Revisiting the Fixed Past

It seems an important distinction between progressive and conservative thinkers: that of the fixed or growth mindset. To refresh this concept, one may believe that a person is either born all they will ever be (fixed) or that people can change and develop as they age (growth). This may also reflect thinking on human nature and whether people can be included in "civilization". It is this fundamental difference which seems to creep into public discourse between those two camps—without making an explicit appearance, however. It must present a difficulty in resolving any issues under debate, this foundational belief about what is possible both individually and collectively. If one is of the opinion that people can never change, what use could there be for prisons and the concept of "rehabilitation"? This also allows such people to assume that "better" people exist in some immutable form; if this sounds like a cozy companion of prejudice, you may be onto something. Additionally, fixed-mindset adherents tend to invoke some idealized, mystical past in much of their arguing. Somehow, society and ordinary peoples' lives were better at some earlier point. Beyond that period, change is hopeless—because the one thing that needs to change simply cannot: people. No matter how much technology improves, we still only have humans with fixed ability. Contrarily, if one believes people can grow and learn better ways of being, then problems can be cured.

As long as this central dichotomy is not just unresolved but unacknowledged it is no wonder that laws and culture are hobbled.

The Selling Never Stops

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

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

 

Edit Nov 24: Pokemon Go players receive shocking news.

Country Folk, City Folk

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

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

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

The Freedom to be Fleeced

Some people argue that boundless freedom is best, that liberty can only be a good thing and should therefore be applied without restriction. This seductive idea seems to hold promise in promoting equality and equity, drawing power away from structures and returning it to individuals, and encouraging self-sufficiency. Let us quickly see if these claims could hold true. Simply put, if we assume everyone operates on a level playing field, as total liberty would suggest, then every transaction must inherently be fair. For that to be true, all parties would have equal power and privilege in the exchange so no one is unduly pressured as well as having total knowledge of the market and items in question. This is similar to the field of economics "homo economicus" (the fictional 'rational actor' constructed to make economic models work), in that it also makes assumptions divorced from current reality and the irrationality of humans. It is precisely because people have urgent needs, limited knowledge, and less power that they are disadvantaged in commerce. I am not a fully informed buyer, and so get ripped off by a disreputable seller. I, as an inexperienced seller, get low-balled by a dishonest buyer. Whichever way the exploitation goes, it makes the entire process of commerce less safe for everyone-whether they were involved or not. These transactions end up influencing retributive behavior or driving inexperienced actors out of the market. Freedom on its own is insufficient to produce fair markets. Rather than the results of liberty, ideal conditions turn out to be the precursors or necessary foundations for a free and fair market. This is where the title of the post comes in: if there is no regulation, capitalism tends towards exploitation and unfair practices. Therefore we cannot implement total laxity and deregulation of markets without seriously hurting people. Further, absolute freedom will tend towards the same undesirable outcome in other aspects of life.

In considering personal liberty we may like the idea that individuals choose freely what to say and whether to attend school. These choices seem to be under the sole purview of the individual, but they have an impact greater than just that person and therefore concern the community at large. This is because the argument of liberty has an obverse that seems often to be downplayed: responsibility. While I may have a right to speak them, my words have an impact on those around me. Just as I am liable for my actions, I also have an obligation to the consequences of my words. This is because others have equal rights, such as not being attacked or slandered. Similarly, when I elect to keep my child home to educate them, I seem to be choosing only for myself or my child, but these choices also have an impact on society. When a person does not have the same basic information as everyone else, not only are they personally handicapped, but they interfere with the functioning of community, business, and government because of that lack. This is the basic argument for compulsory public education, and the responsibility of every participant in an open society: the capability to interact with all the other peoples in that society. Beyond that, the selfish motive of not wanting to be taken advantage of because of ones' ignorance should impel us to embrace the best education available. An absolutist response to this might be, "you just want to take away all rights and impose what you think is right on everyone else!", and that would be a hysterical, hyperbolic straw man argument. As with other aspects of life, there needs to be balance to how much liberty each person has and what duty is owed to the community. Finding that balance is part of the project of forming a more perfect union.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

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

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

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

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.

Vampires, Werewolves, and Aliens, oh my!

