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.
Friday, March 25, 2011
SOMETHING
One of the most unfortunate, dangerous, destructive forces in humanity is the impulse to do or say SOMETHING … anything. At many critical moments, both large and small, the only good option, and the very best thing, is to do or say NOTHING. We humans tend to have a problem with that. I doubt that anyone is totally immune to this urge, but it is especially notable with people in authority, and leadership positions.
This morning, the news is filled with historic developments on the opposite side of the world from the United States. Expert after expert is being interviewed on television and radio. To their credit, they all admit that there is no way of knowing how the situation will unfold, or how things will turn out, or whether the historic changes will end up being a good thing or a bad thing for the world in general. Actually, the various experts seem to agree on only one thing -- that there is nothing positive the American government or American leadership can do or say at this moment, and it is important for the American President NOT to make any official statements. So now they have announced that in a few minutes the American President will give a speech to address the unfolding situation.
I am not giving the specifics of what is happening, and I probably never will, and I will wait some time before I actually post this, because the specifics are both arguable and unimportant. I am horrified that the President is about to make an official speech, but not at all surprised. It is what Presidents do, and it is what everyone does, and if the President did NOT make a speech, there are those who would criticize him for his “inaction”. In fact, perhaps a large part of the blame for this unfortunate tendency lies with ALL of us, who regularly criticize the LACK or action, or the LACK of words, failing to acknowledge that inaction is sometimes/often the very best thing that can occur.
Any specific situation is arguable. Perhaps in this precise situation, making a speech is NOT the wrong thing for the President to do … but this does not change my overall point. SOMETIMES the very best course of action is no action at all, but we are all hesitant to “do nothing”.
This problem is not limited to global politics. Every day, each of us encounters situations in which our best course is to say and do nothing at all. Fortunately, many of these situations go un-noticed, and we DO in fact say and do nothing. IF we had some sort of narrator jumping out at us asking, “What do you do NOW?” we would probably be more inclined to do SOMETHING -- anything -- and THAT would be the wrong course of action.
I suspect part of this is a cultural bias. I suspect there are other cultures that more highly value the idea of doing nothing -- just as some musicians place more value on silence, while others focus on the sound interrupting the silence. Actually, I guess probably it is a “yin and yang” thing -- though I am not the best one to discuss the principles of yin and yang.
Hmmm. I have arrived at a point where the discussion could lead into fruitful areas of Chinese philosophy, but at the same time, I realize I am not particularly well-qualified to continue. This is a perfect moment for me to follow my own advice, and say and do nothing more.
Truth is complicated.
This morning, the news is filled with historic developments on the opposite side of the world from the United States. Expert after expert is being interviewed on television and radio. To their credit, they all admit that there is no way of knowing how the situation will unfold, or how things will turn out, or whether the historic changes will end up being a good thing or a bad thing for the world in general. Actually, the various experts seem to agree on only one thing -- that there is nothing positive the American government or American leadership can do or say at this moment, and it is important for the American President NOT to make any official statements. So now they have announced that in a few minutes the American President will give a speech to address the unfolding situation.
I am not giving the specifics of what is happening, and I probably never will, and I will wait some time before I actually post this, because the specifics are both arguable and unimportant. I am horrified that the President is about to make an official speech, but not at all surprised. It is what Presidents do, and it is what everyone does, and if the President did NOT make a speech, there are those who would criticize him for his “inaction”. In fact, perhaps a large part of the blame for this unfortunate tendency lies with ALL of us, who regularly criticize the LACK or action, or the LACK of words, failing to acknowledge that inaction is sometimes/often the very best thing that can occur.
Any specific situation is arguable. Perhaps in this precise situation, making a speech is NOT the wrong thing for the President to do … but this does not change my overall point. SOMETIMES the very best course of action is no action at all, but we are all hesitant to “do nothing”.
This problem is not limited to global politics. Every day, each of us encounters situations in which our best course is to say and do nothing at all. Fortunately, many of these situations go un-noticed, and we DO in fact say and do nothing. IF we had some sort of narrator jumping out at us asking, “What do you do NOW?” we would probably be more inclined to do SOMETHING -- anything -- and THAT would be the wrong course of action.
