Where Did the Money Go? Part the Second

Now that there are some general statements made about how the system works, we can analyze a couple points that should be evident as problematic.

Continuing with the assumption that spending is the proper function of money, then an obvious problem would be the opposite: hoarding. The refusal to use money robs the Economy of all the activity that money would produce. It cannot be loaned out and no longer circulates. This can also be recognized as “extracting money from the system”. The term extractive processes has become more widely used in recent decades, but typically gets ascribed to industries like mining, forestry, oil & gas drilling, fishing, and even farming. When it comes to the economy itself, or the practice of draining money from circulation into private coffers, it has not been invoked. However, the extreme disparity of “wealth” using terms like “the 1%” are fairly common nowadays. What if even this framework does not adequately contextualize the problem? Here lies the central question prompting this pair of posts. To continue, there are 2 main culprits to address when it comes to extraction from the economy: the obvious and the obscure. The first, which gets attention, is tax havens, off-shore accounts, and generally "mattress money". This is why stories like the Panama Papers are important, but only partly the answer. Certainly, if money is not declared for tax purposes, there are additional issues with that. But for discussion here, the point is the removal from circulation and how that decreases what is possible for others when a single entity stuffs its own "mattress".

Now, for the second and more difficult to spot, issue: separate economies. This may conjure up thoughts of crypto-currency, but that is not what is intended. Here, we must consider another way that money is stripped from the shared or standard economy. One way to begin to picture it that many are already aware of is criminal activity. Mostly conducted with cash, this is often activity which happens along-side rather than with the general economy. Once money is spent on illegal drugs, guns, or other business, that cash has to be processed in order to rejoin the regular economy. This is called money laundering, and indicates that the criminal and regular economies are not entirely separated. A closer example would be "globalization" and the system beforehand. While this is a series of agreements, treaties, and laws which allow businesses to operate more easily across borders, many people see it as just a way for business to move away from their own area. This means that whatever money the business or worker was paid gets taken (or extracted) from that local area. Before globalization, many places did have separate economies; the spending in one town or country did not effect others. However, as many economic crises in preceding centuries indicate, the world was not entirely insulated. With these examples, we can appreciate the intended “second” factor mentioned above. In this case, it is something which operates alongside the regular economy, but has little impact on everyday persons. This would be the economy of the wealthy, whereby those individuals have created a separate pool of expenses and purchases. When it comes to entire office buildings, “super-yachts”, luxury items (cars, watches, clothes, etc.), or personal staff, the amount of money involved is absurd from a typical person’s perspective. Beyond that, however, is the fact of how much of this money is never seen in the typical person’s economy. Here is meant not the amount, but the actual dollars. Measured in millions of dollars, once this money is spent, it does not make its way back to Jane and Joe Taxpayer. These high-end items are produced, sold, and maintained by a group of people who are also wealthy (not the actual technicians, but owners of the companies, of course). The neighborhood mechanic is not working on a Bugatti; Bezo’s super-yacht is not moored down at the public dock. This is the separate economy mentioned before, the place money goes when collected by those rich individuals. Even when it is not in a tax haven, it still does little to benefit the regular Economy the rest of us deal with. It’s counted by someone, and included into the overall economy, but does it really—actually—count? If it never circulates back into the hands of a regular person who spends it at the corner market, does it really circulate? A bit like a tree in a forest that falls when no one is around, does it make a sound?

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.

 Robbins, R. H., & Dowty, R. (2022). Global problems and the culture of Capitalism. Langara College.

 

Where Did the Money Go? Part the First

This pair of posts will highlight some assumptions about and practices with money in order to challenge them.