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

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

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

How I am not Unique

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

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

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

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

Staying in Lanes

Society is comprised of varying individuals with differing perspectives and motivations. In order for the society to function--just for it to be possible for any citizen to go about tasks involving others--there need to be common understandings and rules. Most of the time, in western cultures, each individual is "looking out for #1" and leaving other people to do the same. This makes rules especially important, as they prevent one person's self-interest from harming another. Pollution, traffic, price gouging and more are regulated by our common laws, which are the agreements we make when we engage in public spaces. Usually, we are operating from an inherent understanding of the rules in society; we do not consider it acceptable to brush our teeth while riding the bus, for instance. These are shared spaces, and where the rules are not set by law, they are determined by norms and mores [MORE-AYS] (those expectations internalized through living in a culture). These laws and rules make day-to-day life possible with the strangers we live amongst because they provide templates for interactions. There is no need to negotiate each purchase, since the price is clearly marked and there is a "check-out" where one pays; the experience is an established routine, no matter which store one enters. If I attempt to change this routine, things get confusing and others will question my capacity to participate in public activities. Similarly, one does not need to guess, or question other drivers about, who goes first at a 4-way intersection since there are clear laws for determining that answer. As an aside, it is actually this situation that alerted me to things being amiss some time ago. Additionally, there are certain fundamental understandings which guide behavior in novel circumstances. We all know which side of the road to drive on. Even non-drivers know this, as it is part of everyday life. Additionally, pedestrians use the same left-hand drive/stay right rule when walking and biking. When encountering another pedestrian, I will automatically tend toward the right, as that is the standard of the country wherein I live. This is also why we will look to others in new situations: to find out what the rules are so that we fit in and avoid trouble. It is only when we are unclear or uncertain about the rules that we recognize how easy they make things. All of this is preamble to explore something which happened to me recently.

Because we are in the midst of a pandemic, the standards are set and widely known. The understanding is, and has been, "wear a mask, and stay six feet apart." This pandemic is complicated by folks seeming to seek out conflict regarding masks, denying that this disease is worrisome, and disregarding the health and discomfort of others by violating the reasonable, minor precautions most people are utilizing. Where I live is a low-traffic, residential area, and there is a common standard that has grown out of living through the past year. As a group, people here seldom wear masks outdoors, instead choosing to keep extra space between us. This is the expectation or social norm that has been 'agreed to' by common practice in public, outdoor spaces. I was walking on the sidewalk and there were a couple people approaching from the opposite direction. There were many factors to consider with these strangers, but I had many previous instances to guide me. However, as these folks grew closer, I felt my apprehension rise and I began to consider that I might get "too close" to them. It happened that they did not move to their right, nor acknowledge our proximity in any way. We came abreast each other at a place with a fence to my right, so I had nowhere to retreat. We were so close I could have reached out and touched them, and my reaction was nearly to push them away, so strong was my revulsion and alarm. Instead, my arm acted as a sort of spacer as I raised it with my hand open, and we passed this bottleneck as I quickened my pace. In a few steps, I heard one of them say something like, "What's that about?!" I turned, and expressed (repeating to myself to remain calm) that they had been too close; the reply was effectively, "Just say something!". I took this to mean that my reaction was too impactful, although I remain uncertain how my panicked "Get away!" would have been received. It is common to believe oneself to have the correct answer in a situation, and their response indicates a desire to modify my reaction rather than examine their own assumptions. I do not claim that I am without fault, as in writing this I have recognized how anxious I have become over the course of the past year.

This post is mostly about expectations, and when it may be acceptable (or necessary) to violate them. As I outlined above, we operate daily on shared expectations and are thus able to function together in public. However, I also firmly believe that we are expected to accept and account for different perspectives in a democratic society. My experience is about a willingness to allow others to violate norms-even when I feel wronged by their actions. For example, I have crossed the street when someone pushing a baby stroller was on "my side" (my right, their left). An inconvenience, and something I "should not need to do" given the reasoning in the first paragraph. However, I remain willing to make an effort to maintain my own safety, to accommodate the limitations of others, and accept that--when I am uncomfortable--it is up to me to resolve that discomfort insofar as it does not conflict with others' needs. A society must work together through disagreements, even when certain citizens do not understand or experience the conditions that others are complaining about. We have been living through two such experiences simultaneously: irritation about wearing masks and protest of state-sponsored, racist murder. I am not equating them, but wish to point out how they have similarities despite being fundamentally different. My hope in doing so is to alleviate some contention between said groups, or prevent others from conflating them.