I suspect part of this is a cultural bias. I suspect there are other cultures that more highly value the idea of doing nothing -- just as some musicians place more value on silence, while others focus on the sound interrupting the silence. Actually, I guess probably it is a “yin and yang” thing -- though I am not the best one to discuss the principles of yin and yang.
Hmmm. I have arrived at a point where the discussion could lead into fruitful areas of Chinese philosophy, but at the same time, I realize I am not particularly well-qualified to continue. This is a perfect moment for me to follow my own advice, and say and do nothing more.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Strength of Emotion
(This is the most difficult blog entry I have attempted to write. The subject is just TOO complicated, with too many possible directions and angles to pursue.)
It's hard to overstate the importance of our emotions -- the way we "feel." Though we can never escape our basic physiological needs -- things like oxygen, water, a tolerable temperature range, and a certain amount of nutrition -- it is our feelings that actually determine our quality of life. The saying, "Money can't buy happiness" may sound trite, but it is absolutely true. One person may have wealth and power, but be miserable, while another may be impoverished and powerless, but happy. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all seek happiness.
Happiness gets complicated because each person may have different standards for happiness. Some thrive on challenges, and would not be happy lounging on a beach with all their basic needs provided for them, while others might consider the beach life to be paradise. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. We all want happiness, but differ in what makes us happy.
As in many other areas of life, our natural tendency to view others from our own perspective can cause problems. Just as we can never know how another person thinks, we can never know how they feel, or the strength of their feelings. The key point is that everyone is different. At the same time, it is inevitable that most people view others from within their own frame of reference, and tend to judge others by their own personal standards. We use our own standards to decide whether another person's feelings are valid, and how strong those feelings are. While a case can be made for judging the validity, or justification, of feelings, this is not necessarily relevant, and is especially not necessarily related to the strength of those feelings, which defies our own understanding. The fact that someone’s feelings do not meet our own criteria for validity does not necessarily make them any less valid, and certainly not any less intense, regardless of validity.
As an example, consider hunger. For reasons unknown, I generally do not feel much hunger. Especially if I am occupied with other activities, and not in particular "eating" situations, I can easily go twenty-four hours or more without eating, and without particularly noticing the fact that I have not eaten. Other people might feel hungry if they go four hours without eating. In this particular case, I am aware that I am unusual, and if someone complains to me that they have not eaten in twelve hours, and feel hungry, I try not to be critical of them -- though I cannot truly relate to their discomfort. Whether or not a person SHOULD feel hungry is irrelevant, and the strength of their hunger cannot be estimated by someone else’s hunger in the same situation.
Especially in conflicts, each side tends to believe that they have some special perspective, circumstance, or knowledge that makes THEIR emotions stronger and more valid than those of their opposition. One side's emotions may indeed be more valid than the other's, but this determination requires either divine knowledge or a complicated set of completely subjective value judgements. Furthermore, the STRENGTH of emotion is not necessarily related to the validity, and can probably be truly assessed ONLY by divine knowledge.
Our emotions do not necessarily "make sense", especially in regard to their strength. We may feel quite strongly about something that seems unimportant to others, and that even we ourselves would not have expected to feel strongly about. Our emotions sometimes defy our own understanding, and are largely outside of our own control, though this is sometimes debated. It may be possible to modify our feelings to a certain degree in certain situations -- for example, there are those who believe that forcing yourself to smile may ease depression, or that by closely examining feelings we can bring them under control -- but to a certain extent our feelings are just "there".
Assessing the strength of another's emotion is impossible, yet we regularly make decisions based at least partly upon our perceptions of the feelings of others. We continually must judge whether and to what extent our own emotions conflict with the emotions of others, and what path to choose between conflicting emotions. Often, we are unaware that we are making these judgements and decisions. Other times, we agonize over difficult choices involving complicated sets of overlapping priorities and conflicting emotions. In each case, we end up deciding whether to place our own emotions ahead of our perceptions of the emotions of others -- and this involves assessments of the justification, appropriateness, and strength of all the emotions involved. Naturally, we are more likely to defer to the feelings of others if we consider those feelings to be justified, appropriate, and strong.
