It is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the people around us -- indeed, people EVERYWHERE -- share our perspective and our circumstances. Sometimes we are actually taught or encouraged to think along these lines.
In the community where I live, most people assume that everyone they deal with on a daily basis has a home, a car, a telephone (land line and/or cellular), television (generally cable), at least one bank account, and a certain amount of money available for charities and gifts. We have heard that there are “homeless” people, but in general we have no contact with “those” people. We have also heard of people who have no cars, but these people probably have some specific reason for giving up their car -- perhaps an elderly person that no longer drives. There may BE people without televisions, but they must be eccentric. Everyone has a telephone, everyone has at least one bank account, unless perhaps they are between bank accounts, and everyone has money available for charities and gifts, but some people are too cheap to part with their money.
This is just the perception. The truth, though many would find it hard to believe, is that in addition to homeless people, there are plenty of people without cars, televisions, telephones, bank accounts, or a penny to spare, and most people probably encounter such people in their day-to-day activities -- though many people would argue vehemently with me about this.
Continuing rapid “advances” in technology, and the increasing prevalence of this technology in our daily lives, provides more examples of this phenomenon. We are well on our way to believing that “everyone” has a Facebook page, and a cell phone that not only serves as a telephone but also includes a camera and provides access to the Internet. (I place the word “advances” in quotation marks because it seems to me that “advances” implies something positive, an improvement, and at this point I am unconvinced that Facebook and web-enabled camera phones are a positive development.)
Anytime we start generalizing about other people, whether it be in regard to what they believe, what they possess or have access to, what they desire, or what they can afford, we are probably making a mistake. Everyone is unique, and often in ways we cannot begin to imagine.
Often we are encouraged to think of others as essentially like ourselves. Even “the Golden Rule” (which I am NOT a fan of) specifies in its most common form that we should treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated (rather than the way that THEY would like to be treated). I suppose there is something positive about this way of thinking.
On the negative side, thinking of others as essentially like ourselves imbues them with the same priorities and the same resources that we have, and tends to hold them to the same standards that WE consider appropriate, with the same definitions of “right” and “wrong”.
Just as we are incapable of seeing ANYTHING with absolute clarity, most of what we see as intrinsically and obviously "right" or "wrong" or "proper" or "improper" is just a product of the values and priorities we have somehow acquired throughout our lives, and there is nothing intrinsic or obvious about it. For example, most present-day Americans would state that a green, well-mowed, dandelion-free lawn was "better" and even "prettier" than an unkempt yard full of dandelions. Objectively, a yard full of dandelions is probably "prettier", but we have been taught since childhood that dandelions are "weeds" rather than "flowers". I honestly find an un-mowed yard to be more attractive than a mowed one, but I have been accused of lying about this by those who believe that a well-mowed yard is clearly "better", and that everyone KNOWS a well-mowed yard is clearly better.
This is one of those ideas that we cannot overcome, closely related to the idea that we cannot be truly objective, and everything is filtered through our own perception. What is especially troubling is many people's inability to perceive/accept the idea that their values and priorities are simply their own values and priorities, and not innately correct. As with my lawn-mowing example, many people seem incapable of accepting that people could truly embrace alternate beliefs, and accuse those who disagree with them of lying or being mentally flawed.
On a related note, this concept of “group agreement” seems important to many people. When I argue with my mother -- which we do frequently -- it is always important to her to stress not only that I am wrong and that she is right, but also that EVERYONE agrees with her position, and NO ONE agrees with my position. I once told her, “Even if a nation-wide poll found that most people agreed with ME, you would still insist that EVERYONE agreed with YOU.”
