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Allowing outdated notions like miasma or 'evil spirits' causing illness, ridiculous ideas like a 'flat earth' or 'ancient aliens', and just wrong beliefs like 'young Earth' or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 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.

The Invisible Fence

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

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.

Why Villains Always Lose and Heroes Are Reluctant

It is odd that heroes in entertainment are the ones who just react to the villain's plan. Superheroes in comic books and movies, the "good guys" on TV shows, and even in literature and documentaries. From Bond to Batman to Brockovich, the individual the audience is supposed to identify with, who conveys the morality of the story, is not the one initiating change. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, it is the passive protagonist who is forcibly taken away from the known world and endures events which unfold around them. Why is it that we are meant to idolize the person in the story whose motivation is to stop the plans of others? This is a question about the psychological impact in the real world on the audience: us. If it is the case that we grow up with the notion (conscious or not) that being a good person means reacting or waiting for someone to rescue, what sort of expectation is that? These are the stories we share with our children. If we expect children are smart enough to pick up on the morality of the tale, do we really think they miss the message that the focus of "good guys winning" is just to stop the baddie from completing their scheme? This is the ideal we inculcate in our society: do not plan, do not attempt to influence others, and do not seek to shape the world, because only villains do those things. Just sit back and allow things to unfold, only taking action when something "bad" happens. Change is aberrant, and to be endured; events are out of our hands and happen to us, rather than because of us. The person who initiates or explores, who takes action, is somehow wrong. This means that having a plan is suspect, and the good act to prevent others from completing their plans. In short, our stories tells us to be reactive.

There are some arguments to note in this examination. First, that this narrative flow arises from human thinking and therefore demonstrates a natural occurrence reflecting the basics of storytelling. After all, conflict is drama, and drama drives interest; it makes no sense to tell a story that is not interesting to the audience. Second, that due to complex social networks, humans benefit from reactivity and passivity. These approaches maintain stability and conserves traditional structures that work, allowing steady and safe progress, rather than upheaval. Finally, that proactivity can lead to overbearing interference or invasive progress. The reason they are villains is that they are over-reaching in their plans, and should seek only to change their own lives, or at least set more humble goals. While these are fine points, they are more complex or deal with rational thinking, and the problem is more like subliminal messaging. The basic idea that good people only act to stop villains is so simple and pervasive that it is only a question now that we are examining it. Before now, it would have seemed unnatural to think of such a fundamental aspect of the stories we have heard all our lives. Most of the arguments around these three points can be allayed quite simply. We can recognize that stories could be just as compelling with protagonists who see problems in the world and begin to construct ways to overcome them, upsetting the status quo and building coalitions towards the betterment of all. There are a few of these stories already.

I will mention here just how good Black Panther is, and how well it illustrates my points. Certainly, one part is about how a prince becomes king, the hero's journey. However, the entire movie revolves around the tension between tradition and modernity, centered on maintaining morality in a changing world. The central character does not drive the action, because he is again reacting to the events being imposed by the outside world. T'Challa's idyllic life in Wakanda is ended by the murder of his father. Afterwards, his smooth transition to sovereign is interrupted by the return of a cousin (N'Jadaka) who was left to die by that same father. We get to see how stability can become stagnation and that the certainty of accession does not grant perspective. Here, we have an encapsulation of the entire discussion about villain versus hero, proactive versus reactive. The villain is right, has a plan, and in the end everyone benefits from his vision; however, the entire movie is about the hero who has to be dragged into the present and face the world because of the actions of that villain. T'Challa was not setting out to discover the best course of action for himself or his nation, he did not even recognize the problems of the world as important, and would not have questioned the policy of isolation on his own. It was only through the actions of N'Jadaka that Wakanda gained a ruler who was capable of appropriately leading.

It should give us pause when the villain is beaten, and the hero goes back to waiting for something else to go wrong. Why are they not planning how things can be better, or challenging themselves to prevent the need for such extreme plans? How are we emulating that reactionary model in real life?

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.

