Thinking with Magic

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

Allowing outdated notions like miasma or 'evil spirits' causing illness, ridiculous ideas like a 'flat earth' or 'ancient aliens', and just wrong beliefs like 'young Earth' or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

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

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

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

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

The True Purpose of Philosophy

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

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

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

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

Art of the Handshake Deal

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

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

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

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

An Extreme State of Mind

    I am writing this because it addresses something that has been important for me, personally. The title is not about politics. It is not a diagnosis nor mental illness, and is not about "fixing" anything, nor to start a "trend"—I am not an "influencer" (ick).

     What this has to do with is being subject to the dichotomy of "all-or-nothing" and "on or off". The general expectation is having low- or medium-intensity emotions, with people ranking things in order of preference or "being mildly annoyed versus angry or irate", all being higher or lower states of the emotion. However, I find that I do not experience this in many ways. Instead, it seems there are two categories: "important things" and "not". Choosing dinner, which show to watch, or any number of choices are trivial; other people care, they will even argue passionately for their preference. However, most of these day-to-day items do not rise to the level of "important" enough to care about for me. In all other ways I can detect, these is nothing different about me. I have been to therapy and had diagnostic instruments used to detect mental health issues; similarly, I have been seen by a physician all my life with no abnormalities reported. I express emotions and have memories that are easy to recall, I experience pain and exhilaration as others do. I have friends, work, engage in hobbies, and enjoy my family—essentially "normal" in every discernible way, except this minor oddity. It can seem as though I am simply content to "go with the flow" or that I do not actually care about anything that much. However, that is not the case; I have struggled at times to overcome others' expectations about what I "should" care about. In being authentically me in this way, it has appeared as weird or wrong to others.

    Again, this is not about being "special" or having an "excuse" for the way I am. It is simply about understanding something about me and accepting that it for what it is. It causes no difficulties, but serves as a clear indication of something that needs to be addressed. It is not a choice to feel the depth of passion about those few subjects and be dismissive of the others. I have some amount of pride, in truth, that instances of injustice and oppression will trigger such a strong response. My outrage or other strong emotion impels me to say something no matter how impolite it may seem or uncomfortable it makes me, and that is useful. It can be helpful that anyone around me is taken by surprise, only because it causes them to pay more direct attention and analyze the situation differently than if everyone were simply clucking their tongues and saying "isn't that a shame".

    I share this for two reasons. First, in case there are other folks out there with a similar "oddity". Second, to convey that whatever anyone's particular peculiarity is that is "just part of them", it should be acceptable. Despite the disruption to social norms or "decorum", these traits can be useful.

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.

A Nation of Placebo Addicts

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

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

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

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

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

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

This One Simple Trick....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping Down the Jonses

In medicine, the term 'anosognosia' means the patient cannot recognize their own condition. A person literally cannot conceive of the issue or connect the cause with the effect of their own suffering. This is similar to — although distinct from — when we cannot examine own situation as objectively or dispassionately as an outsider could. While this is a common and important human flaw to be aware of, it is different than the patient's blindness: the inability to connect varying symptoms with the underlying disease. It is also different than having others mislead or deny information that would allow one to understand the problem; the term gaslighting may come to mind for some. We need to be clear about these different causes and conditions in order to recognize how to fix our situation. The objective here is to expand the conversation and provide better tools for examining our collective problems.

Additionally, individuals and groups attempt to exploit ignorance, confusion, and desperation by offering self-serving explanations. It is the reason we have scammers, fascists, demagogues, and "influencers" explaining away all problems as due to "godless living", "too many immigrants", "raising 'soft' children", "not 'grinding'/'hustling' hard enough", etc. The insistence that these are all personal or individual issues, despite impacting every person in the society. Claiming that mass shootings are just "lone instances" or "disturbed individuals", rather than the result of choices and influences that pervade the culture. Demanding that nobody look at the arrest, sentencing, and incarceration of minority persons — let alone the violence surrounding law enforcement towards same — as a systemic problem. The 'individual responsibility' narrative serves to maintain things as they are, and benefits those who feed off such conditions. If we were to (or were able to) examine our situation with objectivity and allow for systemic or systematic oppression, we could find solutions that we could not otherwise.

However, the suggestion here is that there exists a greater case of anosognosia than even the collective blindness to violence, inequality, or suffering that people live with every day. In fact, I propose that it is the root cause of those symptoms. It may seem odd to refer to conditions as diverse as police shootings, economic inequality, theft, houselessness, addiction, everyday callousness, political apathy, excessive imprisonment, despair, and extractive practices as anything other than causes themselves. This is due to the blindness — often enforced by self-interested parties — which society has about these terrible conditions being outgrowths of a pervasive condition which supports them. Yet, after seeing the connections, one can recognize a great number of issues as symptoms of that underlying, unacknowledged root cause. Whatever name we know it by, the notion that there is some immutable scale of more and less deserving persons dictated by natural principles. The assumption that there are people who should not have power, privilege, or prestige. This is the underlying belief that makes it possible for otherwise caring and compassionate people to blame victims and excuse the mistreatment of others, thus allowing a system of oppression and suffering to continue.