At a basic level, most people recognize that money is a token representing some amount of effort—people work to “earn” money which is then used to purchase things the ‘worker’ desires; this also means that, as a token, money is meant to be spent. [The word “earn” is loaded with connotations about “worth”, “deserving”, and how society values different professions. While this post will not get into those weeds, it is important to recognize such beliefs as a part of the system.] In part, this means money does not drop from the sky, it always comes from an entity or person. The money you have came from someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else, ad absurdum. The point being, it does not stay still. The purpose of a token is to be used, since tokens are exchanged for something else. For example, money has no use as food, but can be traded for food. Additionally, because its function is to obtain other items, it is not serving this purpose when hoarded. Of course, someone from a poor background will object that any unspent money must be safeguarded, and rightly so. There is an unceasing need for those savings to be used at a moment's notice, often for essentials. Generally, in such circumstances, it is held against need using the "hiding it in a mattress" method; the mattress is unimportant, as the expression only indicates someplace “secure” enough and easily accessible. Because people who are poor have short and urgent timeframes, this ‘saving’ is insignificant from the viewpoint of economics, as it will be back in circulation soon enough. Once again, the morality of people being made to live in these circumstances must be a separate discussion, despite the need to bring such underlying issues to the surface. The reason for stressing the point about spending is because “saving money” is treated as though it is a positive accomplishment, as well as demonizing those who spend. However, it is possible that this is backwards, and mere marketing. Hoarding tokens serves no purpose but bolstering the ego of the hoarder, after all.

Next we will briefly differentiate the personal from the business activity of economics. Basically, gaining possession of something with the intent to sell it is a business activity rather than a personal one. In keeping with the notion of money as a token, we can use event tickets for our example. Ticket scalpers can give a general sense of how the personal differs from business activity. A person will buy a ticket to attend the event, whereas a scalper has no interest in the event and only wants to profit from the ticket. Money is like those tickets, meant to provide the holder with something the person wants. One major difference is that money is infinitely transferable. Once the money is spent, its purpose is served for that person, and it becomes ready for the next person to use. This also fits with the idea that it is meant to “circulate”, a word to describe spending or making money available to the next person. One thing to note is that while the Economy is reported as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), approximately two-thirds (66%) of this is spending! It is not trivial to focus on the circulation of money as an important part of economics. Finally, we can briefly consider using extra money to invest for profit. It turns out that much of the banking system works to ensure money is available for use through lending. For example, banks do not just lock up everyone's money in a vault and wait for them to come claim it. There is a certain amount that any bank is required by law to "hold in reserve" and make available to customers. The rest is used to lend out, as lines of credit and loans for business, homes, et cetera. Additionally, there are private investors (such as "private equity firms") whose entire business is lending money. This all continues the circulation of money while it is understood that the ‘investor’ (lender of the money) is owed the initial amount plus some extra from the ‘borrower’, or person receiving the money. This is the ‘profit’ of investing, oftentimes based on an interest rate agreed-upon beforehand. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates on most loans with the goal of encouraging or discouraging borrowing, depending on their read of which will maintain stability more effectively. This same federal system supports investors to feel confident in loaning out that money with laws around default on loans, collections, bankruptcy, and such. Not all loans go to individuals, of course. Much of investing has to do with lending money to businesses. Because of this, it is accepted practice that businesses publish accounts of their finances for review, which allows investors to determine the risk of lending money to these companies. All these safeguards create more stability throughout the economic system. This also means that, generally, there are records of where money goes and what is done with it. A few years ago the Panama Papers lent greater context to the importance of this transparency.

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.


Bowles, S., Edwards, R., & Roosevelt, F. (2018). Understanding capitalism : competition, command, and change. Oxford University Press.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Business Problems Require Business Solutions

It is ironic that many in business nowadays quote the aphorism "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and yet fail to apply it to business itself. If one only thinks about businesses, then every problem can look like something a business could fix.