Cowardice in Competition

Competition has long been a way for individuals and teams to determine who is the best at something. An honest contest, meaning no influence or interference, among the most able. Just being a competitor means already having overcome any number of previous challenges, and participation in this latest signifies a desire to meet the next one. Think of those who compete at the Olympics, a series of contests of athletic prowess by a world-wide selection of those at the very height of their sport. They have all worked audaciously hard in order to have a spot in the contest, and each seeks to outperform the others and their own previous best. There is courage in the attempt, in just showing up to practice or a local competition. Bravery in taking one's own skill to the very limits of one's individual ability. Finally, there is the need for other contestants. It does no good to be the best in a field of one; better having pride in achieving against the best in their chosen field. As much as highly competitive individuals are fighting the adversary of themself, there need to be close opponents to measure their performance against. Others who challenge them to do better, in a cycle of competitive encouragement. Even rivals in sport can appreciate how the other team raises the level of the shared game.

Once a competitor reaches the end of their training, conditioning, and prowess, there is nobility even in accepting those limitations. This can, admittedly, be difficult to gauge. There are often 'plateaus' in training and competing; areas of performance during which the limit seems to have been reached, but which can still be surpassed by some new adjustment. However, there is also temptation to augment what one can do through artificial means; to overcome the natural limitations we all have. Rather than accepting those limitations, some seek to win when they otherwise would not be able to. These can range from using proscribed methods or substances to sabotaging rivals, exerting undue influence on self or other. This approach is generally agreed to be undesirable. Whether one personally cares about cycling, skating, baseball, or other game is less the issue than is the general agreement of a fair competition. If that is not the basic understanding, then much of the excitement is lost. It would no longer be a contest of human spirit, but of money spent. It would be less interesting to observers as the rules would no longer be understandable, but become a constantly shifting morass of who can get away with what. Referee, umpire, and judge would become much different roles, akin to assassins for hire.

The point of all this discussion is to establish the simple truths of what is healthy competition. While you may not (as I do not) have a significant interest in sports, I do believe we all have an interest in the arena of business. This is because private enterprise has tremendous impacts on individual success and politics. Whether it is how much we are paid as a worker, the likelihood of our personal venture succeeding, how much influence we have in our government, or what gets built in our neighborhood, there are impacts. Some believe that a free market economy is essential to efficiency and innovation. Those individuals should already understand the points I will outline and agree that regulations are necessary to keeping the game fair, otherwise they are being disingenuous in their assertions. The focus on courage here is to give a human sense to the artificial, impersonal, and depressing environment of competition in business. Despite being comprised of humans, displacing human beings, despoiling human environs, and arising out of human desires and needs, business has become a game nearly exempted from human concerns. The re-introduction of humanity into business practices is long overdue, as exemplified by companies lying about impacts to boost their profits (tobacco and oil being well-known examples). Which brings us back to the title of this post.