Let us briefly examine one example as practice at seeing the pattern. While houselessness (previously, homelessness) has been around a long time, people in the U.S. are experiencing it in greater numbers over the past few years. There are a number of rationales for ignoring it, many bordering on the absurd. For this example, set aside budget and history, let us set aside the mundane world and imagine instead that all humans, no matter their limitations or choices, deserve food, shelter, health, and autonomy. If every person were thought of and treated as worthy and deserving — and our systems were oriented to actually ensuring the life and liberty of its citizens — then nobody could be unhoused. If the life of any person living "on the streets" was valued just as highly as any celebrity, it would be impossible to allow that person to continue to live in those conditions. Once, and only when, this ridiculous attitude is abolished, will we begin to progress into the future.

It is only because we allow ourselves to believe that there are deserving and undeserving, worthy and unworthy, valuable and disposable people that so many forms of suffering continue. It causes us to fear being put into the "unworthy" group and look down on those who are called "unworthy". It leads to systems which thrive on and contribute to the prejudicial notion of hierarchy.

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

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

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

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

The Trouble with Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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.

Moving at the Speed of Science

There are frequently headlines, news stories, and announcements circulated of breakthrough discoveries in various areas of scientific research. This is problematic for a few reasons, but let us focus on two: errors and implementation. While our current system functions, that is 'makes discoveries and produces results', it also gets enough wrong to retard progress and erode the public's confidence in scientific integrity. These issues are enough to rethink and modify our approach, as well as highlighting a need for better scientific literacy from the public.

First, the number of results which need to be retracted or modified is quite high. There have been a few widely circulated news items in the recent past addressing this issue, and acknowledging the inadequacy of measures to alert the public to such errors. To be clear, there are two parts to this: that erroneous information is publicly announced prematurely and that corrections are not announced as vigorously. These two factors lead to a tremendous amount of scientific misinformation being circulated needlessly. This is a historical trend that has been exacerbated by changes in news, mainly the intensification of the push to be first with a story that will get attention. I want to recognize that there has been a concurrent improvement in the scientific literacy of reporters, as well as increase in the number of science "communicators" (those specializing in explaining specialized information to laypersons). To be clear, disproving something or changing our understanding of information are not problems of science; those are both goals of and inherent to the process. The problems arise when non-scientists hear erroneous information presented as accurate and either never hear the correction or think the correction (or just later improved discovery) means we do not (or cannot) understand the area of study. To resolve these issues, in addition to laypeople understanding the scientific process better, the release of information needs to be slowed and de-sensationalized, results should be corroborated by reproducing experiments, and retractions or corrections need to get as much attention as the initial announcement.

Second, there are few actual emergencies. There are some times it truly is necessary to implement an immediate remedy; certainly a global pandemic is one example. However, most often there is time enough to study problems in depth and evaluate varying options for addressing them. Additionally, there is a basic need to recognize and mitigate safety concerns. This is not the approach we typically see. Probably due to the financial incentive to introduce new products or "improvements", science is treated as a business tool. By rewarding novelty and downplaying the predatory nature of the system, it perpetuates the cycle of unnecessary and disposable items that are introduced every year. I suggest most people can find discarded items in their home they thought (because advertising told them) would drastically improve their lives. Returning to the scientific realm, this same approach is applied to discovery. Because testing and improving safety of products is expensive, companies are more likely to just accept a certain percentage fail or injure users. Similarly, there seems little consideration as to whether the new item is actually of use to consumers, only if the company can make money from its introduction. There is less concern with making a good product than with getting a product out to market before someone else does. What this indicates is that the above-mentioned suggestions are not counterproductive or extreme by advocating for slowing the speed at which "discoveries" are implemented. If anything, there has been an artificial speeding-up of the process, and these suggestions  return the processes to what it should be. Not only would it improve public perception of science and progress, but would actually make a positive difference by ensuring that progress was, indeed, happening as announced.

Why Does Context or Intent Matter?

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

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

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

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

The Land of Propaganda

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

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

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

 

