possible that letting things be what they are instead of making them more important will allow us to focus on what truly matters.

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.

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.

Safer Sex

I was struck by a difference of focus, and that there are various levels, much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What I mean is that we talk about and pay attention to particular aspects, but leave others unaddressed. This is potentially due to the reluctance to discuss such "personal" matters in any detail.

When it comes to talking about sex, there have been advances made in providing information about condoms, gender and sexuality, and protecting against physical attacks. All important topics, and they should be part of every young person's education. Yet these are just basics, and we still struggle to have accurate, rational discussions about them. There are so many more parts, deeper and more intimate than just which fleshy bits go where.

The emotional, spiritual, and mental aspects of sex, and relationships in general, are so much more fundamental as well as essential. I have found that these latter points have an under-recognized (or at least under-discussed) importance, and I want to bring them into the fore. It has been through exposure to many influences that I recognize this, but I want to especially recognize Dr. David Schnarch. I highly recommend his books for everyone.

Speaking for myself, when I don't feel safe to be emotionally vulnerable to my partner, I don't want to be intimate. It has taken me a long time to realize this basic, simple correlation. I am less able to be open, to express my wants, or be willing to fulfill my partner's wishes when I am feeling distant to them. Bluntly: when I'm feeling psychically closed off, I want to keep my legs closed.

Beyond physical safety (a barrier and/or consent), there are considerations for long-term relationships. This is what I mean by "safer". After people have established their power dynamics and safewords, then what? That's where the real relationship of sex begins, I think. That is where not doing the dishes or staying out late begins to influence how attracted I am to my partner. When them getting what they want outside the bedroom begins to influence how receptive I can be inside it.

So, instead of thinking, "I'm not as attracted to them lately, it must be [their hair, weight, or paycheck]." It could be, "I really don't like when they [call me 'fat' or 'crazy', disrespect me in front of others, or dismiss my opinions on meaningful topics." Sex is not merely physical, and neither are sexual "problems".

An Exploration of Nonviolence

There are a few points I want to make here, but they all lead up to what is the main idea I had for this post. I will work to be brief with the preliminary items in order to get to the point.

First, I find it cumbersome to define or describe something by what it is not. This may be better labeled peacefulness or "peace-able-ness", but the traditional term Ahimsa may be best.

Next, this works with human nature, not despite it. Not to get into another discussion, but there are a number of incorrect assumptions built up around what constitutes "Human Nature". I will leave that for another time, as I want to get to the point.

Finally, as social beings we are inclined not just to relate, but also will respond to the suffering and needs of others.

Nonviolence requires the development of an effective means of self-defense. The peaceful practitioner must not only engage in not harming others, but also in preventing the violence of others. I'm not advocating some sort of pseudo-nonviolent militarism. If we accept that all life is precious and deserving of preservation, then we consider the 'victim' as well as the perpetrator and surrounding community. It is precisely because we feel the pain of others that we must prevent the perpetrator from committing their violent act. It is because our own injury or death at the hands of another human would continue to hurt those who care about us that we must prevent the violent act of the perpetrator. We cannot always do this with kind words and calm requests. There is not always time to relate, especially when the other is out-of-control (meaning not rational in the moment). Most perpetrators regret or repent their acts, given time, incentive, and opportunity to examine them. It is imperative that we avert the calamity and the near-perpetrator progress towards repentance. To accomplish this goal, we must have a way of incapacitating the perpetrator that is effective, but does not inflict undue violence (as this would make us a perpetrator in turn).

This also stipulates that the prevention of violence is always the 'highest good', and it would not serve a 'higher' cause to suffer or die instead.

Fairy Tale Ideals

Communication is difficult. It's tricky for me to be clear in writing and I work hard to be understood, just as I do in person. I judge I'm not alone in struggling to have others understand what I say. It struck me the other day how easy it is in fairy tales for people (and even non-human entities) to talk and understand one another. This ties in with my complaint about how simplistic and dichotomous these stories are. There isn't any doubt about what the princess wants, so the prince doesn't need to ask to marry her. Neither is there any question of what should happen to the big, bad wolf or evil stepmother. It's right there as part of their names.

Anderson, the Grimms, and Disney are not the only ones to blame. Parents who have not resolved their own unrealistic expectations and communication issues are a bigger problem. It becomes a cycle where unprepared and immature adults pass on their limited understandings the best they can to their children. I see this as no less a responsibility than talking calmly to rather than hitting a child to teach them.

These stories in no way prepare children to form realistic understandings of the world, and that would be fine if they had nothing to do with the topic of shaping expectations. However, these stories are moral tales that give a sense of fairness and the benefits of being "good". Especially since these are the stories that the most important people in the child's life choose to share they have a serious weight and importance. Being backed up by flashy media and repackaging of the same ideals outside the home contributes to the problem.


When children grow up with this, they must struggle to integrate these ideals into the reality they encounter. Since these books and movies are so simple, they are led to believe that communication should be effortless and bad people wear pointy hats or have fangs. What can it mean when they have trouble talking with others? What are they supposed to think when their "prince" can't just read their mind? How can they have realistic expectations of themselves and their partners with all these stories of "true love" flying around? What about when their princess doesn't share their ideas of fairness and how to be "good"? Or when their stepmother comforts them after dad beats them?

I'm glad for movies like Shrek and Up because they are showing a different side to these fables. I can even appreciate some of the recent contributions to female empowerment through movies like Brave (and I've heard many great things about Maleficent). I think there need to be more relate-able and honest stories like these for our children. They can handle some reality in their fantasies.

Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.