One morning in high school, the teacher introduced an "exchange student" from Columbia. She sat right in front of me, in the first seat of a row, so I automatically became her first friend. Everything about her was "different." She did not speak English very well, but she also had a "different" voice, different ways of doing things, different mannerisms, and even LOOKED different with her clothing and the way she wore her hair and makeup. The fact that so much of our common ordinary world was "new" to her was fascinating, and there was also a certain amount of notoriety associated with being her friend. At first, being around her was exhilarating ... but that was not to last. Over time, characteristics that had seemed so charming became simply annoying. As her circle of friends expanded, we drifted apart.
I suspect that there are some people who have an automatic tendency to unconsciously view "different" as "good", while others may have an equally-automatic unconscious tendency to view "different" as "bad". Imagine being offered a plate of totally-unfamiliar exotic foreign food. Some will consider this food "good" until proven otherwise, while some will consider it "bad". Some may hold onto their pre-existing bias even after tasting the food, insisting that unpalatable food is "good" strictly BECAUSE it is different, or labelling the food "bad" no matter how tasty it is. Some may taste the food with no pre-existing expectations, but I would guess this is the smallest of the three groups.
These biases apply to all areas of life. I cannot say whether the same people who like "different" food like "different" music, or whether the same people who dislike "different" cars dislike "different" people. I suspect so. It would be interesting to study.
As with our exchange student, it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of accepting something "different", just as it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of condemning something "different". As with other biases that effect our ability to see clearly, we cannot completely overcome these tendencies, but being aware of them can reduce their impact. In reality, there is no way to generalize the value of "different". Sometimes different is good, sometimes different is bad, sometimes different is just different -- though, to be thorough, sometimes different for the sake of different can be good, and sometimes different for the sake of different can be bad ... or sometimes just different.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
New
Many people have an understandable tendency to want "new" things. New clothes, new car, new house (maybe even new spouse, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). There are also those who tend to stick with the "old", but I suspect those who favor the "new" are a much larger group.
"New" has different meanings and different contexts. Primarily there is the question of "brand new" or "newly constructed" versus "new to you". With some things, like cars, our society tends to clearly differentiate between "new" -- cars that have had no previous owners -- and "used" -- even if the car was only driven a few miles by the previous owner. With something like a house, the distinction is not quite so absolute. If, for instance, a house was specifically constructed for another family, but they only lived there one day before selling it, it might be referred to as "new". In fact, ANY newly-acquired house might be referred to as "new". The distinction between "new" and "used" is more often applied to things smaller than houses.
A couple of special cases are "antiques" (and the closely related term "vintage") and "factory refurbished". I believe "factory refurbished" has been in common usage for only the last few decades. With "factory refurbished" items, the seller intentionally blurs the distinction between "new" and "used", often suggesting the item might have been previously owned but never used by the previous owner. Much of the appeal of "antiques" and "vintage" items comes from the idea that they ARE old and used, but sometimes unscrupulous people will attempt to pass off "new" or "newer" items as "antiques".
The real merits of "new" versus "used" vary with the specifics of the item. Sadly, there is often a trade-off. "New" items may have improvements upon older versions, but some of the improvements may involve using poorer materials to hold down the price, or short-cuts in the manufacturing process. Changes in materials, such as substituting plastic for metal, may improve a product by reducing weight, while at the same time making the product less durable. It all depends on the situation, and there is no way to accurately state whether "new" is "better" or "worse" in all situations.
This brings us back to the idea of personal bias. If someone already believes that "new" is "better", they may be unlikely to change their opinion even when confronted with ironclad facts, and the same is true of someone who believes that "old" is "better". Both groups may be able to cite factors to support their point of view.
I confess to a personal bias AGAINST things that are "new" -- partly just to oppose what I perceive to be an unfair general bias favoring the "new". Though I acknowledge that I am biased, in many cases I am fairly certain that the "old" possesses definite advantages. As a couple of examples, I cite roll-up non-electric automobile windows (which are more reliable and trouble-free than power windows, and usable even when the vehicle is totally without electrical power) and my Windows98 laptop computer, which automatically saves streaming audio as MP3 files, and makes it much easier to monitor any attempts by malware to alter the system than later versions of Windows. With both of these examples, I realize that the issue is complicated. There ARE advantages to automobile power windows, such as the driver being able to operate a window beyond their own reach. Later versions of Windows make various improvements upon Windows98. As I stated earlier, there is often a trade-off when it comes to "new" items.