She replied, “That’s not true! A nation-wide poll would never find that most people agreed with YOU!” While this true example may seem humorous or extreme, many people view the world in basically this same way: “Everyone agrees with me, and views the world the same way that I view it, and anyone who does not is peculiar, or lying about their true opinion and view.” This is compounded not only by the fact that people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with others who share their views, but also by the fact that we tend to BELIEVE we are surrounded by others who share our views -- thus reinforcing them -- even when we are NOT, and when everyone is actually unique.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Misrepresentation
I originally wrote most of the following post over two years ago. I have been reluctant to post it for several reasons. For one thing, it is critical of President Obama. Many people are really bothered by ANY sort of criticism of President Obama, so much so that they do not really pay attention to what you have to say, and quit paying attention to anything you say after that. For another thing, it deals with the fact that anyone who voices criticism of President Obama risks being labeled a "racist". This was already apparent during the Presidential campaign, and became even worse after President Obama was elected. I had HOPED it would go away after the election, but it hasn't. That's yet another reason NOT to post this -- it deals with the 2008 Presidential election, and that was quite awhile ago. Sadly, this all still seems relevant, so here it is:
I did not vote for President Obama, but I considered it. Many of my friends, and most of my relatives, were supporters of Obama's Presidential Campaign, some of them vehemently. In the end, there was one single factor that decided the question of whether or not I would vote for Obama for President: On multiple occasions -- perhaps "routinely" -- he misrepresented the beliefs and positions of his opponents.
For me, this is a fatal flaw in a person who seeks to be the President of the United States, especially at a time when the citizens of the United States are highly polarized and deeply divided on a number of difficult issues. Under those circumstances, the best hope for uniting and moving forward lies in honest and sincere communication, and an attempt to understand our differences, rather than blatantly misrepresenting them.
There are those who would argue that misrepresenting your opposition's beliefs is simply how the game of politics is currently played, and perhaps they are right. Certainly all sides are guilty of this sin, as are most, but not all, candidates. Regardless, it remains a fact that I did not vote for President Obama primarily for that reason.
I was thinking about all this the other day as I repeatedly heard the assertion that those who now oppose President Obama are motivated primarily by racial considerations. I must acknowledge that at least officially, these charges do not come from President Obama himself. It is SUPPORTERS of President Obama who claim that those who oppose him object primarily to his race rather than his ideas or his actions. Still, in a sense, we have come full circle. I did not vote for Obama because he misrepresented the beliefs of those who opposed him, and now I am one of those whose beliefs are being misrepresented by those who support him. Rather than listen to any of my actual positions, or any of the reasons I oppose President Obama, I am simply characterized as a "racist".
It is one thing to disagree with someone's concerns. It is quite another to deny that they even HAVE concerns. What hope is there for a society where we cannot even acknowledge that those who have opposing views HAVE opposing views?
I did not vote for President Obama, but I considered it. Many of my friends, and most of my relatives, were supporters of Obama's Presidential Campaign, some of them vehemently. In the end, there was one single factor that decided the question of whether or not I would vote for Obama for President: On multiple occasions -- perhaps "routinely" -- he misrepresented the beliefs and positions of his opponents.
For me, this is a fatal flaw in a person who seeks to be the President of the United States, especially at a time when the citizens of the United States are highly polarized and deeply divided on a number of difficult issues. Under those circumstances, the best hope for uniting and moving forward lies in honest and sincere communication, and an attempt to understand our differences, rather than blatantly misrepresenting them.
There are those who would argue that misrepresenting your opposition's beliefs is simply how the game of politics is currently played, and perhaps they are right. Certainly all sides are guilty of this sin, as are most, but not all, candidates. Regardless, it remains a fact that I did not vote for President Obama primarily for that reason.
I was thinking about all this the other day as I repeatedly heard the assertion that those who now oppose President Obama are motivated primarily by racial considerations. I must acknowledge that at least officially, these charges do not come from President Obama himself. It is SUPPORTERS of President Obama who claim that those who oppose him object primarily to his race rather than his ideas or his actions. Still, in a sense, we have come full circle. I did not vote for Obama because he misrepresented the beliefs of those who opposed him, and now I am one of those whose beliefs are being misrepresented by those who support him. Rather than listen to any of my actual positions, or any of the reasons I oppose President Obama, I am simply characterized as a "racist".