Because this is intended to be a democracy, for the safety of the greatest number of citizens we should "err on the side of caution". In the pandemic, we have a small number of folks who claim that masks are an unnecessary burden, and consider themselves "protestors". In this case, the cost of accommodating these citizens would be an increase in illness and deaths. However, if we investigate their claims while  continuing to wear masks (properly, and including those citizens), fewer people will die. If it had turned out that we all looked a bit silly afterwards because it was not as serious as most feared-then that's the price. We sacrifice a bit of pride by looking silly, but can hold our heads high because we did it in order to protect others. Thankfully, it has become clear that the preventative measures we were able to enact are adequately effective, and the numerous anti-mask "protestors" who have recanted on their deathbed attests to the seriousness of this situation. This last point also indicates how easy it can be for any of us to downplay a situation until we experience it. This leads us to Black Lives Matter, and the statement that persons of color are targeted and killed by police. Here, the cost of continuing under current policing practices does not lead to more lives being saved. If we kept the status quo and had those protestors await changes until a full evaluation could be done, more lives would be lost if they were right. This is complicated by needing an objective set of studies to determine the truth of the matter, which is part of the very problem needing evaluation: racism skews how issues are seen. Any of us who have not experienced it cannot understand what it is like. The same policy of erring on the side of caution dictates that we act swiftly to change police practices and save lives.

How to Ruin Any Game in One Easy Step

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

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

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

Why is Everything AI?

Fundamentally, I think every artistic creation asks the question: what does it mean to be human? Possibly because, as individuals irrevocably separate from one another, we seek ways to bridge this divide and be understood. The impetus for this post is the number of popular shows which revolve around artificial intelligence. In writing this, I wonder about what this art has to say about the subject.

It seems recent years have seen a glut of media offerings centered on this topic, ranging from movies (Ex Machina, Terminator, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Blade Runner 2049) to TV (Westworld, Humans, and the new Battlestar Galactica). Often, this AI fiction (wherein humans have created machines sophisticated enough to be self-aware) is presented as a battle between creator and creation. This goes back to the ancient Hebrew story of the golem, and became a staple of popular culture with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The theme has always been 'do not meddle with the affairs of gods'. The creation of life is reserved to those of god-like comprehension and powers, and any lesser being attempting the feat will be doomed by doing so. This is readily apparent in the subtitle of Shelley's book "modern Prometheus", referencing the Greek fable of a titan bringing the power of fire (sometimes 'knowledge') to humans. It is worth recognizing that in the fable, Prometheus is returning something that the gods had taken from humans. An interesting thought, that Frankenstein could be reclaiming something rightfully belonging to humanity.

Along with the inherent shaming messages in these stories, I find a contradiction as well. The central message of "you are not worthy to do this" is apparent and almost universal within the genre. However, the more recent iterations add the notion that these creations are-or, at least, see themselves as being-better than humans; this becomes the tension that must be resolved for the audience. The question of "which side will win?" becomes an existential contest, as the answer determines whether humanity or AI survive at the end of the story. This seems to continue the theme that humans are to be punished for the audacious act of creation. It is not that the project will fail because of the flaws of humanity, just that the unworthiness of humanity will imbue the creation with the desire to destroy the creator. In keeping with Greek mythology, it could also be a continuation of the theme of supplanting predecessors. The primordial gods had been overthrown by the Titans, who-in turn-were overthrown by the more familiar gods (Zeus, Ares, Poseidon, etc.). The contradiction I see is the fundamental truth that we make life all the time. We make little humans; we create life to continue the species. Here, again, our creations will supplant us. After all, that is their function: to inherit the world we build for them, and do better than we have. True, we sometimes parent poorly and we are not always deserving of having the responsibility for the life of another being. However, this is balanced by the truth that often it is the process of becoming a parent that allow us to become a better version of ourselves. Only through being forced into the reality of living that responsibility can we summon the courage to change for the better. This is not an argument in favor of having a child, that it is the only-or best-way to "grow up", nor to excuse abuse. It is meant to recognize some truths about us which the fictional escape of visual arts have not seemed to present. We do create life, and sometimes with little thought to the needs or subsequent experiences of that life.