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

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

     We have arrived at the real issue at hand: what makes systems non-democratic is not the monarch, nor slavery, nor a state religion, nor even disenfranchisement. Those are merely outgrowths of the underlying cause. Rather, the reason they are non-democratic is commoners being kept artificially disempowered by a ‘ruling class’ in order to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This can take many forms, and gets re-invented with every iteration of government and economic system. When we citizens are barely involved and have our concerns disregarded until we have ‘enough’ polling numbers or news coverage, that is non-democratic. When only elite individuals and corporations have the ears of legislators, judges, and the executive, that is non-democratic. When income and earning decides the value of a person (especially to the extent that they will be seen as ‘worth saving’ or mourning), that is non-democratic. We are left with the disappointing conclusion that what exists in the U.S. is not—and never has been—a democracy, which can be described as a system designed to be run by its citizenry. We are simply living in a system which disguises the continued oligarchy (or plutocracy) that actually guides the government and therefore the nation. This is far from a democracy; it may be an outgrowth of capitalism, but has naught to do with bettering everyone in the nation by banding together as a society. Democracy is the rule of all for the benefit of all; in the U.S., a “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people….” Again, it doesn’t matter whether the system is called capitalist, socialist, democratic, communist, or otherwise, what matters are the underlying assumptions and principles of the society betrayed by the laws and practices of that society. In the ongoing structure of the U.S., we can see how the foundational beliefs of expansion, conquest, and supremacy have continued in the unwillingness to discuss racism and treaties signed with native peoples, the ongoing resistance to action and legislation on equality (let alone equity), the lack of accountability of elected officials to citizens, and the continued extraction of resources from land and people by business to the detriment of society. We do not have a mindset of democracy-in-action; there is not a basis of mutual respect and willingness to work together which is required of citizens who wish to conduct the administration of their community.
     In order for any change to happen, it must first seem possible. So many people seem to believe that history is over, and that things are set. Similarly, some believe that there is an inexorable march towards “progress” and advancements cannot be lost. Neither is true. This is because we have not “arrived” at some “pinnacle of civilization”, nor are we “done” changing. This is a problem with thinking of society and history as an “evolution” and erroneously thinking of evolution as some “ascension” to an end goal. It is further ridiculous to enshrine the “founding fathers” as some apex of learning and thinking. They were men of their time, and wholly human; flawed and pursuing their interests while blind to the needs of many others. This does not make them bad for their efforts, simply not of a time when they could conceive of actual equality for all citizens. It is absurd, therefore, to dismiss all we have learned since the founding of the country which indicate improvements to be made. In democracy, the government is meant to be the structure which enacts the decisions of the populace to support the continued advancement of the nation as a whole. Sometimes that can mean a radical departure from the original course. Recognize that, if we had held to those original agreements, a significant majority of current citizens of this country would not be considered as such, rather they would be seen as property. We are better than that, both in morality and in knowledge. In truth, the purpose in building something is often in order to bring the next possibility into existence. For example, wooden frames are constructed in order to provide support for the concrete poured into the form. Once the concrete sets, it creates the foundation for the house which is the end goal of all the effort. Those wooden forms are as essential to the process as the finished product, as the foundation could not exist but for those forms. Similarly, one would not consider a plan or blueprint as frivolous. Without a blueprint, we cannot know how to build the structure we seek to inhabit. Just because the plan is not the structure does not mean it is unnecessary. The current iteration of democracy is simply meant to be the form which holds the space for what will be built on top, the next step in our construction project. This essay is an invitation to discuss what we want this next structure to look like. It requires input from everyone to come up with the plan to build a structure such as a democratic government. I submit that the real democratic revolution is about to begin and that the past 250 years have been but the preamble. This revolution of thinking is not just to do away with the few ‘elites’ owning and ruling, since that is not the real issue. It is to establish that each and every commoner is just as valuable a human being as any ruler. Really, that there is nothing special or unique about an emperor, president, judge, or CEO that most others could not fill the same function—given similar opportunities and education.
     Currently, rather than every citizen having an equal voice, people are silenced, marginalized, or preoccupied so they cannot fully participate in decision-making. A participating citizen requires time and education to understand and debate the matters which require governance; without those foundations, a citizen is unprepared and disadvantaged. This is because along with the rights of citizens, there are also responsibilities which accompany democracy, such as acting in good faith and being informed. This is the unfulfilled promise of compulsory education: to provide the skills and knowledge which enable citizens to participate fully. No person (even a legislator whose job is literally to evaluate, negotiate, and enact laws) can possibly do so; without these basics, there is no “informed citizenry”. Even if it were true that some people lacked the skill, knowledge, capacity, etc. currently, it would still be the duty of every person “in power” to help create a system that worked for and included a pathway for such folks to achieve capacity. Living in a society pre-supposes a willingness to be among people who are