It is one thing to disagree with someone's concerns. It is quite another to deny that they even HAVE concerns. What hope is there for a society where we cannot even acknowledge that those who have opposing views HAVE opposing views?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Anabolic Steroids
In the late 1980s, at a medical conference, I attended a profound lecture on the use of anabolic steroids to increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker was strongly opposed to this use of steroids, and supported his opposition with a variety of scientific facts, especially regarding negative effects on the user's health, both short-term and long-term.
The most memorable part of the lecture, though, was the speaker's attack on the medical community in general, for assertions that anabolic steroids do NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker took the position that although the negative effects of steroids for athletes far outweigh the positive, and they should never be used in this manner, to state that they are ineffective for this purpose is totally untrue. When you CLAIM that anabolic steroids will NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance, then you lose all credibility, and there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything ELSE you have to say about anabolic steroids, or, for that matter, any other topic.
Let me hasten to point out that I do not know enough about the subject of anabolic steroids to know whether the lecturer was right or wrong about their use, but his point about telling an untruth remains profound, and applies to many areas of life.
I suspect this phenomenon is more common that anyone will ever know. When people feel strongly about something, they embrace those aspects of it which favor their position, while denying those aspects that do not support their position. Or, someone feels strongly about something, for reasons they do not fully understand, and then embraces "facts" to support their strong feelings. This is totally understandable, but it is equally understandable that the use of untruths and/or denial of truths often weakens your position rather than strengthens it.
Some of the best-known examples come from childhood. Many a child has been told that their face will "stick" in a certain position, or that they will "go blind" from engaging in certain activities that their parents find unseemly. When the child realizes that their face will NOT stick, and that certain activities will NOT make them go blind, then it casts doubt upon everything else that their parents tell them (though I have no idea how damaging the effects might be).
In the world of grown-ups, an easy place to look for examples is with local "nuisance ordinances" and neighborhood rules. Growing up in Iowa, one of the main ways we made mischief during the Halloween season was to throw hand-fulls of field corn at the neighbors' windows, which, while a common activity at Halloween in my neighborhood, would have the effect of startling them. To this day, I maintain that "corning", as it was called, though possibly annoying, is essentially harmless and wholesome, especially when compared with other pranks. About the time I was growing too old to participate anyway, city officials spread word that "corning" must be stopped for reasons of community health -- the corn brought rats, and rats brought disease. Until I see some sort of scientific research, I will continue to doubt that rats and disease were ever a significant consequence of "corning". "Corning" was a common child's prank in our community, and some people didn't like it, so they came up with a reason to stop it.
Actually, the whole rodent/disease argument is invoked for a wide array of rules and pressures. You must keep your lawn well-mowed, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must keep your porch clutter-free, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must not have dishes of cat food outside, for you will attract rodents and disease (the idea that the attracted CATS will cut down on the "rodents and disease" is conveniently overlooked).
Some people reading this might say, "Wait a minute! An un-mowed lawn DOES attract rodents and disease!" This brings up a new point. This is one of those cases in which the precise truth of the situation is NOT all-important. I personally doubt that an un-mowed lawn attracts enough rodents and disease to support the case for requiring people to mow their lawns, and I am unaware of any data to support such an assertion, other than the fact that some people have claimed that it is true. While I may be completely wrong, if you go making this claim, and I believe that it is untrue, then I am less likely to believe anything ELSE you have to say, even if you have other valid reasons for requiring people to mow their lawns -- regardless of whether or not the "rodents and disease" claim is actually true.