Life gets more complicated when we consider the feelings of others to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. THEN what do we do? Especially when those feelings are quite strong. Some of the most problematic issues on earth involve conflicts between groups of people with opposing feelings who consider the feelings of their opponents to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. There are also times when we might consider opposing feelings to be justified, appropriate, and understandable ... yet still we are unwilling or unable to modify our actions based on those feelings which conflict with our own.
We constantly face issues regarding feelings, and not just with controversial, emotion-charged issues. Every interaction we have with another person involves weighing our own feelings and priorities against our perception of their feelings and priorities. For example, if you encounter an acquaintance walking down the street, your decision on whether or not to greet them, and how to greet them, will depend on a complicated variety of factors including your feelings and their feelings. If you are in a hurry, you might prefer to skip a greeting altogether, and you might consider pretending not to notice them -- but you might fear "hurting their feelings" and decide the only way to keep YOURSELF from feeling bad is to stop for a chat. You actually may go through this same decision process even when encountering a complete stranger, though in either case you may not be AWARE that you are going through this decision process.
The issue of awareness is deeply ingrained in the issue of feelings. Feelings can range from overwhelming to unnoticeable. Science teaches us that things like the color of paint used in a room can modify our feelings, but we are not necessarily AWARE of the calming effect of a certain color, or even of the fact that we have grown calmer since entering the room. Or we may not be aware that we are nicer to a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago friend, and distrusting of a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago enemy. At the same time, when we are overwhelmed by our own feelings, we may become blind to the feelings of others, or largely unaware that others even HAVE feelings.
Then there is the issue of "hurt feelings," which is really just a part of everything that has been discussed already. An extra problem with "hurt feelings" is the implication that INTENT was involved. When our feelings get hurt, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, we tend to believe we have been the victim of a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being. On a more logical level, this is clearly not necessarily true. A special case is when we feel victimized for having been ignored or neglected, and consider THIS to be a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being.
"Hurt feelings" can become a significant factor in our day-to-day interactions with others. The whole area of "hurt feelings" is a dangerous minefield. Arguing that you did not INTENTIONALLY hurt another person's feelings can cause even MORE hurt feelings, just as being unaware of the fact that someone believes you have hurt their feelings can also cause more hurt feelings ("How could you be so oblivious to my feelings?").
A person suffering from "hurt feelings" MAY have been the victim of a deliberate emotional attack, or they may be simply the victim of their own emotional perspective, or there may be a combination of factors, including conflict between various peoples' feelings. There is often great emotional trauma associated with attempts to balance the conflicting feelings of several individuals, such as a person torn between the feelings of their parent and their spouse, or a person placed in the middle of a battle between two of their friends. Needless to say, these are often "no-win" situations -- though each of the people involved, focusing on their OWN feelings, may see the situation as very straightforward, with themselves as the "victim". And, perhaps each person IS the victim. Besides, even feelings that are totally unjustified can be life-shatteringly painful.
Sometimes it seems sensible to make decisions based mostly on perceived strength of emotion. If I slightly prefer one restaurant, while a friend strongly prefers another, I will probably never insist on us going to my preferred restaurant, no matter how many times we visit the other restaurant. I suppose one could argue that this is not "fair", and that we should occasionally bow to MY preference. Or one could even argue that the perceived strength of emotion is irrelevant, and both restaurants should be patronized equally. I disagree. If the choice of the restaurant is of great importance to my friend, and little importance to me, then why should we not defer to the friend's preference?
In fact, I suspect this would be a better world if we all tried to pay a little more attention to the strong feelings of others, especially when we ourselves do NOT have strong feelings about the topic. I am NOT advocating that we automatically defer to whomever shouts the loudest. People have very strong feelings on an infinite number of topics, and you cannot please everyone, nor should you try. Still, ignoring someone's strong emotion is like ignoring someone's tears -- if you cannot help, perhaps you can at least offer them some slight comfort.
