Here we go again. The great American Political Process that we have all come to love is approaching the creciendo of its four year cycle. Besides those few kool-aid drinkers out there who happily pound the drum for who ever thier respective party stands up, it appears that we are generally dissapointed with our elected officials. In fact, we seldom feel animated by anyone even offering to run for office. What does that say about those who run for office? What does that say about us; the voting body?
Technological advancements asside, is it really any different today than it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. I have read works that suggest that things really haven't changed all that much. In fact, politics haven't probably changed that much at all throughout world history, let alone US history. As far as that is concerned, look at your work place and tell me how much has changed since grade school.
What will it take for us to change? What is required for us to take control of our political landscape? Are we blessed to be in the United States under our Constitution? Of course we are. Do we have room to improve as a people? Certainly.
I want to know what you think. What are the W's (who, what, when, where, why, and how)?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Empathy; a Vicarious Experience
The following comes from a paper I wrote for a developmental psychology class:
In a hospital nursery, it is a common scene to witness. All the babies may be calm and even sleeping when one may gradually begin to stir and build to a cry. Soon, many of the other newborns in the room have joined the chorus. Some say that this may be a first indicator of empathy; a sharing of emotion hard wired from birth in the minds of each and every one of us. (Myers, 1999, p. 478)
There has been a long and ongoing debate over empathy and the motivations that lie behind it. Some may refer to the empathy vs. distress argument or perhaps a discussion concerning altruism and egoism. Note that I will not concern myself here with these arguments, but rather focus on first, what empathy is, why empathy is important both for the individual and society, and most importantly, the development of empathy within the individual.
What is empathy? Empathy is not “an expression of sorrow for another’s loss, grief, or misfortune” though many would confuse it for such (Webster, 1999, p.525). Such an emotion would be sympathy. Empathy on the other hand is a much more intimate emotion. Webster defines empathy as “the experiencing, as ones own, the feelings of another (Webster, 1999, p.171).” Kaplan defines empathy as “an emotional response resulting from understanding another person’s state or condition (Kaplan, 1998, p. 256).”
As mentioned, two other terms often used within the discussion of empathy are altruism, an unselfish interest in the welfare of others, and distress, defined as suffering of body or mind (though anguish; extreme pain or distress of mind, may be a more correct term to use). (Webster, 1999, pp152, 20) Still, a host of other mental state descriptors may also be commonly used.
Common sayings conveying empathy are “walking in another’s shoes,” or to “see it through another’s eyes.” Though empathy is thought of as a direct result of personal experience, it is not necessarily limited to such. To have empathy it is not required that one has a perfect knowledge of what another is feeling. One should not be expected to have personally passed through the same experience which another is passing as a prerequisite for having empathy. Though most people in a society may typically react to a given situation in similar ways, each too will differ.
Empathy undoubtably does draw upon experience, but as important if not more so is the willingness and ability to both recognize and identify with the conditions and emotions through which another is passing. Equally, many cases require a certain ability to draw conclusions from the shared experience/emotion and a certain degree of intelligent imagination. It must be both recognized and remembered that one can gain experience not only by “first person” measures but also as a second person observer and perhaps beyond. It is wisely noted (and not outside the realms of empathy) that the intelligent man learns from his experiences while the wise man learns also from the experiences of others.
In summary, the empathetic person is one who is capable (because of both desire and ability) of experiencing another’s feelings as if they were one’s own. This empathy is something that should foster throughout a lifetime. Equally however, empathy can atrophy into the shadows of self and society when left shunned as a weakness, un-nurtured.
So why is it important that the individual develop empathy? A positive relationship exists between the ability to feel empathy and the inhibition of aggression. The ability to empathize is a strong predictor of just about all types of prosocial behavior, especially in males. The reason why empathy is somewhat more important for males than females is that social norms require women to show prosocial and nuturant behavior while men are under less pressure to do so. In many cases the pressure that men feel is to shun empathy. People who are focused on themselves are less likely to be helpful and generous than those who are concerned with the experiences and problems of others.
Empathy entices people to be more understanding, less critical, more patient, and less judgmental. More than anything, an empathetic person is happier and more at peace than he who lacks empathy. The empathetic man will also spread this peace and happiness within the society he lives. More than anything, an empathetic society is a more bearable society. Burdens are lightened, hearts are lifted, and joys are shared.
As indicated in the opening paragraph, babies cry more when they hear another infant cry. This is thought to point to a predisposition for empathy in each of us at birth (Myers, 1999, p. 478). However this empathy at birth is very raw in nature. It is as a seed awaiting a fertile spot to grow and the nurturing hand to care for it as it flourishes through the various stages of life.