It seems common knowledge nowadays that we tend to stay within a "zone of comfort" and that what one knows determines what is possible. Let us establish, first, what these mean in everyday life, and, second, how they relate to the topic at hand. The phrase "getting outside your comfort zone" is easily understood. This is about how it takes effort to break away from our typical pattern and feels risky, with the result of staying comfortable unless pushed out of that zone. We generally stick with a few standard skills or plans to overcome challenges, and struggle when those fail us. Next, what we think of as possible is dictated by the knowledge we have available. For instance, if I am ignorant of rechargeable batteries, then I will think they can only be replaced. It will not be possible for me to consider charging them again, because it is outside what I know. Therefore, it is easiest to stay inside of a comfort zone and be blind to information extraneous to one's usual activities. Our interests and education are additionally bound by the hard limit of time available each day. In the business world, there are many artificial skills necessary for success: laws and specialized regulations concerning each industry, best practices and tips from colleagues, as well as general workplace standards and culture. These things set the parameters for the business world, establishing what is possible and where people are comfortable operating. Finally, so much time is consumed by the functions of working that there is little opportunity for exploration. Being good at business and focusing on building one's skill in business naturally results in other areas of life not being as developed. Additionally, succeeding in business drives folks to stay within their successful areas, where they earn their status and self-esteem. Once this goes on for long enough, it may seem business should be the focus of everyone. Indeed, when the majority of socialization comes from the workplace, and even in off-work hours one is listening to business news and learning more about business through reading or schooling, then so much of life revolves around the activity it would be no wonder someone would think business is all-important.

However, there are problems in looking at the world through a business lens. One is simply that business remains an artificial pursuit. Spending so much time in this artificial environment, pursuing artificial demands to artificial ends, takes away the context and connection to what is real. People focused on business can lose connection and compassion for others. An example is distancing and downplaying impacts by referring to them as abstract concepts, such as when insurance companies describe amputating the wrong limb as a "medical misadventure". Another relates to areas of life which are counter to business practices. Frankly, medicine is one such area; medical decisions are not for financial gain or profitability. This is partly due to considerations about quality of life, as there are few objective measures to cover that. Additionally, an emergency is not the time to be considering money issues. Not just because it is such an emotional situation, but also that extraneous concerns can interfere with necessary treatment decision-making. Returning to the subject of a business mindset being problematic, we can recognize that business is a hierarchical practice. This means that it does not lead to egalitarian or democratic thinking, which is antithetical to much of our social and governmental aspirations. The tendencies of those in business to only consider certain viewpoints and respond more positively to higher-status individuals illustrates why. These are three of the most prominent examples, and should already demonstrate why it is important to recognize the limitations and dangers of this type of thinking.

How to Ruin Any Game in One Easy Step

I have played games since I was a child (before we had to specify "tabletop"), and am thrilled to enjoy the variety of games that are available these days. After years of playing casual as well as competitive games in various settings, I have noticed one trend. Being something I considered disappointing, I began thinking about this trend and have come to believe it illustrates a larger pattern. You may recognize this once I describe it, as I consider it to be quite commonplace. The effect is that which a 'rules lawyer' has on a game. A 'rules lawyer' (RL for this post) is an individual who spends time getting to know the rules of a game with the intent of being better-versed than other players and using that knowledge to exploit lesser-known aspects of the game or make arguments to their favor. Usually, the game will involve complexity or advanced strategy in addition to aspects of chance. Rules are, in one regard, just another aspect of the game that every player can access. They are readily available and essentially in place to keep things fair by eliminating confusion, imposing limitations, and level the playing field. However, most people just want to play, not 'waste' time with an intimate understanding of the rules. After all, the point of a game is to play, not sit around reading how to play. They get a 'good enough' sense of how to play and then set off to have fun. Instead, what often follows is everyone playing around the RL and trying to not get caught in some minute detail. If the game has a "master" or impartial arbiter, then the RL spends time using the rules to convince that person to decide in their favor. The RL will allow other players to make mistakes, then point out the error and declare a penalty; this can also lead to players resenting or fearing the rules being used against them. RL's will spend time haggling and protesting until others simply give up, also setting a tone for the rest of the game. The RL does not need to be successful-or win-in order to alter the course of the game; just the constant threat of their antics is enough to change the mood and decisions of other players. Rather than playing the game for enjoyment, everyone else is left playing around one person; this is because if they do not counter the RL, they stand no chance of continuing to play. Once this process has started, there is no 'legal' way to change it; after all, the RL is "just playing by the rules". It is also a challenge to object because a RL is not entirely a bad faith actor. It is not that a RL seeks to stop the game, prevent others from playing, or derail the game into pointlessness. The RL is usually playing to win, even if that is accomplished by every other player quitting in disgust. Again, this is contrary to what most people see as the spirit of competition, or "sportsmanship". There is no rule that says which ways of playing are acceptable, and it isn't contained in any rule-book. It is just generally understood that games are for enjoyment, and that anything which diminishes players' fun is discouraged. In a low-stakes, relaxed setting wherein people are just together to have a good time, this is merely a nuisance. My proposition is that the same pattern plays out in other areas of life, with significantly more serious consequences.