Above, we listed some attributes of courageous competition. Now we can look at well-known business practices and determine whether they fit with these ideals. First, keep in mind that while these mostly happen in larger businesses, the temptations and opportunities exist even in the "minor leagues". One such is the purchasing of competitors, which has expanded into buying intellectual properties before they are even in the market. Another avenue is to determine for buyers what is popular, historically by paying beautiful and/or successful people to use them, and more recently by utilizing social media to make it appear that it is already popular. Beyond this are the "bot farms" and "trolls", spreading messages and disrupting free speech to further the agenda of industry. This is also tied to the rise of "influencers", an absurd extension of marketing that is designed to not seem like advertising. It most resembles a multi-level marketing scheme, where personal connection is exploited in order to access otherwise unreachable customers. A related tactic is to utilize psychological research to manipulate consumers, like some guerilla COINTELPRO marketing operation. From flooding an area with messages and signs (relying on "mere exposure" effect) to putting inflated items on "sale" (FOMO and "anchoring effect"). In this technological age, where everyone has an online presence, that personal information has been commodified. The term "surveillance capitalism" puts some context to Facebook, Google, and others; rather than providing services to users, platforms typically collect consumers' info to sell. Or when an established company moves into a new area, it can use the profits from its other stores to fund the new one; allowing it to undercut existing, local businesses and eliminate competition altogether. If the low prices were genuine, we might consider this as benefiting the consumers, but usually those prices are adjusted upward after the competition is gone. Additionally, "green-washing"campaigns which foist onto consumers the impacts of industry. People are recognizing the silliness of a fictitious "carbon footprint" and how it focuses on minor, end-user contributions and steers discussion away from large-scale producer liability. The most egregious, however, comes in the form of manipulating the playing field and the very rules of the game. Here, of course, we come to "lobbying", the way that companies and industries corrupt governmental processes in order to succeed. Exemptions leading to the aforementioned harms are provided by government bodies influenced by the industries who did not want to lose profits to necessary limitations and safeguards. This is in addition to utilizing huge amounts of capital to fight basic complaints and lawsuits against harmful industry practices. Then the appealing of any judgements against (again, mostly larger) businesses, delaying cleanup and/or compensation to communities and individuals. Worker safety, healthcare, adequate wages, environmental impacts, collective bargaining, and whistle-blower protections are all basic rights that have been degraded by industry lobbying. We are all less healthy and less safe because of the hubris and cowardice of corporations, some just think they can buy their way out of unsafe surroundings-or even leave the planet.

Now we come to the section to evaluate the two areas of competition. I leave it for you to contrast the idea of brave competitors to cowardly businessmen. Do these examples sound like valid tactics that competitors who are confident of their skills, aware of their limitations, and proud of their ability to compete on a level playing field would employ? At a baseline of competition in an open field of opponents, the best-prepared and best-suited would prevail. This is often the stated goal of "free market" proponents: just give businesses an honest chance to compete and let the best ones win. If that were truly the case, they would relish the challenge of strong competition. If they were courageous, and capitalism were the valid pursuit they claim, it would lead to real innovation and improvements for all, rather than solely benefiting the few.

Business Problems Require Business Solutions

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

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

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

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

Rethinking Leads to Improvement

Previously, I have posted on the nature of science as well as taking actions in the face of opposition. Given recent events, and my continual learning and growth, I feel it important to revisit these topics and provide greater context.

The first is from early 2012, and can be found here. In it, I encourage people to "act as if". The reason for revisiting this is the recent insurrection at the nation's capitol in the District of Columbia. I thought that a reader might conclude I would agree with a "direct action" such as storming the legislature. This nonsensical idea would be ludicrous even in more sane times, as it is far from the intention or spirit of my post. I have previously expressed my support of peaceful protest/action (ahimsa), whereas the violent mob of 6 January were seeking to impose upon rather than convince others. In 2012, I was considering how much better things could have been if the majority of sympathetic citizens had "revolted" against the idiotic notions and laws about "race" segregation in 1950's and 1960's U.S. If only regular folks had not been cowed or silenced by the authority of Jim Crow laws and uppity segregationists. However, this admonition (I only recently recognized) could be taken to support the very group I wished to oppose. After all, it was very often the racist and political actors who were "acting as if"; they played out the fantasy of "racial superiority" as if it had legitimacy. I recognized that I can be somewhat overly optimistic when it comes to humans. I tend to think that most people have a deep sense of what is right, which they struggle to quiet in those times they do things that I consider wrong-even though there is no evidence that we share these values. It is a simple (or simple-minded) error and projection. However, what I wish to focus on is that statement about subverting backwards norms and prejudice. I still think it is valid to buck convention, and wish more people had the courage to take actions to help one another despite the "rules against that sort of thing". To bake that cake for the same-sex couple and tell off the boss. To let a person without a residence sit inside without buying anything. To not guard discarded food at a grocery store when people come to reclaim some of that "harvest". Essentially, to take the decent, humane action in a situation despite "company policy". The difficulty arises when I have to acknowledge that others think "decency" is something that excuses hateful and dehumanizing actions against groups who look or act differently than themselves. I forget that some people are so narrow-minded that they actually do believe somehow they have a handle on "Truth" and everyone else has it wrong. To those individuals, I still advise you to "act as if"-although in your case, it is to act as if you were a kind and rational human on the same level as everyone else-as if we had equality, equity, and justice. While I recognize that I also operate from opinion and there are other interpretations, mine are based on assumptions of inherent human worth. There are numerous possible actions based on these ideas, none of which lead to condemning another or taking from others because they are "less worthy" than I am. It is one of the worst parts of us that allows suffering because of "rules".