The problems with "new" are especially prevalent in the world of technology, where products evolve rapidly. I recently considered replacing my digital camera. To be honest, I was considering this only because I was having mechanical problems with my camera. The new-camera salesman pointed out that I could purchase a technically-superior state-of-the-art camera for much less than I had originally paid for my camera. When I pointed out that none of the cameras I was being shown possessed optical viewfinders, the salesman replied that they were no longer included on cameras in my price range. Though optical viewfinders are still included on some cameras, they all cost hundreds of dollars more than my original camera. Somewhere, someone has decided that optical viewfinders are unimportant, or at least not as important as other features, such as a larger screen. I could write many pages regarding the fact that I consider optical viewfinders to be one of a digital camera's most important features. (By the way, Canon ended up repairing my camera for free.)
Especially with high-tech products, there is also the issue of familiarity -- though this issue is not limited to the world of technology. In addition to the simple comfort that familiarity can provide, there is often a learning curve associated with new products that negates their improvements, at least until the user becomes familiar with the new product. I must admit that the skill of the product developers comes into play here: When I eventually acquire a "new" digital camera, the ease of my transition from old to new will depend to a great extent on the design of the new camera.
Sadly, this is one of those issues where it may be difficult to find common ground between those who favor the "old" and those who favor the "new". If someone truly favors the "old", an attempt to incorporate "old" features into something "new" may seem like nothing more than an attempt to quiet their objections. I recently heard someone arguing in favor of tearing down an old building and replacing it with a brand-new one, and he suggested those who favored keeping the old building might be satisfied by embedding a few stones from the original building into a wall in the new building. At the same time, someone who truly believes "new" is better will not be satisfied by even the most thorough "updating" of the "old".
This brings up the fact that sometimes there are simply issues that divide people, with no clear compromises and no real solutions.
Truth is complicated.
"New" has different meanings and different contexts. Primarily there is the question of "brand new" or "newly constructed" versus "new to you". With some things, like cars, our society tends to clearly differentiate between "new" -- cars that have had no previous owners -- and "used" -- even if the car was only driven a few miles by the previous owner. With something like a house, the distinction is not quite so absolute. If, for instance, a house was specifically constructed for another family, but they only lived there one day before selling it, it might be referred to as "new". In fact, ANY newly-acquired house might be referred to as "new". The distinction between "new" and "used" is more often applied to things smaller than houses.
A couple of special cases are "antiques" (and the closely related term "vintage") and "factory refurbished". I believe "factory refurbished" has been in common usage for only the last few decades. With "factory refurbished" items, the seller intentionally blurs the distinction between "new" and "used", often suggesting the item might have been previously owned but never used by the previous owner. Much of the appeal of "antiques" and "vintage" items comes from the idea that they ARE old and used, but sometimes unscrupulous people will attempt to pass off "new" or "newer" items as "antiques".
The real merits of "new" versus "used" vary with the specifics of the item. Sadly, there is often a trade-off. "New" items may have improvements upon older versions, but some of the improvements may involve using poorer materials to hold down the price, or short-cuts in the manufacturing process. Changes in materials, such as substituting plastic for metal, may improve a product by reducing weight, while at the same time making the product less durable. It all depends on the situation, and there is no way to accurately state whether "new" is "better" or "worse" in all situations.
This brings us back to the idea of personal bias. If someone already believes that "new" is "better", they may be unlikely to change their opinion even when confronted with ironclad facts, and the same is true of someone who believes that "old" is "better". Both groups may be able to cite factors to support their point of view.
I confess to a personal bias AGAINST things that are "new" -- partly just to oppose what I perceive to be an unfair general bias favoring the "new". Though I acknowledge that I am biased, in many cases I am fairly certain that the "old" possesses definite advantages. As a couple of examples, I cite roll-up non-electric automobile windows (which are more reliable and trouble-free than power windows, and usable even when the vehicle is totally without electrical power) and my Windows98 laptop computer, which automatically saves streaming audio as MP3 files, and makes it much easier to monitor any attempts by malware to alter the system than later versions of Windows. With both of these examples, I realize that the issue is complicated. There ARE advantages to automobile power windows, such as the driver being able to operate a window beyond their own reach. Later versions of Windows make various improvements upon Windows98. As I stated earlier, there is often a trade-off when it comes to "new" items.
The problems with "new" are especially prevalent in the world of technology, where products evolve rapidly. I recently considered replacing my digital camera. To be honest, I was considering this only because I was having mechanical problems with my camera. The new-camera salesman pointed out that I could purchase a technically-superior state-of-the-art camera for much less than I had originally paid for my camera. When I pointed out that none of the cameras I was being shown possessed optical viewfinders, the salesman replied that they were no longer included on cameras in my price range. Though optical viewfinders are still included on some cameras, they all cost hundreds of dollars more than my original camera. Somewhere, someone has decided that optical viewfinders are unimportant, or at least not as important as other features, such as a larger screen. I could write many pages regarding the fact that I consider optical viewfinders to be one of a digital camera's most important features. (By the way, Canon ended up repairing my camera for free.)