Sometimes, though, you can offer them no comfort, and the most you can do is silently and privately hope that they can find their own inner peace, while realizing you cannot comprehend their emotion, nor its strength.
Truth is complicated.
It's hard to overstate the importance of our emotions -- the way we "feel." Though we can never escape our basic physiological needs -- things like oxygen, water, a tolerable temperature range, and a certain amount of nutrition -- it is our feelings that actually determine our quality of life. The saying, "Money can't buy happiness" may sound trite, but it is absolutely true. One person may have wealth and power, but be miserable, while another may be impoverished and powerless, but happy. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all seek happiness.
Happiness gets complicated because each person may have different standards for happiness. Some thrive on challenges, and would not be happy lounging on a beach with all their basic needs provided for them, while others might consider the beach life to be paradise. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. We all want happiness, but differ in what makes us happy.
As in many other areas of life, our natural tendency to view others from our own perspective can cause problems. Just as we can never know how another person thinks, we can never know how they feel, or the strength of their feelings. The key point is that everyone is different. At the same time, it is inevitable that most people view others from within their own frame of reference, and tend to judge others by their own personal standards. We use our own standards to decide whether another person's feelings are valid, and how strong those feelings are. While a case can be made for judging the validity, or justification, of feelings, this is not necessarily relevant, and is especially not necessarily related to the strength of those feelings, which defies our own understanding. The fact that someone’s feelings do not meet our own criteria for validity does not necessarily make them any less valid, and certainly not any less intense, regardless of validity.
As an example, consider hunger. For reasons unknown, I generally do not feel much hunger. Especially if I am occupied with other activities, and not in particular "eating" situations, I can easily go twenty-four hours or more without eating, and without particularly noticing the fact that I have not eaten. Other people might feel hungry if they go four hours without eating. In this particular case, I am aware that I am unusual, and if someone complains to me that they have not eaten in twelve hours, and feel hungry, I try not to be critical of them -- though I cannot truly relate to their discomfort. Whether or not a person SHOULD feel hungry is irrelevant, and the strength of their hunger cannot be estimated by someone else’s hunger in the same situation.
Especially in conflicts, each side tends to believe that they have some special perspective, circumstance, or knowledge that makes THEIR emotions stronger and more valid than those of their opposition. One side's emotions may indeed be more valid than the other's, but this determination requires either divine knowledge or a complicated set of completely subjective value judgements. Furthermore, the STRENGTH of emotion is not necessarily related to the validity, and can probably be truly assessed ONLY by divine knowledge.
Our emotions do not necessarily "make sense", especially in regard to their strength. We may feel quite strongly about something that seems unimportant to others, and that even we ourselves would not have expected to feel strongly about. Our emotions sometimes defy our own understanding, and are largely outside of our own control, though this is sometimes debated. It may be possible to modify our feelings to a certain degree in certain situations -- for example, there are those who believe that forcing yourself to smile may ease depression, or that by closely examining feelings we can bring them under control -- but to a certain extent our feelings are just "there".
Assessing the strength of another's emotion is impossible, yet we regularly make decisions based at least partly upon our perceptions of the feelings of others. We continually must judge whether and to what extent our own emotions conflict with the emotions of others, and what path to choose between conflicting emotions. Often, we are unaware that we are making these judgements and decisions. Other times, we agonize over difficult choices involving complicated sets of overlapping priorities and conflicting emotions. In each case, we end up deciding whether to place our own emotions ahead of our perceptions of the emotions of others -- and this involves assessments of the justification, appropriateness, and strength of all the emotions involved. Naturally, we are more likely to defer to the feelings of others if we consider those feelings to be justified, appropriate, and strong.