Indeed, if we take the above examples and apply them to actual lawyers, we can find similar situations. An attorney-at-law will study the 'rules of the game' (laws, administrative rules, legal precedents, etc.) and interpret them to persuade judges. These legal rulings determine how things work in the real world and reflect what is considered "just".  However, lawyers are not hired to pursue justice, but to get the result the client wants. These legalistic opportunists seek to exploit every angle and loophole in order to win. In doing so, they leave no room for actual justice, arguments for virtue, or humanity. After all, the "justice system" is intended to strip away the human, emotional component in order to arrive some dispassionate and objective ruling. It was meant to eliminate the arbitrary and biased system of personal favor and "keeping people in their place". This is where the examples from above begin to sneak in, because those same RL tendencies to bend the rules towards personal goals are what have crept back into the legal system. Just the same as in the above RL examples, it is all there, in black and white, they are "just playing by the rules". Just as above, even if it is a minority of 'players' using the RL approach, it begins to change the way the 'game' is played for everyone. I recognize this can sound harsh, and I am using this tone in order to convey how harmful I see this approach as being. It is not to disparage the professionals who work within the system designed in this flawed manner. The criticism is that some number of actual attorneys are willing to take the RL approach, and this serious flaw has been allowed to warp the legal landscape.

There is no "level playing field" when a minority of the players start out with an intent to play the game to crush the will of other players rather than adhere to the "spirit" of the game. Because, truly, there is no way to demonstrate-clearly and ineluctably-that supposed "spirit". Finally, it is an irony that laws are the rules of our "justice system", yet even they cannot determine what constitutes justice.

Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

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.

What Keeps Us Safe

I propose that it is business that is the best defense. Guns and bombs aren't "making the world safer," and "a strong military is the best deterrent," is false. Instead, what keeps people from attacking and destroying a place is that place having what those people need. It is very difficult to destroy the only source of food or clothing, and it is a tremendous waste of effort to occupy a country just to insure they continue to produce them. Instead, establishing a mutual business relationship is securing the interests of all involved to maintain the status quo. People will go to great lengths to eliminate a bully, and nations are no different.

Self-Castration is Not Safety

First, I have elected to present this argument initially as a sex issue. This is drawn from the dominant culture arguments on the topic, however, since it is inaccurate I shall strive to bring it back to reality after the initial exploration. Second, and for clarity, I do not support violence in any form. There is no way in which I mean any of the following as blaming or as excusing retaliation. All human issues are complex and complicated, as are we humans. Finally, I can only urge and implore readers to accept discomfort in reading difficult writing; it is by challenging ourselves that we open the opportunity for learning.

 

Men have not taken women's power, and have never given it back. Women do not take men's power, men give up their power-most often in order to see seem less threatening to women. Because the things men are can be seen as negative, men pack away assertiveness, assurance, and audacity. There have been years of overt and covert labeling and shaming of men in order to "make women safe" and "make men less violent". Ironically, taking away a man's ability to defend himself is more likely to result in an act of violence. As a man is rendered defenseless, he feels more vulnerable. This leads to increased likelihood of feeling attacked, as he fears that any attack will be successful (since he can no longer defend himself). There is also the increased risk that an undefended attack will do more damage, even more than the attacker intended. So, this man will be more wary and guarded, which will lead those around him to judge that something is amiss, and suspecting him of being "on edge". This means they treat him differently, he becomes more wary, and the cycle builds until it fulfills itself. This is all backwards, as persons need to reclaim their own power instead of demanding others lose their power. This is where we begin to move away from the "female/male" expression of the issue, as the players can be any groups. Sex, gender, religion, culture, or geographic groups all play out these dynamics.