different than myself (since we are, all of us, unique), as much as recognize what we share in common. Further, in a democracy, it is necessary to accept differences and to work with others to make the community a healthy place for all. This is where mutual respect, compromise, and good faith negotiation are important. This is a suitable introduction of another tenet of democracy, whereby citizens are obligated to participate in the system of governance—not just be subjects. This is as much right as it is responsibility, as much burden as privilege. It is presumed to be the role of citizens, acting in accord, creating consensus, and using their collective agreements to make the laws and enact the will of those same citizens. These cannot be taken lightly, nor from a position of supplication or ignorance. A citizen who does not know how to debate, reconcile, compromise, accept new information, and respect another’s opinion and experience is not in a good position. Finally, we must allow for the sheer time that it requires to participate and debate the issues of our communities. Being forced to work just to earn enough to survive is an absurdity in the modern world. To do so without any guarantee of survival when unable to work is madness. It is this repugnant treadmill which traps people in poverty and despair, eliminating even their children’s chance at improvement. This modern slavery is even experienced by citizens who consider themselves to be “doing ok”—only because this means they can remain in place with less effort than some. It does not mean they have time to spend with family, or improve themselves, and certainly not taking time to participate in community affairs. These issues, along with other obstacles to participation, need to be addressed in order to secure our democracy and create a more powerful citizenry.
     With that in mind, I wish to recognize a few impediments, and acknowledge some facts about power and oppression. It often happens that whenever an oppressed people rise to power, there is a tendency toward retribution. Even without eliminating former oppressors, the ascending group will tend to re-institute a system of oppression, just with the “sides” swapped. Abuse of power does not require villainy, or even ill intent; it can come from a belief that there are persons or groups who are incapable of change or meaningful contribution. However, when people become convinced of such differences, and especially the in-humanity of another group, serious evil can be incited. It can be as simple as “I’m just looking out for me and mine”; this basis of selfishness directs systems towards an imbalanced outcome. It is about controlling the uncontrollable; the notion that the only way I can create safety for myself and my family is by outlawing or owning all potential threats. This inevitably impacts those outside the deciding group, since those peoples’ concerns are not heard or accounted for in the decisions. In order to prevent yet another iteration of oligarchy and oppression, we must act with conscious intent and radical acceptance. The democracy created must have a different basis in order to accomplish this shift away from historical oppressions. A true democracy most likely will need to be imposed upon those currently holding power, as those in control are often loathe to relinquish it—but this must also be done with central beliefs in the worth of each individual and the benefits of including all. Otherwise, there can be no democracy with equality and power for all citizens. We need to be able to make things happen, and can only do that if we are able to talk with each other. It is, after all, the object of community to have conversations and find answers together.
     In saying all the previous, I am pointing out one simple fact: we have tried every iteration of hierarchical structure possible. Every attempt throughout history has a vulnerability to those seeking power in order to consolidate and structure things such that they remain in power. This can be seen in monarchies, monopolies, and disenfranchisement; each concentrates power, and—once concentrated—that power is doled out as pleases those who demanded no one else have it. The issue is less the tendency to organize into hierarchy, but rather the idea that some persons are more suited to rule (or be ruled). This is the fundamental notion which gives rise to many problems we face. Even before the modern concept of “races” of humans existed, there were those considered above and others below. Likewise, in systems of trade before money, there were people considered of a ‘higher class’ than others. These hierarchical notions do not rely on capitalist oppression or racist doctrines to exist, they simply fit in more easily within these constructs. Obviously, a monarch is seen as “better than” commoners; we discussed how this was the argument made for why they were meant for rule. That is the self-evident example which, by abolishing “titles of nobility” we fooled ourselves into thinking we had solved this underlying problem. However, the insidious notion that some are better than others has persisted and continues to disrupt our societies and retard progress. It is time to try out something which is actually different, because no hierarchy has ever brought “liberty and justice for all”. This idea that a ruler had something special and uniquely different about them infects most thinking about ‘rule’ and government. It is this infection that a real democracy would address. In order to achieve actual independence, a lasting justice, and a true democracy, it requires a fundamental shift in thinking about power and each other. It is first by acknowledging this infection as the driving force behind many of our problems that we can discuss ways to correct it. We must stop the cycling of shame, whereby some must be ‘other’ and ‘lesser’ so that others can claim or believe themselves “better-than”. It is imperative that we accept that we are all fundamentally similar with exactly the same worth in our common society. We must also accept the responsibility of our power, individually and collectively; this means to claim our status as valued and respected members of society, as well as demanding that we have the capacity (i.e. time and money) to participate in our government. Once we establish the expectation that each person has a valid perspective and none of us will be sacrificed for the rest will we be able to act in ways different than our history. Only when all citizens truly are equal will we have succeeded in finally overcoming this fundamental obstacle. It is only by distributing power, as in a true democracy, that power cannot become a weapon used by some against the rest.