In young children, what may typically be recognized as advanced forms of empathy, are all but impossible. It is believed that children must first experience the cognitive growth necessary to decrease their egocentrism to a point where they can take someone else’s viewpoint. Improvements in moral reasoning may then lead to the increased ability to experience empathy. (Kaplan, 1998, p. 256)
Current theories agree that a complex interaction of cognition and affect is required. This is the base for the ability to recognize and discern emotions, and to take another’s perspective. The matter is compounded when considering the necessity of sufficient abstract thought allowing one to feel with the other person or to respond similarly in an emotional way. (Beck, 2006 p. 409)
It is also believed that the frequent minor illnesses of early childhood contribute not only to physical growth (strengthening of the immune system) but also emotional growth. This growth comes in the ability to cope with physical distress enhancing competence and their understanding of their changing physical states. It is believed that repeated bouts with minor illness help children to pay more attention to what their body is communicating to them and they realize that the current feelings of aches, pains, weakness, even “the blues,” are temporary and that they will soon pass. Coincidingly, children begin to notice those around them going through similar experiences; continuing their life lessons in empathy. (Papalia & Olds, 1998, p.190)From birth, society’s norms quickly begin to influence the development of empathy. This especially seems true when comparing the differences typically find between genders regarding empathy. In surveys, Women are not only far more likely to describe themselves as having empathy but given upsetting experiences in the laboratory, women are more likely than men to gain empathy for others enduring similar experiences and to report feeling distressed at another’s distress. Myers explains that this may help to explain why both men and women report friendships with women to be more intimate, enjoyable, and nurturing. When they want empathy and understanding, someone to whom they can disclose their joys and hurts, both men and women usually turn to women. (This is attributed to women being influenced to be in touch with their emotions while men are typically influenced to detach themselves from their emotions. Through various studies, women have been shown more capable of both discerning emotions in other people (due to their sensitivity to non-verbal cues), and expressing or conveying emotions (with the slight exception of anger).) (Meyers, 1998, pp. 185-186)
In a hospital nursery, it is a common scene to witness. All the babies may be calm and even sleeping when one may gradually begin to stir and build to a cry. Soon, many of the other newborns in the room have joined the chorus. Some say that this may be a first indicator of empathy; a sharing of emotion hard wired from birth in the minds of each and every one of us. (Myers, 1999, p. 478)
There has been a long and ongoing debate over empathy and the motivations that lie behind it. Some may refer to the empathy vs. distress argument or perhaps a discussion concerning altruism and egoism. Note that I will not concern myself here with these arguments, but rather focus on first, what empathy is, why empathy is important both for the individual and society, and most importantly, the development of empathy within the individual.
What is empathy? Empathy is not “an expression of sorrow for another’s loss, grief, or misfortune” though many would confuse it for such (Webster, 1999, p.525). Such an emotion would be sympathy. Empathy on the other hand is a much more intimate emotion. Webster defines empathy as “the experiencing, as ones own, the feelings of another (Webster, 1999, p.171).” Kaplan defines empathy as “an emotional response resulting from understanding another person’s state or condition (Kaplan, 1998, p. 256).”
As mentioned, two other terms often used within the discussion of empathy are altruism, an unselfish interest in the welfare of others, and distress, defined as suffering of body or mind (though anguish; extreme pain or distress of mind, may be a more correct term to use). (Webster, 1999, pp152, 20) Still, a host of other mental state descriptors may also be commonly used.
Common sayings conveying empathy are “walking in another’s shoes,” or to “see it through another’s eyes.” Though empathy is thought of as a direct result of personal experience, it is not necessarily limited to such. To have empathy it is not required that one has a perfect knowledge of what another is feeling. One should not be expected to have personally passed through the same experience which another is passing as a prerequisite for having empathy. Though most people in a society may typically react to a given situation in similar ways, each too will differ.
Empathy undoubtably does draw upon experience, but as important if not more so is the willingness and ability to both recognize and identify with the conditions and emotions through which another is passing. Equally, many cases require a certain ability to draw conclusions from the shared experience/emotion and a certain degree of intelligent imagination. It must be both recognized and remembered that one can gain experience not only by “first person” measures but also as a second person observer and perhaps beyond. It is wisely noted (and not outside the realms of empathy) that the intelligent man learns from his experiences while the wise man learns also from the experiences of others.