The second post I wish to update is from later in 2012, and can be found here. This is because I had a realization about the nature of human knowledge and thinking, specifically relating to the last line in the post. To begin, I must say that the intensity of denial, refutation, and outright hostility which has accompanied the global pandemic over the past year leaves me aghast. The basic knowledge of the germ theory of disease that escapes people is outrageous; it is almost as if they still believe spirits, demons, or miasma are the causes of disease. However, I want to keep on track in regards to this post, so let us return to the attack on science in general. In the original post, I again projected a few attributes, including the capacity for self-awareness and self-examination. The long history of humans falling for ludicrous notions and snake oil is extensive, but dependent upon ignorance. It is typical of humans to have cognitive biases, logical errors, and non-critical thinking; it takes training and effort to learn to think logically and clearly (not to claim I am successful in same). Fundamental Attribution Error, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic are only three common problems with thinking, and we are all subject to many more. It is how brains work, and simply part of being human; there is no shame or uniqueness in having them creep into our thinking. However, it means that we need a way to counteract this natural process, in order to better understand our world. This is the genius of the scientific method, and what I failed to previously acknowledge. Whereas we typically want to find things which confirm what we suspect (and be satisfied once we do so), this scientific approach requires that we come at it from the opposite direction. Using science, we seek to prove that what we believe is wrong, and that it can be explained in some other way! If that fails, we may attack it from another angle, seeking again to disprove our thinking. All this work deserves celebration, since each explanation that is disproved will mark real progress towards a more comprehensive understanding. Once we have eliminated enough possibilities, we see more clearly what and how we previously misunderstood the subject. Science is a process which expands our thinking and allows us to witness the beauty of what actually is. There is nothing I could say which will match anything Carl Sagan has already stated, so I will point you to his works rather than subject you to more of my own sub-par offerings. I simply wish to convey that anyone can utilize this scientific approach in order to increase their knowledge, and everyone who is willing to spend more time being wrong is on the right path.

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.

Confirmation and bias

It seems there is a portion of the population which struggles with accepting the world the way it is. People who hear what they want to hear, and anything contradicting their worldview is automatically wrong. However, whatever they hear – no matter how outlandish – as long as it fits with their established perspective, is given credence.

One might think I'm discussing religion zealots, however this applies to larger proportions than those who identify with a religion. It is a human tendency, whereby our lazy brains want to use as little energy as possible in order to solve any problem. It allows us to short-cut the process of information evaluation, and especially now that information is so readily available, this is appealing. Finding definitive answers that stand up to rigorous scrutiny actually seems more difficult, now that there are so many sources and varied interpretations to evaluate. It can be understandable to avoid all that work, and focus on more important matters. This may all indicate an underlying discomfort with uncertainty, whereby an answer must explain everything under all circumstances to be valid and any explanation that only deals with parts of a question must be entirely worthless.

 

However, a larger problem is that it can lead to dismissing others' opinions and insurmountable disagreement. If I have to hold on to my opinion no matter what evidence arises to contradict it, then I cannot hear what someone else has to say on the subject. This results in unwillingness to have simple conversation, and avoiding entire topics which can be vital to resolve. I am not advocating an entirely relative perspective, where we cannot know anything for certain and therefore must listen to any new opinion with equal credence. I simply point out the difficulty presented by the current system which lacks the ability to resolve anything, regardless of controversy or validity.