 

Edit October 2022: for a more scholarly look at this topic see Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

The Future is Waiting, Part Two: the Mythology of Democracy in America

     Once more—for clarity and to ensure we are working from compatible understandings of current systems—let us quickly outline contemporary “democracy”. This will allow us to contrast our circumstances with those historical examples of non-democracy we established above. I will assert that, as with individuals, it is much easier for societies and nations to point to the shortcomings or wrongdoings of others than to admit their own faults. The U.S. often looks out at the rest of the world and says “there is despotism, there is repression, and there is where inequality resides”—even when such abuses at home are evident. I hope that the desire to accurately understand things will overcome this tendency. Also, although I will be using examples from the U.S., I invite you to think of your own which mirror the points outlined here. We previously discussed how non-democratic systems were variations of ‘rule from above with impunity’. The fundamental aspects of democracy are that every person matters equally and the power of governance is shared; that all citizens are able to be heard and participate in the decisions of the community. In this context, “community” means neighborhood, town, county, state, and nation; all public (meaning “not privately held”) areas are subject to the rule of that community. The trouble is that for any discussion to be productive, there need to be parties willing to hear others and accept their own power and responsibility in the issue under debate. What is currently typical is people screaming about their own pain or fear. That is one of the difficulties we face, which stems from the very state of being human, that we must work to communicate and to listen to understand others. It takes time to hear from someone else, and it takes effort on the listener’s part to understand what is said, along with the speaker’s need to know they have been heard. All this work is supposed to be part of the democratic system: to hear the concerns of citizens, to study issues brought to the attention of elected government representatives, and debate the best course of action in order to address said concerns. These truths are expressed in sentiments such as: the government is “subject to the will of the people”, “one person, one vote”, and “liberty and justice for all”. Most modern “democracies” have done away with rulers by dividing the powers of government between different assemblies and persons. In the U.S., there are 3 major sections (often called “branches”) of government: the legislative makes laws, the judicial interprets laws, and the executive enforces laws. It is also common to have a “representative democracy”; this means that rather than directly participating in the particulars of government, citizens elect representatives to deal on their behalf. This allows citizens to go about their personal interests, rather than be consumed by governmental administration: committees, appointing positions, writing bills, oversight, diplomacy, and debating issues. This basic outline leads to a few questions which can demonstrate the current state of “democracy”. These are: why do representatives make particular decisions, how are laws applied, and in what ways are citizens involved?
     It is important to recognize that anytime one person represents another, or a group, that representative has a tremendous responsibility and obligation. This is the reason attorneys require contracts with clients, as well as why there are such serious consequences for malpractice. While it has never been the case that government simply enacts citizens’ wishes (the “will of the people”), we can assume it is partly due to the difficultly of knowing what that really is. Representatives have typically relied upon citizen engagement; this means people caring enough about something to voice their opinions on the topic. In modern terms, it is more of an “opt-in” system than “opt-out”, meaning that as long as there is little objection from citizens, everything is presumed to be acceptable. If it were the opposite, representatives would need to account for each constituent and build consensus which included all. Given the sheer number of both issues and citizens in modern times, we can see that it is quicker and simpler to rely on public outcry. However, it is non-democratic to bring up an issue to representatives and walk away; to hand over to an official the entire process, whereby they will “take care of it” for citizens. This is both because it removes citizen input from the solution, as well as their oversight. Also, while a larger group has more influence and obviously represents a greater number of citizens, it does not mean that minority opinions are invalidated, which highlights the notion of each citizen counting equally. Yet this is the way it is treated currently, whereby the simple majority of folks agreeing to something is taken to mean it will work for everyone. This is patently absurd, as evidenced by disenfranchisement, slavery, and criminalizing gender/sexuality. These all had supposed “majority support”, yet remain morally abhorrent and civilly untenable—aside from being obvious tactics to subjugate groups and prevent equality. Returning to the question of representatives’ decision-making, the complexity of modern systems compel representatives to rely upon subject-matter experts in issues of governance (i.e. taxes, electrical grids, or mining). When there are an equal number of opponents and supporters, it can come down to which group has experts on their side. This can easily lead to business interests steering the debate, and thus policy, related to areas they work in; especially when all the experts on the subject work for a private company. Let us take a step back from this in order to address how representatives get elected in the first place. Those who run for office must be financed in some way, as it takes money to campaign in an election. Once again, this process relies upon interested parties; at least in this case, every citizen is interested. It should be then, according to our understanding of democracy, that every citizen’s opinion and vote will count equally in an election. However, while a citizen is typically only going to vote for and contribute to one candidate for any position, a company is not so limited. While times have changed, and Tammany Hall is no longer ascendant, the manipulation of public sentiment has not been done away with. While most are familiar with a “smear campaign”, whereby a candidate is painted as undesirable or unfit for office, the growth of social media provides a new canvas. The erosion of healthy media and competent journalists and growth of “alternative media” has lead to regular citizens preferring to trust information from their “friends”. This has fed into the tendency to rely on social media platforms—despite the growing recognition of fake accounts and bot farms which propagate false and/or misleading information. Much of what has been learned about psychology is used against citizens, such as disinformation, game theory, investment thinking, and in-group/out-group biases. Rather than buying votes, non-person entities can simply spend money to drive fear campaigns which swing voters. It is not even that people have to switch sides and vote for what that entity wants, it can simply be dissuading voters from participating, creating uncertainty where there was clarity, or clouding the results after voting concludes. It cannot be the case where each vote is counted equally, when influence, advertisements, propaganda, disinformation, and search/suggestion algorithms are all exerting undue influence on the minds of citizens. Let us complete our brief overview of the election process. The simplest way for a candidate to run for an office is to join a political party, as those have the expertise in fund-raising and advertising for campaigns. In recent years the process of elections are treated less as a way of representing communities and their interests than they are seen as a contest between parties. This leads to careful grooming of candidates in order to