Life gets more complicated when we consider the feelings of others to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. THEN what do we do? Especially when those feelings are quite strong. Some of the most problematic issues on earth involve conflicts between groups of people with opposing feelings who consider the feelings of their opponents to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. There are also times when we might consider opposing feelings to be justified, appropriate, and understandable ... yet still we are unwilling or unable to modify our actions based on those feelings which conflict with our own.
We constantly face issues regarding feelings, and not just with controversial, emotion-charged issues. Every interaction we have with another person involves weighing our own feelings and priorities against our perception of their feelings and priorities. For example, if you encounter an acquaintance walking down the street, your decision on whether or not to greet them, and how to greet them, will depend on a complicated variety of factors including your feelings and their feelings. If you are in a hurry, you might prefer to skip a greeting altogether, and you might consider pretending not to notice them -- but you might fear "hurting their feelings" and decide the only way to keep YOURSELF from feeling bad is to stop for a chat. You actually may go through this same decision process even when encountering a complete stranger, though in either case you may not be AWARE that you are going through this decision process.
The issue of awareness is deeply ingrained in the issue of feelings. Feelings can range from overwhelming to unnoticeable. Science teaches us that things like the color of paint used in a room can modify our feelings, but we are not necessarily AWARE of the calming effect of a certain color, or even of the fact that we have grown calmer since entering the room. Or we may not be aware that we are nicer to a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago friend, and distrusting of a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago enemy. At the same time, when we are overwhelmed by our own feelings, we may become blind to the feelings of others, or largely unaware that others even HAVE feelings.
Then there is the issue of "hurt feelings," which is really just a part of everything that has been discussed already. An extra problem with "hurt feelings" is the implication that INTENT was involved. When our feelings get hurt, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, we tend to believe we have been the victim of a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being. On a more logical level, this is clearly not necessarily true. A special case is when we feel victimized for having been ignored or neglected, and consider THIS to be a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being.
"Hurt feelings" can become a significant factor in our day-to-day interactions with others. The whole area of "hurt feelings" is a dangerous minefield. Arguing that you did not INTENTIONALLY hurt another person's feelings can cause even MORE hurt feelings, just as being unaware of the fact that someone believes you have hurt their feelings can also cause more hurt feelings ("How could you be so oblivious to my feelings?").
A person suffering from "hurt feelings" MAY have been the victim of a deliberate emotional attack, or they may be simply the victim of their own emotional perspective, or there may be a combination of factors, including conflict between various peoples' feelings. There is often great emotional trauma associated with attempts to balance the conflicting feelings of several individuals, such as a person torn between the feelings of their parent and their spouse, or a person placed in the middle of a battle between two of their friends. Needless to say, these are often "no-win" situations -- though each of the people involved, focusing on their OWN feelings, may see the situation as very straightforward, with themselves as the "victim". And, perhaps each person IS the victim. Besides, even feelings that are totally unjustified can be life-shatteringly painful.
Sometimes it seems sensible to make decisions based mostly on perceived strength of emotion. If I slightly prefer one restaurant, while a friend strongly prefers another, I will probably never insist on us going to my preferred restaurant, no matter how many times we visit the other restaurant. I suppose one could argue that this is not "fair", and that we should occasionally bow to MY preference. Or one could even argue that the perceived strength of emotion is irrelevant, and both restaurants should be patronized equally. I disagree. If the choice of the restaurant is of great importance to my friend, and little importance to me, then why should we not defer to the friend's preference?
In fact, I suspect this would be a better world if we all tried to pay a little more attention to the strong feelings of others, especially when we ourselves do NOT have strong feelings about the topic. I am NOT advocating that we automatically defer to whomever shouts the loudest. People have very strong feelings on an infinite number of topics, and you cannot please everyone, nor should you try. Still, ignoring someone's strong emotion is like ignoring someone's tears -- if you cannot help, perhaps you can at least offer them some slight comfort.
Sometimes, though, you can offer them no comfort, and the most you can do is silently and privately hope that they can find their own inner peace, while realizing you cannot comprehend their emotion, nor its strength.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Dennis Moore
In an earlier blog entry I mentioned the British comedy troupe "Monty Python's Flying Circus", and the indelible effect they have left upon my thinking.