Finally,  given we are using the tropes of AI fiction to examine reality, what are there real questions we should ask ourselves? Does this genre give us an outside perspective that allows us to see our flaws-especially those we wish we could deny? Is this a challenge to our present systems and a call to become those better versions of ourselves? Who ultimately bears the responsibility and consequences of creation? Because as much as AI is still in the future, we are parents right now. We are responsible for caring for the lives we have created already. For all those fictional flaws played out across the screen, there are real ones already playing out in our lives and our children. While it may be irritating that 'our side' loses in the fictional version, it is heartbreaking when we fail as a society in reality. We all experience that failure as creators and caretakers of life. It may be that the only way that we preserve ourselves, or we find ourselves worthy of preserving, is that we confront those parts of ourselves which make us less than the parents our children deserve. Maybe the reason humans are in peril in these AI stories is to demonstrate how vital it is to get creation right.

First Impressions

How quickly things have changed. It was just a few weeks ago that I had no idea what a pandemic was like. How confusing, chaotic, strange, scary, lonely, and relentlessly overwhelming it is. How I would fear for my life, and those of friends and family. How out of control it all seems. I don't know what anything means, and days are eternal as it seems like I am a moment away from panic.

I have, on the other hand, to stay calm and keep moving; to maintain my composure for someone else. It is because I am taking care of another human, and totally responsible for their life and psychological well-being, that I can focus. All the uncertainty and potential threats are less important than the duty I have to care for someone other than just myself. How we get through this will be as important as if we get through this. I believe this because I heard the stories of those who came after the economic depression of 1928, and those raised by the survivors of the 'dustbowl years'. The mental toll of that experience was so heavy that it weighed down the generations that followed for decades.

 Of course, we will do everything possible to keep ourselves safe. Just as important, we will not live in dread or in a way that prevents us from having joy in our lives. I will keep up our spirits and find ways to enjoy what is left to us, always maintaining the sense that this will end and we will emerge with our love intact.

Humans First!

I have been hearing an expression which reveals a sentiment I take exception to. I also recognize that I am behind the times on this, as a little research turns up equivalent terms from 2014. What I refer to is the new sense and way of speaking of pets as a 'parent-child' relationship. Expressions such as "dog [mom/dad]", "pet parent", and "fur baby" indicate the level of care such individuals evidently feel for their pets. Some even lavish attention and expense on their pets that seem like Christmas came early. As a parent, the idea that a person chooses to devote their attention to another species is not entirely my issue. I think having compassion, and even agape love, for animals of all species is noble. I care about the extinction of animal species and the mistreatment of domesticated animals. I believe it is a privilege to own an animal, and that includes the responsibility to care for that animal. I have owned a variety of pets in my life, and would enjoy the opportunity to again.

The reason I find this important enough to talk about is that it betrays a variety of problematic attitudes. Initially, I resented the implication that my status as parent was not as valuable or respectable because it was on par with owning a creature. I do realize that no one was making that explicit statement, and one engages in equivocation to draw the parallel. Still, the wording is a choice and it is one that expresses an equivalence where there is none. At best, it is great marketing disguised as a positive change for the animals. However, I find that it covers at least a couple truths. First, we steal baby animals from their actual parents for our own purposes, after breeding the animals for profit. Second, all these animals are the products of human manipulation; they are genetically modified organisms. We literally created everything about these pets: appearance, demeanor, and purpose. There is at least one breed of dog that cannot reproduce without humans. Finally, there are the startling number of animals who are killed each year as surplus.

These facts betray the weight of responsibility we have to these creatures, and how different having a pet is from children. As much as we owe pets for their companionship and service, our first duty is to ourselves. This is the only thing that makes the current treatment of animals minimally acceptable. Ultimately, no matter how loving one is towards a pet, a human life always takes precedence. If a human baby and a pet are both in peril, the human life must be saved. This is not an opinion. If we reach a point where we no longer consider every human life as eminently valuable, our species begins to lose our chance to survive. Consider that we evolved and continue to exist on this planet because of the fundamental rule that we continue to want to live. No matter what the cosmos throws at us as a species, we persist. I begin to think this attitude reveals a flaw in some folks that do not believe we deserve to continue as a species. At any rate, I think this simple exploration demonstrates how nonsensical the trend is. So everyone can stop using those terms now.

Mental Illnesses and How to Treat Them

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

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

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

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

Self-Castration is Not Safety

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

 

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

 

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

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

On Discussions of Human Nature

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

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

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

How Seeking Identity Sucks

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

Gaming for Those Who Do Not Game

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

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

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

Another Try

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

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

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

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

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