In summary, the empathetic person is one who is capable (because of both desire and ability) of experiencing another’s feelings as if they were one’s own. This empathy is something that should foster throughout a lifetime. Equally however, empathy can atrophy into the shadows of self and society when left shunned as a weakness, un-nurtured.
So why is it important that the individual develop empathy? A positive relationship exists between the ability to feel empathy and the inhibition of aggression. The ability to empathize is a strong predictor of just about all types of prosocial behavior, especially in males. The reason why empathy is somewhat more important for males than females is that social norms require women to show prosocial and nuturant behavior while men are under less pressure to do so. In many cases the pressure that men feel is to shun empathy. People who are focused on themselves are less likely to be helpful and generous than those who are concerned with the experiences and problems of others.
Empathy entices people to be more understanding, less critical, more patient, and less judgmental. More than anything, an empathetic person is happier and more at peace than he who lacks empathy. The empathetic man will also spread this peace and happiness within the society he lives. More than anything, an empathetic society is a more bearable society. Burdens are lightened, hearts are lifted, and joys are shared.
As indicated in the opening paragraph, babies cry more when they hear another infant cry. This is thought to point to a predisposition for empathy in each of us at birth (Myers, 1999, p. 478). However this empathy at birth is very raw in nature. It is as a seed awaiting a fertile spot to grow and the nurturing hand to care for it as it flourishes through the various stages of life.
In young children, what may typically be recognized as advanced forms of empathy, are all but impossible. It is believed that children must first experience the cognitive growth necessary to decrease their egocentrism to a point where they can take someone else’s viewpoint. Improvements in moral reasoning may then lead to the increased ability to experience empathy. (Kaplan, 1998, p. 256)
Current theories agree that a complex interaction of cognition and affect is required. This is the base for the ability to recognize and discern emotions, and to take another’s perspective. The matter is compounded when considering the necessity of sufficient abstract thought allowing one to feel with the other person or to respond similarly in an emotional way. (Beck, 2006 p. 409)
It is also believed that the frequent minor illnesses of early childhood contribute not only to physical growth (strengthening of the immune system) but also emotional growth. This growth comes in the ability to cope with physical distress enhancing competence and their understanding of their changing physical states. It is believed that repeated bouts with minor illness help children to pay more attention to what their body is communicating to them and they realize that the current feelings of aches, pains, weakness, even “the blues,” are temporary and that they will soon pass. Coincidingly, children begin to notice those around them going through similar experiences; continuing their life lessons in empathy. (Papalia & Olds, 1998, p.190)From birth, society’s norms quickly begin to influence the development of empathy. This especially seems true when comparing the differences typically find between genders regarding empathy. In surveys, Women are not only far more likely to describe themselves as having empathy but given upsetting experiences in the laboratory, women are more likely than men to gain empathy for others enduring similar experiences and to report feeling distressed at another’s distress. Myers explains that this may help to explain why both men and women report friendships with women to be more intimate, enjoyable, and nurturing. When they want empathy and understanding, someone to whom they can disclose their joys and hurts, both men and women usually turn to women. (This is attributed to women being influenced to be in touch with their emotions while men are typically influenced to detach themselves from their emotions. Through various studies, women have been shown more capable of both discerning emotions in other people (due to their sensitivity to non-verbal cues), and expressing or conveying emotions (with the slight exception of anger).) (Meyers, 1998, pp. 185-186)
Me, Politics, and Society.
The following is a jornal entryof sorts that I wrote in 2006:
Every since I was a child I have felt that I am meant for greatness. I cannot say exactly what but I know that I am not alone in that feeling. Most children have great aspirations; they see a future bright with possibility. As I have aged I have held to the notion that there is something great ahead of me.
I am not suggesting that I am completely disappointed with my early adult life. I am a father of three wonderful boys and the husband of a woman I hardly deserve. I believe that being a father and a husband are opportunities for greatness in and of themselves; responsibilities I hope I fulfill half as well as my own father has and does.
With age however the brightness of that hope tends to dim. Why is that? Many would say that the dimmer switch on life is the reality of the real world. In other words, childhood naïveté. While I'm not going to deny that some of our childhood aspirations were perhaps a bit lofty, a bit uninformed, I take issue with the idea that childhood's line of thinking is all wrong.