One of their sketches that often comes into my mind involves the (fictional?) highwayman Dennis Moore. (As far as I have been able to determine, there was no actual historical highwayman named Dennis Moore.) Like Robin Hood, Dennis Moore robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. One of the sources of humor in Monty Python's Dennis Moore is that he always robbed from the SAME rich, and gave to the SAME poor ... with the result that eventually the poor became wealthy, while the rich were left destitute. Even then, Dennis Moore continued to attempt to rob the same rich people, who by now had nothing left for him to rob, while the formerly-poor people now lived in luxury, yet still awaited more loot from Dennis Moore.
When someone finally points out the error of Dennis Moore's ways, he responds, "Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." In the final scene, he "robs" another coach, but this time he simply has everyone reveal their valuables, and he attempts to redistribute them more evenly among the coach occupants.
The thing that makes me think of this sketch so often is the fact that LOTS of things are trickier than people think, and sometimes real life offers examples that are practically as laughable as Monty Python. Often an action has unintended -- yet in retrospect, totally predictable -- consequences, such as cutting down a tree and having it fall and crush something.
I doubt that the Monty Python folks were attempting to make a direct political statement, but many of the things that are trickier than you think actually involve government attempts to redistribute wealth. Raising taxes often reduces government revenue, while decreasing taxes often increases it. Attempts to take money from "the rich" often end up hurting "the poor" more than "the rich" (for example, anything that decreases corporate profits can lead to lay-offs).
Another thing that is trickier than you think is the relationship between various life forms in an ecosystem. Stereotypically, but also truly, if you eliminate the cats, the mouse population may explode. On the other hand, if you specifically ADD cats, to get rid of the mice, you may also get rid of the birds. There are many examples around the world of a plant or animal being introduced to an area where it is not native, or a plant or animal being eliminated from an area where it IS native, often with disastrous results.
A few years ago National Public Radio did a series on worldwide efforts to end child labor. It turns out that often, attempts to stop child labor in places like factories results in the child and their family being devastated by the loss of income generated by the formerly-laboring child. The child and their family may simply starve to death, or be driven into even worse circumstances than the original child labor, such as sexual slavery. Granted, this example is not particularly funny.
If you watch your own life, you will find examples of things being trickier than you thought. Hopefully, at least some of them will be funny.
Truth is complicated.
One of their sketches that often comes into my mind involves the (fictional?) highwayman Dennis Moore. (As far as I have been able to determine, there was no actual historical highwayman named Dennis Moore.) Like Robin Hood, Dennis Moore robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. One of the sources of humor in Monty Python's Dennis Moore is that he always robbed from the SAME rich, and gave to the SAME poor ... with the result that eventually the poor became wealthy, while the rich were left destitute. Even then, Dennis Moore continued to attempt to rob the same rich people, who by now had nothing left for him to rob, while the formerly-poor people now lived in luxury, yet still awaited more loot from Dennis Moore.
When someone finally points out the error of Dennis Moore's ways, he responds, "Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." In the final scene, he "robs" another coach, but this time he simply has everyone reveal their valuables, and he attempts to redistribute them more evenly among the coach occupants.
The thing that makes me think of this sketch so often is the fact that LOTS of things are trickier than people think, and sometimes real life offers examples that are practically as laughable as Monty Python. Often an action has unintended -- yet in retrospect, totally predictable -- consequences, such as cutting down a tree and having it fall and crush something.
I doubt that the Monty Python folks were attempting to make a direct political statement, but many of the things that are trickier than you think actually involve government attempts to redistribute wealth. Raising taxes often reduces government revenue, while decreasing taxes often increases it. Attempts to take money from "the rich" often end up hurting "the poor" more than "the rich" (for example, anything that decreases corporate profits can lead to lay-offs).