present their “most likely to succeed”. These will typically be a person from an accepted/majority group, and therefore not connected to those already under-represented. Representatives need never serve in public office again, as donors can certainly profit from a single-term investment—as that official will have a bright future in the private sector upon leaving office. This is a common enough occurrence that people will refer to the “revolving door of public service”: the process of persons achieving public offices and utilizing that station to make decisions favorable to private businesses, then returning to their service in those businesses after leaving office. Another component is that of lobbyists (sometimes those same ‘revolving door’ individuals) whose political experience and familiarity with law-makers allow them greater access to steer representatives towards stances favorable to business. These ideas do not come from the communities they impact, from the citizens who live there, or those elected representatives; they certainly do not reflect a benefit to those communities—despite businesses’ constant claims that they will. Look to the ongoing water crisis in Michigan (and increasingly elsewhere) or mining industry disasters (Exxon Valdez, Rio Tinto, fracking, or Deepwater Horizon) in order to understand how government lobbyists lead to worse conditions for communities. Additionally, this illustrates the ability for the process to silence or marginalize citizens’ voices. It is remarkably difficult to meet and talk with representatives, and more difficult still to appeal to that official in a manner equal to that of a lobbyist. The goal of politics in a democracy is to resolve complex, difficult issues in order to serve society and citizens. There is precious little of this in the past few decades, with politicians preferring to make grand-standing declarations from absolutist positions before walking away from debate and resolution.
    Next, let us address the question of how law is applied by the judicial section of government. Whereas in non-democratic systems there was one rule for the commoners and a different set for the aristocracy, democracy is supposed to apply the same laws in the same ways to all. The judiciary is meant to be “objective” in making decisions about what the laws mean in specific instances.The clearest demonstration of judicial partiality comes from implicit bias tests, although citizens can see the real-world results of different judicial outcomes based upon skin color just by the percentage of incarcerated people of color. Even if the “impartial” ideal were met, it is a system with its own language, paperwork nearly inaccessible and incomprehensible to laypersons, rife with counter-intuitive traps, and subject to obscure previous rulings. The adversarial legal system may allow for spirited debate, but it becomes simply another game of “winner-take-all” based upon who can afford the better attorney. Given the disproportionate distribution of money in the country, it seems self-evident that there can be no “blind justice”. Even given attorneys of equal talent, a public defender (guaranteed by a relatively recent ruling on the 6th Amendment) is overworked, underpaid, and understaffed, as well as facing the difficult task of convincing a biased judge who wants to keep their position in the next election and therefore cannot appear “weak on crime”. The number of forced plea deals and persons wrongly convicted further demonstrates the lack of equality and justice in our legal system; it hints at the central issue with this section of government: that the application of law is about something other than legal protection of citizens. The “corporate citizen” argument is a common one throughout modern history—even outside the legal system. This notion is often invoked when companies argue for concessions from local governments; it is claimed that as an “upstanding, caring, and neighborly corporate citizen”, the company will obviously do all it can to benefit the community once it establishes an office, plant, or hub there. Again, look to the examples in the previous section, or Nike, De Beers, Apple, and countless other companies which utilize slave labor under euphemisms like “sweatshops”. The logical end to the legal fiction of “corporate citizen” is that their “right of free speech and expression should not be infringed upon”; this leads to companies “expressing” politically via money. One recent example of how the judiciary impacts citizens’ voices and ability to participate is the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This was decided in such a way that allows for unlimited political contributions by corporations, obviously placing the general populace at a significant disadvantage.
    Finally, let us sum up the answers to the question of how citizens are involved in this government “of, by, and for the people”. Representatives are elected, by a plurality vote, to work towards the interests of their constituents. If elections are the major time each citizen ‘counts’, then it is indeed vital. I will submit that it is incorrect to relegate citizens’ roles in government to simply that of “voter”. Returning to the matter of elections, the choice of candidates is pre-selected via a “party” process. This demands wide recognition and broad acceptance, leading to the possibility to get enough votes to succeed. Citizens’ opinions are shaped by what they learn from trusted sources, which become heavily influenced by business interests during an election (and, increasingly, outside those brief periods). Once in office, representatives are meant to listen to citizens’ needs and act on them. However, there is no mechanism to compile all citizens’ voices, or for representatives to demonstrate they align with constituents. The decision can come down to who seems to make the most impact on that representative (which can simply mean money) or upon the media (meaning their chance for re-election or removal). This leads to the judicial branch, whereby citizens petition to sanction a representative, remedy some error on the part of the legislature, or make a change that could not be passed into law. Think of the numerous court cases brought to challenge Jim Crow laws and then to force Civil Rights legislation into reality. These judicial actions were always costly and never guaranteed to bring the results that citizens wanted—or even what the laws required. These battles can be with non-person entities afforded the same protections as citizens, without the same limitations and with immensely greater resources. Often, these cases would rely upon media attention to raise citizen awareness of a great injustice. While media is (mostly) outside the government, and so outside the scope of this essay, it certainly demonstrates the need for the public to be accurately informed about issues, especially ones they have no direct experience with. This summary obviously does not include the final component to government, which is the executive. This is because there is little for citizens to do about this single individual besides removal from office. The executive is essentially a “manager” in charge of the administration of laws and government; do not mistake me as calling it trivial, just that there is little influence citizens have in this area except through their representatives or judiciary.
    We can conclude that answer to the above questions about the function of government officials is to maintain power; whether a representative seeks re-election or a private business position, or a judge affirms a decision to maintain “separate but equal” facilities, these functionaries are protecting power. That this is true in particular cases or in general is immaterial, because it is a conclusion we can make based upon the facts of the situation. If it were impossible to make this connection, we could be assured that the government was operating under the will of the people and democratically. I contend that these simple examples demonstrate how democracy is lacking from government and how much is still under the control of a small group of individuals. This leads into the final section of this essay, and the conclusions which we can draw from the information we have outlined.