How Rocky Ruins Expectations

Initially, I was planning on demonstrating my thesis by using the film as an example of absurd wish-fulfillment that feeds viewers lies about achievement and twists expectations about success. However, I went back and re-watched the film; my narrative did not entirely fit the actual film. With that in mind, I am re-working this post, and therefore it may seem mildly disjointed. I think this may fit with the topic, although I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Rocky is the quintessential "American" story. It is about one man who overcomes all obstacles and wins a championship despite having many disadvantages. It is, in fact, the persistent drumbeat that anyone in the U.S. is familiar with whether they acknowledge it or not. I will add that it is an emotional and dramatic movie, and does display some of the struggles regular folks face. This is the reason I cannot use it as my example, although it still bears examination and demonstrates part of the message I seek to convey. In fact, the best examples of this issue are social media and video-sharing sites. The latter made it so any person with an account could upload videos of anything they like which visitors to the site could view, instead of needing expensive recording and broadcast equipment. Both are platforms which were initially purported to allow everyday individuals to easily distribute their messages to other users/individuals. They have not necessarily lived up to that early promise.

How does this show or even relate to expectations and their ruin? Both types of platform contain only the best, polished, edited version of what users want others to see. What I mean is that you won't find people's failures or mistakes on display, unless it's for ridicule. With the introduction of "likes", videos that do not fit this mold are voted out of mainstream. Typically, anything short of perfection is edited out, leading to much worse than simple jump-cuts. Only our best successes are allowed to be broadcast, the exotic vacation or fabulous event that gets posted. My criticism is not that people's triumphs or pride should not be seen. My point here is not about gloating or hubris. It is more about the underlying messages to both creators and viewers. There are three fundamental errors or injuries that arise from this system.

The first is found in the axiom "life is not a straight line". It is an immutable fact of being human that we do not learn as much about something by getting it right the first time. An exemplar of this is children. While adults know how to do things the child needs to learn, no adult can learn the experience or skill for the child; no matter how caring the adult may be, they cannot short-cut the child's process to learn for themselves. In fact, proficient individuals can learn from watching inexperienced persons build proficiency-it is helpful and desirable to explore ways to fail at a thing because that builds expertise. Failing to recognize or demonstrate this leads to individuals who think anything less than success is unacceptable or wrong.

This leads into the second error, that if one only sees success then failure seems aberrant. The problem is that there is harm done by ignoring the fact that everyone messes up and fails at times. If the expectation established by these platforms is flawless performance and immaculate appearance, how can I keep up in everyday life? It leads to thinking that if everyone else is doing this thing, then by not doing (or even being able to do) it I am wrong. The most proficient athlete, scientist, or chef will make a mess and have to clean it up. There is value in acknowledging this, even to witnessing or hearing the story of this mistake. It normalizes the fact of human fallibility, and allows individuals to have compassion for themselves and others. This creates greater opportunity for connection and forgiveness.

Finally, the third error around expectations. The entire exercise is inauthentic, meaning that I do not show who I actually, truly am. If the goal is to be able to share my life with social media, how do you get to know me when I only show the "good" side? This is more of the same as in everyday life where we want to be seen as admirable and capable. Any failures or limitations count heavily against us, and we work hard to deny or prevent them. It is not authentic to hide our shortcomings because we all have them and they are as much a part of our selves as the parts we want others to see. I will suggest that living a lie is barely living, and the constant fear of being "found out" leads to real, negative effects.

This is why it is a cultural and not a personal failing-that we are encouraged, if not required, to show no weakness or flaws. This does not lend itself to resilience or grit because it is an impossible standard to meet. This pattern of success-centric content creates unrealistic expectations whereby I think I should just be able to do something with minimal effort or "if I'm not good at it right away, I'll never succeed." This thinking does not recognize or include the tremendous amount of work that goes in to every piece of media, even a photo. Anyone who has sat for professional pictures received a glimpse of this.

I Take Responsibility for Trump

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

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

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

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

Gaming for Those Who Do Not Game

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

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

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

The Factory Model of Humans

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

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

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

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

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