Another thing that is trickier than you think is the relationship between various life forms in an ecosystem. Stereotypically, but also truly, if you eliminate the cats, the mouse population may explode. On the other hand, if you specifically ADD cats, to get rid of the mice, you may also get rid of the birds. There are many examples around the world of a plant or animal being introduced to an area where it is not native, or a plant or animal being eliminated from an area where it IS native, often with disastrous results.
A few years ago National Public Radio did a series on worldwide efforts to end child labor. It turns out that often, attempts to stop child labor in places like factories results in the child and their family being devastated by the loss of income generated by the formerly-laboring child. The child and their family may simply starve to death, or be driven into even worse circumstances than the original child labor, such as sexual slavery. Granted, this example is not particularly funny.
If you watch your own life, you will find examples of things being trickier than you thought. Hopefully, at least some of them will be funny.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Terminology
As I have stated elsewhere, words are not clear. It is hard enough to communicate when both sides of a conversation are trying to be clear. If either or both sides deliberately use words to make things less clear, then communication becomes nearly impossible.
When people are advocating for or opposing a particular belief, position, or approach to a problem, there is a natural, understandable, and, in my opinion, highly objectionable tendency to manipulate language and terminology in a way that favors your own point of view. This is an inflammatory subject. The issues involved are often controversial and emotionally charged, and some people feel they must advance their opinions and crush the opposition using any means available, while others simply see their manipulative terminology as accurate and objective. Worst of all, many see THEIR terminology as accurate and honest, while the terminology of their opposition is inaccurate and deceptive.
The very best example, but also one of the most dangerous and emotional, involves the debate over legalized abortion. Rather than having one side called "anti-abortion" and another side called "pro-abortion", we have "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I initially viewed both of these terms with equal scorn. Although I have been politically active pretty much my entire life, I only recently have learned to instantly associate the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion"; I used to have to stop and ponder the issue every time I encountered the term. I have, over time, come to accept the somewhat distracting term "pro-choice" since it is fundamentally honest. The pro-choice side does not advocate that ALL pregnancies end in abortion -- they simply argue for legalized choice.
"Pro-life", for me, represents the very worst kind of manipulative terminology. It is fine for those who oppose legal abortion to believe that THEY are "pro" life while those who oppose them are "anti" life, but those who favor legalized abortion may also consider themselves to be "pro" life. Much of this controversial issue comes down to a question of what constitutes a human life, and what therefore constitutes murder. For one side in this highly controversial, emotional issue to claim the title "pro-life" is akin to one side deciding to call itself the "right" side and their opposition the "wrong" side. This may accurately represent THEIR belief, but does nothing to enhance or clarify communication between the opposing sides and for those undecided on the issue. By the way, PLEASE note that I am not stating my own personal opinion on the issue of abortion. If YOU believe that I am, it is because you are viewing my words through the distorting lens of your own perception.
Another more insidious case of manipulating terminology is the term "Palestinian". On its face, "Palestinian" would mean "of Palestine", but it has now come to specifically exclude Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens. The TRUTH, though it has been hidden and almost lost at the present time, is that Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders who opposed the existence of Israel made a conscious decision to adopt the term "Palestinian" for themselves, to further their own agenda. This has been highly effective. It seems completely reasonable to argue that "the Palestinian people" have been displaced by Israel, and are now worthy of their own special consideration. Again, I am not stating an opinion on this emotional issue. I am simply stating that Israelis are just as entitled to claim the label "Palestinian" as are those who oppose the nation of Israel.
It's interesting to note that by citing these two prominent examples of manipulating terminology, I have potentially angered those on both the political "left" and the political "right". People from a wide variety of political persuasions manipulate terminology to further their own agendas and attack the agendas of their opponents. In both of these examples, "Pro-life" and "Palestinian", the terms could just as well be applied to those with opposing views -- but the current "Pro-lifers" and the current "Palestinians" do not see it that way. For them, it is obvious that THEY are the only ones who are truly "Pro-life" or "Palestinian".
There are countless examples of this use of words, and sometimes it becomes a question of where one draws the line between honest terminology and manipulative terminology. Those who oppose the idea of an "inheritance tax" often choose to call it a "death tax". In a sense, it IS a tax on death -- though those who favor inheritance tax argue that the term "death tax" is misleading and inflammatory. I truly HAVE no opinion on this issue.