 

Edit October 2022: for greater examination of historical information, see Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris.

The Future is Waiting, Part One: in the Throes of History

     With all the ‘debate’ (read: protests, vitriol, insurrection, conspiracy theories, disinformation, etc.) recently concerning equality, equity, representation, power, and democracy, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view that I hope is constructive. In writing this, my hope is to encourage a more productive discussion about the systems we live in. As a person who dislikes to argue trivialities, as someone who cares more for what or how something is than what it is called, I look to understand the fundamental aspects of humanity. The current issue we face, as a people and as a world, is the need for a fundamental shift away from a mode of thinking which is ancient—possibly prehistoric—in origin. While we absolutely enjoy a standard of living far in excess of anything possible before, with medicine, sanitation, literacy, and survival all measurably improved, I submit that life is fundamentally unchanged from those ancient times. In order to demonstrate my thesis I will require your forbearance, as I must start with a broad overview of history. These are all drawn from general knowledge available to most contemporary citizens, and designed to give us a common understanding from which to arrive at the conclusions of this essay. At this time I wish to acknowledge a couple truths, in the spirit of empowerment and consensus. I recognize that I am not the only, first, or even best person to write this; it is simply that I have my own way of understanding and expressing these ideas. Also, that my ability to speak to these matters is made possible by, as well as greatly enhanced by, numerous oppressed groups and individuals who have gone before me. Similarly, that I enjoy privilege accorded me that is not given to others, based on the very systems on which I offer criticism. Herewith, we enter the body of the text.
     For much of prehistory—that is the period before we have written records and rely upon speculation based on surviving artifacts—we suppose humans lived as tribal beings. These would be small bands, either nomadic or settled, with little need for governance; generally, we imagine tribal councils or a ‘chief’. Additionally, people often suppose a spiritual leader as a connection to the supernatural. In these tribes, social pressures would protect individuals within the group from each other within the established order. However, in the main, people assume that these tribes were hierarchical in that they had leaders. Once people began to band together, congregate, or converge into groups greater than 150, there became a need for more structured organization. Rather than risk living among strangers who might be killers and marauders, people would likely establish and accept laws—and then bureaucracy—in order to maintain their safety and stability. Sometime around 5000 years ago, Egypt began counting dynasties; we also have written laws from Mesopotamia dating around 4000 years ago. What we know of earliest recorded history is that there were already systems in place that ordered—and, likely, stratified—society. Some of the earliest pieces of writing we have discovered are tabulations of stock, indicating a mercantile system. From that period, we begin to see the characteristic and familiar structures of “civilized” societies. In every human civilization, there were the mass of people (those common to see, or “commoners”) going about their lives. Once agriculture became widespread, specialization followed; this meant people focused on particular trades: farmers, builders, millers, smiths, tanners, and on and on. All these commoners (be they Roman, Aztec, Persian, Celtic, Mongol, etc.) desired security and liberty. The ability to farm, build, mill, and trade without interference from bandits or bureaucrats; to be with family and continue the traditions of their ancestors. These common folk of societies, who were not thinking about conquering or ruling, concerned themselves with how to care for family and enjoy the time they had. Typically, commoners would be subject to a ruler. You will likely recognize the titles pharaoh, caliph, emperor, emir, shah, khan, shogun, or king; when we think of history, these have often been the focus—these individuals who “shaped the world”. We recognize these are non-democratic types of government; the notion that one individual would have total control over an entire nation may even seem “barbaric” to those in a modern, “democratic” nation. However, this system of monarchy was accepted (indeed, expected as the norm) in a wide number of cultures around the world throughout history. Not to exclude those still in existence, of course, however they be organized or labeled. It was oft-purported that these rulers had actually been ‘touched by god’ somehow, and were exceptional. This might nowadays be labeled a theocracy, where the ruler is supposed to be connected to their deity. The laws and structure of such a society would be based on the religion of that god, and thus automatic justification for any action of the government. This demonstrates most clearly how rulers were seen to be—in a fundamental way—different and separate from ‘regular people’. In other cases, the person in charge was ruler because they had the largest army or in some way established rule through military might. This may have been an ancient Roman general or Mongol leader, an African lord or Medieval duke. While it scarcely needs saying, I would be remiss in not including the colonizing forces of European countries here as well. For example, the United States started out as a colony of Britain, justified by both ‘divine right’ and military superiority over the native peoples.
     What, then, was life like that makes these civilizations non-democratic? First, rules came from the top, as mentioned above; also, that rulers were not beholden to the citizenry. Once the monarch made the decisions, those policies were sent out to regional and then local officers. In medieval Europe, the monarch could have barons, dukes, lords, and princes on down to locals such as burghers or sheriffs, these would be the “nobility” or “aristocracy”. The enforcement of royal edicts depended on each local magistrate (and the enforcers they would retain). Wealth and property would be concentrated in and collected by nobles, often with the understanding that ultimately it was owned by “the monarchy”. Conversely, all local decisions were backed up by the threat of force from higher-ranking nobles. If a mayor abused their position there was little recourse available to the citizenry. Officials would likely only be removed if they displeased their superiors, i.e. by embezzling monies those superior nobles wanted for themselves. Information and education were similarly restricted to the wealthy; at times, the only literate persons were those educated and beholden to the established religious order. Mistrust of outsiders or differences was common; therefore, most folks would have stuck to what and who they knew. This relates to the ability and desire to relocate, as most people would remain near their birthplace generation upon generation. For information on the larger