Why can't I get my idea off the ground?

At least part of the reason we are not told that most innovations and advancements are made by people who have financial stability (if not pre-existing wealth) is that we will not continue to believe the lie that "anyone can do it". The constant refrain of impossibly 'bootstrapping' oneself into a better life leads to tremendous numbers of individuals falling for pyramid schemes and other 'get-rich-quick' schemes. Because we cannot make the connection between the necessity of having proper, adequate resources and the resulting ability to thrive, risk, and invent, we blame ourselves for any inevitable failure. Contrariwise, we can recognize the inherent unfairness and give in to hopelessness because the system is truly rigged. Certainly, there are other ways to fail, however lack of adequate resources is one we-as a society-can do something about. While it may be enough for many folks that it is "the right thing to do", for others the rationale that it increases productivity and creativity (think engineering, not art, if it helps) should be persuasive. 

There is no beneficial motivation to a majority of folks to be faced with destitution and/or death. Every decision we make does not need to be life-or-death, that sort of desperation does not lead to consideration or deliberation. It puts people into "survival mode" where they believe (not incorrectly, for certain) that they must do certain things to stay alive. Anyone who believes they are fighting for their life is willing to resort to extreme measures to accomplish that goal. Placing people into this position when it is unnecessary is both inhumane and foolish. There is overwhelming evidence that tired, distressed, under-nourished, and dependent individuals do more poorly at work, school, and in social situations. Relieving this burden would free up all that lost "human capital" so all those individuals could make more contributions.

There is no good reason people should starve, struggle, or die in modern times. The myth that 'misfortune is our lot' or 'suffering is good for the soul' allows some to justify the absurd notion that there needs to be some extra difficulty, when in truth life is hard enough, even with basic needs taken care of. It is past time to discuss the real reasons this system continues along with the underlying beliefs that perpetuate it.

A Word on Shame and Language

I have been grateful for the work of Dr. Brené Brown and personal experiences with emotional intelligence skills for my understanding of shame. I heard something on the topic recently that just did not sit right with me, and I could not find the words in the moment to express why. After reflecting on it, I felt it important enough to publish my thoughts here. First, the statement centers around the idea of "healthy shame"; I heard this explained in the context of society v. individual. Supposedly, the idea seems to be that shame is healthy when it is used to keep people from doing harmful things in public or social settings. We will come back to why I had an immediate sense of how wrong this is, but first I need to explain a few basics so the conclusion is clear.

My understanding is that the central difference between shame and guilt is the locus of responsibility or fault. This is often expressed as "Guilt is 'I did something wrong', and shame is 'I am something wrong'". Either I am separate from my choices or I am my choices; it is external or internal. This is an important distinction because actions can be changed more easily than selves. When I believe that I made an error in judgement and have learned that lesson, I want to change my behaviour to have better outcomes in future. My healthy self-image is not tied up with my choices, and I have a number of comparable paths to choose from. However, when I believe I made that choice because of who or how I am, it has a couple impacts. One is that the feeling of shame is reinforced, making it apparent that 'I always screw things up'. The other is that because it is who I am, I would have to be willing to change myself fundamentally to stop these mistakes in future. Furthermore, there is the learned helplessness of individuals with shame; nothing they have ever done was good enough, and no matter how hard they tried they could never change it-they likely will have given up hope that change is possible. To a person who is shame-filled, there are 'right' and 'wrong' choices, and every choice carries the weight of being the wrong one. This indicates that shame is intimately related to thinking in absolutes-often referred to as "black-or-white" and "either-or" thinking. Shame can come from a child hearing things like "you're such a screw up [no one else would do that]" instead of "oh, we all make mistakes-you'll do better next time." The former is being uniquely separate from 'normal people' and inherently a "screw up". The latter is being the same as everyone else and able to change. Incidentally, this is a good argument for using "people-centered" language, for example: "a person who has X" rather than "an X person". Now that these things are more clear, we can return to the original issue.

If shame is about the "who" someone is that they cannot change and locks them into "being" their choices, then how could that ever be "healthy"? Especially when the idea seems to be that this would change problematic social behaviours. I will suggest that the idea is more closely related to other 'feelings' that Dr. Brown has talked about: embarrassment and humiliation. These, again, can be divided into "internal/external" and  "healthy/unhealthy", but also don't quite explain what is really expressed by the notion. For that, we would look to social constructs: pressure, norms, and mores (the last is said "more-AYs"). These are essentially the social controls which keep people "in line" and from acting outrageously in public. When people talk about "pro-social" and "anti-social" behaviours, they are based off the aforementioned social constructs. They are what we learn without being told and what we fear to breach lest we are ostracized. Finally, this is where we encounter what "healthy [social] shame" actually is: the threat or action of casting out a member perceived as non-conforming. I think this exposes the intolerance and impracticality of the idea, which I hope leads us to healthier methods of encouraging pro-social attitudes and actions.

A Short Proposal on Expertise

I propose that the idea of being an expert in a field is misunderstood. A dictionary will define it as skill and/or knowledge of a particular area. This is both inadequate as well as under attack in recent history. By the latter, I mean that the very notion that someone can be an expert has been dismissed or ridiculed in public discourse for decades. This could be an attack designed to undermine the legitimacy of actual knowledge and/or science or a critical look at expertise being used to discount complaints of target populations. That is not the content of this post-I propose to look at the former notion and offer a less-expressed addition to the thinking on the subject.

While expertise can be seen as ability to perform all aspects of a task or act with authority in a position, this does not cover enough of what it is. The capacity to not only guide actions during everyday operations, but to do so when things go awry is what I suggest. Most people, most of the time, can sit in a chair wearing a bathing suit and holding a whistle while watching people in a swimming pool. Some of them may even be able to spot a swimmer in trouble and blow the whistle. However, even if they could tell something was amiss, I do not think many would be able to spot a person drowning and take appropriate action to save a life-many would even drown trying to save another! So I ask if you would frequent a swimming pool where the lifeguard did not have adequate training-or entrust the life of your child to such a lifeguard.

Similarly, we can operate most of the time with shortcuts and half-attention to what we do. Usually "good enough" is good enough; we can 'get away' with adequate. However, this system relies on all other things being within particular tolerances. Only as long as the situation is operating smoothly can most people handle managing or guiding their actions and those of others. All that changes when the unexpected or disastrous occurs. Once a person in the water is drowning, we need trained and fit lifeguards on duty. This is where expertise comes into play. Finally, we reach the purpose to this post: why is this an important addition to the definition and our understanding? It is because we need folks in charge of things who have experience or knowledge of what to do when things go wrong, not just when things are going according to plan. We have too few of them around at the moment, and too little trust in those who are. We will pay an exorbitant price when the crisis comes because of this absence.

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.