 

Additionally, there is a tendency for the oppressed to become the oppressors; essentially, for retaliation. This is a cycle of violence wherein each oppressed group fights to get out of oppression and, stuck in the mindset of loss and violation, they seek to victimize/violate their former tormentors in order to demonstrate to themselves and others that they are no longer victims. However, if each group who takes power is prone to this violence, then there is no end to the cycle. Each previously oppressed group goes on to oppress others, creating a future wherein the now-oppressed must fight out of oppression and then goes on to oppress their oppressors. Some group has to be the one to relent and allow for their own victimhood to teach how bad it is, and advocate instead for the elimination for all oppression.

The answer to insecurity is never about tearing down, but rather to build up and raise all to a healthy minimum of self-esteem and power so that the abilities of others poses little threat. When all are secure in their own abilities is when true freedom begins.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

I did not take seriously the possibility of someone so obviously unfit, unqualified, and unbelievable. I dismissed out of hand, denied with disdain, and scoffed with self-satisfaction. I did not consider for a moment that a great number of people could be swayed by their own disaffected frustration with the way things are. I was as lulled into complacency as so many privileged citizens have been. It is still unthinkable to me that this terrible individual had a chance of being given such a position. He is so demonstrably incapable of the dignity, restraint, and consideration required to be a leader. I look at him still and see the opposite of nearly all attributes that make a person fit for an elected office, let alone one at such a level. I put his chances of success on par with the possibility of Mickey Mouse being elected.

To be clear, these are not excuses. I am not asking for mercy for my error, and I fully recognize that I will be paying a price for my pride. No, this is to explicate my own responsibility and demonstrate how I missed all the opportunities to prevent this travesty. Instead, I should have been making efforts to talk with those individuals who were accepting and supporting the messages that Trump-the-candidate was spouting. It is not in my power to change DNC/RNC policies, I cannot lobby or buy media time, nor can I influence large number of people at rallies. However, I can reach out and build relationships with those who believe differently than I do.

In this way, most of all, is how I failed. I believe it is because we don't have good relations and strong, mutual respect for "others" that people like Trump succeed. Those "divisions" allow us to be steered like cattle by persuasive personalities. I use scare quotes because those words are artificial constructs and the emphasis denotes how they don't fit in reality. Lately, and with tremendous effort, I have begun looking for positive outcomes. In this case I have hopes that there may be some yet.

I cannot ignore this situation, and hope that no one else is able to, as well. I have been shaken from my complacency, and I hope that everyone else is also. I realize that things can truly be worse, and believe that others want that not to happen. We can come together, and need to more than ever.

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.

The Factory Model of Humans

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

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

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

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

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

"Crowd" sourcing

Work is supposedly about employees trading their labor for wages, pushed as a model of simplicity and equity. It can be seen as extracting from workers the lifeblood that keeps businesses alive, rather than supplying workers the means to live. What began as layoffs, outsourcing, and downsizing became the new normal, and is now being sold to workers as 'freeing' and a boon to 'motivated self-starters'. The idea is to work two or three low-paying, part-time jobs without benefits because, "Why put your eggs all in one basket," and, "Why depend on work for health insurance"? In addition, we have a slew of 'startups' that want to (allow workers to) take advantage of these conditions. Uber, Airbnb, and other 'collaborative consumption' companies - supposedly parts of a new 'sharing economy' - offer the illusion of opportunity, profitability, and a community base. They are packaged as creating opportunities for individuals to live the dream of independent contracting: set your own schedule, choose which jobs to take, be 'your own boss', and leverage your assets into unlimited earning potential.  The upstarts claim disruption, and an alternative to 'the establishment', supposedly easing the way for regular folks to cash in. Rather than taxi companies hogging the market, these companies will allow regular people to get in on the action. Instead of paying for a mortgage (or lease), one can become part of the hospitality industry and get a little extra for minimal effort. However, they are still privately owned companies looking to maximize profit for themselves.

It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.

A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.


I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.


Wikipedia list of companies

Excellent article on pros and cons


Uber and taxis

Airbnb and San Francisco

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.

Insidious

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

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

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

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

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

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

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

What is a Lie?

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

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

LIE (noun)

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

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

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie.

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

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

Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms: truth.

 

TRUTH

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

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

4. the state or character of being true.

5. actuality or actual existence.

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

7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

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

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


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

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

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