world, locals would need to depend on news (or gossip) from travelers or merchants who visited other places. Often, there would also be rigid enforcement of roles; if not de jure caste, then title or trade were handed down from parent to child—similarly keeping people trapped at particular levels of society. Additionally, commoners would be subject to conscription into militia or other forced labor. This could be as punishment for infractions or due to the local magistrate’s desire for greater holdings (property). Fealty (a legal obligation to a lord) or loyalty to town, country, church, or cause could be invoked to bestir commoners to the rulers’ ends. Truly despotic rule meant citizens could not criticize publicly or privately, as doing so would result in fatal, and often public, retaliation. Likewise, meetings would be prohibited or subject to approval and restriction, so as to curtail expression of dissent or discontent in the more oppressive regimes. Finally, slavery has existed since time immemorial. Certainly never as organized and institutionalized as the Atlantic slave trade of the mid- to late-1000s. However, the forced use of another’s work for one’s own benefit has been used to the ends of those in power throughout history. Since we have established the limitations of the citizenry, what did freedom (the lives of the aristocracy) look like? In contrast to the harsh lives of commoners, the “nobles” were able to travel, learn, own, choose, participate in government, were treated with respect or deference, and lived in abundance; food, shelter, clothing, social acceptance and standing, self-improvement, and ability to care for others. If we use a psychological hierarchy of needs, it was only the “upper class” who had access to all the components. This illustrates quite clearly the difference and divide between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, which is not only obviously non-democratic, but also unjust and immoral to modern sensibilities. These are the conditions which lead to the ‘revolutions’ of the 18th century, and our modern ideas about democracy. In a sense, it was a change purported to allow more of humanity to experience what previously had been reserved to the ‘nobility’.
     During the 1700’s (in a period now called the “[Age of] Enlightenment”) a number of political philosophers were writing and talking about government and what legitimacy it had, based on “natural laws” and a presumed “state of nature”. These discourses were, in turn, based on much earlier theories from more ancient civilizations’ philosophers. Written works like Leviathan, Common Sense, and The Social Contract are the results of these Enlightenment thinkers. In the Declaration of Independence, the justification for cutting ties with the British monarchy is almost wholly based on the king’s breaking of this “social contract” between ruler and ruled. It is important, therefore, to familiarize ourselves with these reasonings in order to understand how we have reached the state of today’s societies and governance thereof, which is presumed to be democratic. The essential part is that notion of “contract between ruler and ruled”: that there exists an implicit and/or explicit agreement that the ruler will protect the ruled and, in return, the ruled provide support and obedience to rule. This is considered necessary because the supposed alternative is an “anarchic state” where “each one is against every other” (this is the “state of nature” previously mentioned). The reasoning essentially becomes, “rule by a government is evil, but necessary when weighed against the alternative of bloody, murderous barbarism”. This disingenuous and self-serving argument rings hollow given adequate perspective and understanding of context. However, it is not important in this section to explore criticism of the construct, as we only need understand that this “social contract” has been used as the “justification” for government over the past 250 years. Contained in the theory is a kernel of new thinking: that rulers owe something to the ruled. Still not democracy (since they were not proposing citizens’ involvement in governance), just the notion that the monarch was not all-powerful and inerrant. This thinking then lead to the democratic revolutions in the Americas and Europe, as countries began overthrowing the established monarchies. These changes supposedly resulted in democracy. As if doing away with a figurehead was sufficient to eliminate non-democratic systems and thinking. Given that hundreds of years and numerous laws were required to bring persons of color and women into this “democratic system”, we can begin to see the shift was neither automatic nor immediate. This betrays the underlying truth to the history we’ve been exploring, and we will return to that topic in our last section. At this juncture, I also wish to clarify a fundamental aspect of all this discussion of democracy, which is the relationship between our subject and capitalism (said relationship deserving a separate discussion). While there is much linking of democracy and capitalism, it is a spurious and dangerous equivalence. Democracy is a system of governing a body of participants whereas capitalism is a set of economic precepts by which people conduct trade. In a democratic government the goal is the betterment of life for all citizens rather than just a few, and this is accomplished through a willingness of those same citizens to agree on laws and be governed by them. The economic model of capitalism, in contrast, is predicated upon competition between private holdings with the goal of extracting capital from customers in order to expand those holdings. Because of this fundamental difference, they are analogous to the water and electrical systems in your home: they are both important, but serve distinctly and incompatibly different purposes. Additionally, they cannot be linked and continue to function as intended. After all, you would not plug a cord into the toilet or run a water pipe into the junction box. At best, things just do not work; at worst, you burn down the house. In saying this, I wish to allow us to continue this essay without being further distracted by the conflation of democracy with capitalism.
     To complete this first section, I wish for readers to recognize that we are reviewing most societies over the course of thousands of years; it is, admittedly, difficult to picture much beyond the past hundred years. Additionally, the numbers of persons involved stagger the imagination. For context, the estimated total number of humans who have ever lived is 108 billion. With a current population estimate of 7.5 billion, that leaves over 100,000,000,000 persons having lived through the millennia under the historical conditions that we are considering. While the names and outward particulars may have differed, we are viewing these systems in order to understand their underpinnings—the structure that supports the structure we see. If there are any, the few exceptions serve to prove non-democracy as the general rule. Finally, it is not my conjecture that this is the natural or only form that societies can take.

 

Edit October 2022: for excellent examination of historical information, see The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution, by Francis Fukuyama