Especially with high-tech products, there is also the issue of familiarity -- though this issue is not limited to the world of technology. In addition to the simple comfort that familiarity can provide, there is often a learning curve associated with new products that negates their improvements, at least until the user becomes familiar with the new product. I must admit that the skill of the product developers comes into play here: When I eventually acquire a "new" digital camera, the ease of my transition from old to new will depend to a great extent on the design of the new camera.
Sadly, this is one of those issues where it may be difficult to find common ground between those who favor the "old" and those who favor the "new". If someone truly favors the "old", an attempt to incorporate "old" features into something "new" may seem like nothing more than an attempt to quiet their objections. I recently heard someone arguing in favor of tearing down an old building and replacing it with a brand-new one, and he suggested those who favored keeping the old building might be satisfied by embedding a few stones from the original building into a wall in the new building. At the same time, someone who truly believes "new" is better will not be satisfied by even the most thorough "updating" of the "old".
This brings up the fact that sometimes there are simply issues that divide people, with no clear compromises and no real solutions.
Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Truth vs. Blame
Philosophers and theologians devote considerable energy to the subject of unfortunate events, and the question of why bad things happen. Sometimes, an event seems totally outside of human control or influence, and we can only question fate or God or other intangibles. Other times, people can entertain the idea that humans caused or at least could have had an impact on the unfortunate event -- whether or not this is actually the case. I might go so far as to suggest that many people seek to find specific humans to blame for tragedies, and somehow find comfort in the idea that the event was NOT a totally random act of providence.
When such a question arises in a hospital setting -- that is, when there is an unfortunate event that may have been influenced by humans -- many hospitals examine the event in the setting of a "Morbidity/Mortality" conference. While I suppose that each hospital may have their own variations on such conferences, a common, key feature of the "Morbidity/Mortality" conference is that it be totally, one hundred percent, guaranteed confidential, and in no way open to the public. The reason for this feature is that the underlying purpose of the conference is to seek the truth of what happened, and especially to determine whether anything can be done to improve the situation or to keep it from happening again. This becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, if we are at the same time attempting to assign blame or guilt. As long as no one fears being blamed for their actions, ideally each person can come forward with anything they may have done or not done which may have in any way contributed to the outcome of the event.
Now let's imagine that a beloved family member died while in the hospital, and you suspect someone on the hospital staff made an error that led to the death. It is predictable and understandable that you might want to assign blame, and even prosecute the "guilty" staff member. However, your family member is already dead, and there is nothing that can be done that will bring them back. If their death was indeed caused by an error on the part of a hospital staffer, the only thing that can be done that will actually preserve human health and wellness is to figure out what happened, and try to prevent it from happening again. This will be much more difficult if hospital staffers who may have done nothing wrong are afraid to step forward for fear of being found "guilty" of something. Ideally, everyone involved will want to seek the truth, and anyone who DID contribute to the negative outcome will fully come forward, but this is deeply contrary to human nature, especially if we only entertain vague suspicions that somehow we ourselves may have contributed negatively.
Theoretically, the processes of finding truth and assigning blame are not mutually exclusive. In fact, when full truth is known, then blame may perhaps be accurately assigned. The problem is that finding the full truth -- especially when that truth is complicated -- is best accomplished with honesty, open communication, and unbiased full revelation and examination of the facts, which is made difficult if not impossible by the attempt to assign or deflect blame, or to establish or deflect guilt.
Sometimes it is enough to assign blame or establish guilt without fully discerning the total truth of the situation. In the case of criminal activity, such as robbery or murder, probably the most important thing is to establish who is guilty, and punish them, without ever fully comprehending the subtle, complicated truths of the event in question. Other times, I question the underlying goals of a course of inquiry, and what it is we are truly trying to accomplish. I admit that my own bias often comes down in favor of finding truth rather than assigning blame.
One of the best examples of what I am discussing is the US government's "commission" and "hearings" to examine the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am generally quite proud to be an American. I cannot recall a time I was LESS proud to be an American than when observing the actions of the nine-eleven commission, which quickly degenerated into an attempt to assign blame, at the expense of ever finding the full truth. This was a case in which the two goals -- truth vs. blame -- were clearly mutually exclusive. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps in this case, assigning blame WAS more important than finding truth, but that is difficult for me to accept.
The subject of truth vs. blame involves a complicated relationship between the past and the future. For me, it often comes down to a question of focusing on the unchangeable past or the unfolding future. While I fully agree with the idea that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (most commonly credited to George Santayana), those who choose to focus primarily on assigning blame are often willingly sacrificing their potential more full understanding of the past, limiting the knowledge with which they face future.