Those who employ the technique of manipulating terminology to suit their own ends generally push ME in the opposite direction. If they are willing to engage in behavior that I view as essentially dishonest, then I am suspicious about whatever position they are advocating. This does NOT mean their position is WRONG, but it does make me suspicious.
Truth is complicated.
When people are advocating for or opposing a particular belief, position, or approach to a problem, there is a natural, understandable, and, in my opinion, highly objectionable tendency to manipulate language and terminology in a way that favors your own point of view. This is an inflammatory subject. The issues involved are often controversial and emotionally charged, and some people feel they must advance their opinions and crush the opposition using any means available, while others simply see their manipulative terminology as accurate and objective. Worst of all, many see THEIR terminology as accurate and honest, while the terminology of their opposition is inaccurate and deceptive.
The very best example, but also one of the most dangerous and emotional, involves the debate over legalized abortion. Rather than having one side called "anti-abortion" and another side called "pro-abortion", we have "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I initially viewed both of these terms with equal scorn. Although I have been politically active pretty much my entire life, I only recently have learned to instantly associate the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion"; I used to have to stop and ponder the issue every time I encountered the term. I have, over time, come to accept the somewhat distracting term "pro-choice" since it is fundamentally honest. The pro-choice side does not advocate that ALL pregnancies end in abortion -- they simply argue for legalized choice.
"Pro-life", for me, represents the very worst kind of manipulative terminology. It is fine for those who oppose legal abortion to believe that THEY are "pro" life while those who oppose them are "anti" life, but those who favor legalized abortion may also consider themselves to be "pro" life. Much of this controversial issue comes down to a question of what constitutes a human life, and what therefore constitutes murder. For one side in this highly controversial, emotional issue to claim the title "pro-life" is akin to one side deciding to call itself the "right" side and their opposition the "wrong" side. This may accurately represent THEIR belief, but does nothing to enhance or clarify communication between the opposing sides and for those undecided on the issue. By the way, PLEASE note that I am not stating my own personal opinion on the issue of abortion. If YOU believe that I am, it is because you are viewing my words through the distorting lens of your own perception.
Another more insidious case of manipulating terminology is the term "Palestinian". On its face, "Palestinian" would mean "of Palestine", but it has now come to specifically exclude Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens. The TRUTH, though it has been hidden and almost lost at the present time, is that Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders who opposed the existence of Israel made a conscious decision to adopt the term "Palestinian" for themselves, to further their own agenda. This has been highly effective. It seems completely reasonable to argue that "the Palestinian people" have been displaced by Israel, and are now worthy of their own special consideration. Again, I am not stating an opinion on this emotional issue. I am simply stating that Israelis are just as entitled to claim the label "Palestinian" as are those who oppose the nation of Israel.
It's interesting to note that by citing these two prominent examples of manipulating terminology, I have potentially angered those on both the political "left" and the political "right". People from a wide variety of political persuasions manipulate terminology to further their own agendas and attack the agendas of their opponents. In both of these examples, "Pro-life" and "Palestinian", the terms could just as well be applied to those with opposing views -- but the current "Pro-lifers" and the current "Palestinians" do not see it that way. For them, it is obvious that THEY are the only ones who are truly "Pro-life" or "Palestinian".
There are countless examples of this use of words, and sometimes it becomes a question of where one draws the line between honest terminology and manipulative terminology. Those who oppose the idea of an "inheritance tax" often choose to call it a "death tax". In a sense, it IS a tax on death -- though those who favor inheritance tax argue that the term "death tax" is misleading and inflammatory. I truly HAVE no opinion on this issue.
Those who employ the technique of manipulating terminology to suit their own ends generally push ME in the opposite direction. If they are willing to engage in behavior that I view as essentially dishonest, then I am suspicious about whatever position they are advocating. This does NOT mean their position is WRONG, but it does make me suspicious.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)