Before I stray even further into my hatred of "nuisance ordinances", let me return to the original point: Even if your intentions are noble, and you are on the correct side of an issue, the use of untruths or denial of truths weakens your argument rather than strengthens it, and may negate all the factual information that supports your position. IF you have facts to support your position, state them. If some facts contradict your position, admit it. If your position is mostly just your opinion, or based mostly on an unproven "gut feeling," ACKNOWLEDGE that your position is your opinion, and cannot at the moment be "proven". This will not WEAKEN your argument. If anything, it will strengthen it.
Truth is complicated.
The most memorable part of the lecture, though, was the speaker's attack on the medical community in general, for assertions that anabolic steroids do NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker took the position that although the negative effects of steroids for athletes far outweigh the positive, and they should never be used in this manner, to state that they are ineffective for this purpose is totally untrue. When you CLAIM that anabolic steroids will NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance, then you lose all credibility, and there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything ELSE you have to say about anabolic steroids, or, for that matter, any other topic.
Let me hasten to point out that I do not know enough about the subject of anabolic steroids to know whether the lecturer was right or wrong about their use, but his point about telling an untruth remains profound, and applies to many areas of life.
I suspect this phenomenon is more common that anyone will ever know. When people feel strongly about something, they embrace those aspects of it which favor their position, while denying those aspects that do not support their position. Or, someone feels strongly about something, for reasons they do not fully understand, and then embraces "facts" to support their strong feelings. This is totally understandable, but it is equally understandable that the use of untruths and/or denial of truths often weakens your position rather than strengthens it.
Some of the best-known examples come from childhood. Many a child has been told that their face will "stick" in a certain position, or that they will "go blind" from engaging in certain activities that their parents find unseemly. When the child realizes that their face will NOT stick, and that certain activities will NOT make them go blind, then it casts doubt upon everything else that their parents tell them (though I have no idea how damaging the effects might be).
In the world of grown-ups, an easy place to look for examples is with local "nuisance ordinances" and neighborhood rules. Growing up in Iowa, one of the main ways we made mischief during the Halloween season was to throw hand-fulls of field corn at the neighbors' windows, which, while a common activity at Halloween in my neighborhood, would have the effect of startling them. To this day, I maintain that "corning", as it was called, though possibly annoying, is essentially harmless and wholesome, especially when compared with other pranks. About the time I was growing too old to participate anyway, city officials spread word that "corning" must be stopped for reasons of community health -- the corn brought rats, and rats brought disease. Until I see some sort of scientific research, I will continue to doubt that rats and disease were ever a significant consequence of "corning". "Corning" was a common child's prank in our community, and some people didn't like it, so they came up with a reason to stop it.
Actually, the whole rodent/disease argument is invoked for a wide array of rules and pressures. You must keep your lawn well-mowed, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must keep your porch clutter-free, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must not have dishes of cat food outside, for you will attract rodents and disease (the idea that the attracted CATS will cut down on the "rodents and disease" is conveniently overlooked).
Some people reading this might say, "Wait a minute! An un-mowed lawn DOES attract rodents and disease!" This brings up a new point. This is one of those cases in which the precise truth of the situation is NOT all-important. I personally doubt that an un-mowed lawn attracts enough rodents and disease to support the case for requiring people to mow their lawns, and I am unaware of any data to support such an assertion, other than the fact that some people have claimed that it is true. While I may be completely wrong, if you go making this claim, and I believe that it is untrue, then I am less likely to believe anything ELSE you have to say, even if you have other valid reasons for requiring people to mow their lawns -- regardless of whether or not the "rodents and disease" claim is actually true.
Before I stray even further into my hatred of "nuisance ordinances", let me return to the original point: Even if your intentions are noble, and you are on the correct side of an issue, the use of untruths or denial of truths weakens your argument rather than strengthens it, and may negate all the factual information that supports your position. IF you have facts to support your position, state them. If some facts contradict your position, admit it. If your position is mostly just your opinion, or based mostly on an unproven "gut feeling," ACKNOWLEDGE that your position is your opinion, and cannot at the moment be "proven". This will not WEAKEN your argument. If anything, it will strengthen it.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)