Another, more current, example involves the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As oil continues to gush into the ocean, with technicians on scene and experts throughout the world working for a way to stop the ongoing catastrophe, the US government is discussing the possibility of criminal prosecutions for wrongdoing. This may score some points politically, especially with those demanding that the government "do something" or "do more", but it is difficult to comprehend how it will help solve this or future problems. It is easy to comprehend the likelihood that criminal prosecutions, while possibly "sending a message" to future oil-drillers, will have the effect of obscuring the truth of what has happened, and making an unfortunate repeat of the event much more likely.
Truth is complicated. I certainly do not claim that one way is always "right" and the other way is always "wrong". I am merely stating that there is often a profound but overlooked difference between finding truth and establishing blame. When you or your loved ones have been wronged, it is fully understandable that your priority may be to punish the "guilty", and I cannot argue with that. Sometimes, though, we should consider the possibility that the most important thing may be finding the truth, and in order to do this we may have to sacrifice blame and punishment.
When such a question arises in a hospital setting -- that is, when there is an unfortunate event that may have been influenced by humans -- many hospitals examine the event in the setting of a "Morbidity/Mortality" conference. While I suppose that each hospital may have their own variations on such conferences, a common, key feature of the "Morbidity/Mortality" conference is that it be totally, one hundred percent, guaranteed confidential, and in no way open to the public. The reason for this feature is that the underlying purpose of the conference is to seek the truth of what happened, and especially to determine whether anything can be done to improve the situation or to keep it from happening again. This becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, if we are at the same time attempting to assign blame or guilt. As long as no one fears being blamed for their actions, ideally each person can come forward with anything they may have done or not done which may have in any way contributed to the outcome of the event.
Now let's imagine that a beloved family member died while in the hospital, and you suspect someone on the hospital staff made an error that led to the death. It is predictable and understandable that you might want to assign blame, and even prosecute the "guilty" staff member. However, your family member is already dead, and there is nothing that can be done that will bring them back. If their death was indeed caused by an error on the part of a hospital staffer, the only thing that can be done that will actually preserve human health and wellness is to figure out what happened, and try to prevent it from happening again. This will be much more difficult if hospital staffers who may have done nothing wrong are afraid to step forward for fear of being found "guilty" of something. Ideally, everyone involved will want to seek the truth, and anyone who DID contribute to the negative outcome will fully come forward, but this is deeply contrary to human nature, especially if we only entertain vague suspicions that somehow we ourselves may have contributed negatively.
Theoretically, the processes of finding truth and assigning blame are not mutually exclusive. In fact, when full truth is known, then blame may perhaps be accurately assigned. The problem is that finding the full truth -- especially when that truth is complicated -- is best accomplished with honesty, open communication, and unbiased full revelation and examination of the facts, which is made difficult if not impossible by the attempt to assign or deflect blame, or to establish or deflect guilt.
Sometimes it is enough to assign blame or establish guilt without fully discerning the total truth of the situation. In the case of criminal activity, such as robbery or murder, probably the most important thing is to establish who is guilty, and punish them, without ever fully comprehending the subtle, complicated truths of the event in question. Other times, I question the underlying goals of a course of inquiry, and what it is we are truly trying to accomplish. I admit that my own bias often comes down in favor of finding truth rather than assigning blame.
One of the best examples of what I am discussing is the US government's "commission" and "hearings" to examine the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am generally quite proud to be an American. I cannot recall a time I was LESS proud to be an American than when observing the actions of the nine-eleven commission, which quickly degenerated into an attempt to assign blame, at the expense of ever finding the full truth. This was a case in which the two goals -- truth vs. blame -- were clearly mutually exclusive. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps in this case, assigning blame WAS more important than finding truth, but that is difficult for me to accept.
The subject of truth vs. blame involves a complicated relationship between the past and the future. For me, it often comes down to a question of focusing on the unchangeable past or the unfolding future. While I fully agree with the idea that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (most commonly credited to George Santayana), those who choose to focus primarily on assigning blame are often willingly sacrificing their potential more full understanding of the past, limiting the knowledge with which they face future.
Another, more current, example involves the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As oil continues to gush into the ocean, with technicians on scene and experts throughout the world working for a way to stop the ongoing catastrophe, the US government is discussing the possibility of criminal prosecutions for wrongdoing. This may score some points politically, especially with those demanding that the government "do something" or "do more", but it is difficult to comprehend how it will help solve this or future problems. It is easy to comprehend the likelihood that criminal prosecutions, while possibly "sending a message" to future oil-drillers, will have the effect of obscuring the truth of what has happened, and making an unfortunate repeat of the event much more likely.
Truth is complicated. I certainly do not claim that one way is always "right" and the other way is always "wrong". I am merely stating that there is often a profound but overlooked difference between finding truth and establishing blame. When you or your loved ones have been wronged, it is fully understandable that your priority may be to punish the "guilty", and I cannot argue with that. Sometimes, though, we should consider the possibility that the most important thing may be finding the truth, and in order to do this we may have to sacrifice blame and punishment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)