Personally I think that as a culture and a society we do a bang-up job of quelling the stirrings of youth. I hear the voices all around me, coming from every direction. Some of the voices are systematic and deliberate. Others are ingrained in us as a society and as individuals. Perhaps the most pervasive and systematic are the results of industrial psychology and corporate econo-babble. Other voices, just as powerful, come from a long and ingrained history of what I'll call class system predestination (I trust you understand what I mean by that). The media drops whispering altogether and yells at each of us at every turn. All of the aforementioned voices rapidly accentuate and drive the battle of the whisperings within. Self doubt is a powerful crippling agent.
I fear that I have become somewhat cynical and jaded in recent years. Once again there are those who would simply reply "life will do that to you." This pessimism is something I find myself battling more often then I am comfortable with. I cannot shake the somewhat romantic notion of grandeur in my future, no matter the heavy doses of reality checks.
I believe that a few of the key ingredients to my cynicism lye with those political leaders in our world, our countries and our communities. Currently (October 28, 2006) the media outlets around the United States are rancid with political banter. In my own state (Missouri) there is a heated race for U.S. Senate between Democrat Claire McCaskill and the incumbent Republican Jim Talent.
Both candidates and parties are attempting to persuade me to vote for them by telling me how terrible a person their opponent is. We all know the negative ads, and I understand the psychology of the negative ad campaign. Talk about inspiring confidence. And they wonder about the disconnect between politicians and the public they serve. No! They don’t wonder! They have to know. So I ask; do they care?
I want to vote, I really do. So as happens far too often it becomes a case of who is the lesser of two evils. I mean I don’t personally know the people, all I have to go on is what I catch in the media and we know that’s a lot of help (worthless degenerate waste of money).
There is part of me that would like to be President of the United States some day. But the probabilities are against me, and though I will not give up hope, I imagine that now is as good a time as any to begin introducing some of my thoughts to the world. Honestly, my thoughts are the kind that more than likely will bar me from any real opportunity to pursue much of a political career. I cannot see myself forsaking these thoughts however. The fact is that the answers to most of our political, social, and economic woes do not contain complex strategies or new theories. The answers have been around for some time, we as a society just do not want to hear them.
The solutions to the woes of American Society lie with the American People. In particular the lower and middle class Americans who have long since relinquished the majority of what power we once had. The vast majority of the population of the United States feels essentially powerless to effect change of any real substance. Not only is this not true, but this is exactly what the vast minority (those who wield the power) wants us to think. We have positioned ourselves as victims, and if we want real change we are going to have to do two things that most of us want nothing of, sacrifice and become actively united.
Any general sociology class will introduce you to history and current state of western social structure. I took an interesting course in college called "Class, Status, & Power" that offered a particularly eye opening look at who has the influence and why. Sadly much of it can be boiled down to the lower and middle classes never being able to come together and fight for a cause, weather the storm and then remain unified. Many people do not have any ambitions of grandeur and that’s fine. Those people become satisfied after even the smallest and most temporary of victories. In their satisfaction they become comfortable and lax. The problem is that they quit fighting and they begin to lose ground. The vast minority is not ever going to quit fighting for wealth, power, and influence.
We as an American People are gluttons. We feel like we are entitled to a way of life that is virtually impossible to sustain. We expect to have three bedrooms, two baths, a big screen (preferably hi-def) a two car garage (likely full of junk) who knows how many cars in the driveway, central air conditioning, jetted tubs, a stocked fridge and freezer (maybe an extra pair in the garage or basement), a barbeque grill on the deck out back, and I haven't even touched the toys and activities we pursue. Now don't get angry with me. I'm not suggesting I'm any different, but I'm trying to be. If you don’t have it, you want it and you're going to complain about it. If you have it you want more and you're complaining about it. And if whatever you have or don’t have is hard enough to maintain, I can guarantee that you're complaining about it too. I'm guilty too!
Practically always it is a story about the big man keeping the little man down. Now that story may partially be true, how could anyone refute that (of course the big man attempts to in his own condescending way)? But the more powerful part of that story is the implication that we are all powerless victims. Of course everyone has the answers, we all been guilty and we've all heard the talk, but where's the action. We are great at talking the talk but terrible at walking the walk. I have always envisioned myself as being part of the solution rather than perpetuating the problem. I too however have long been another talker. Now this talker turned writer is attempting begin a change within myself that hopefully I can model for and with others. I realize that I cannot change things on my own. But wouldn’t it be great to be part of a cultural revolution the world is waiting for.
We live in a country that is as individual as they come. We celebrate our individuality. But there is a fine line between the self reliance we profess to seek and the ignorant pride we too often possess. We seek exclusivity; we insulate our lives with the walls of our homes, privacy fences, Toyota Camry's and Ford F-150s. All the technology we have to expand our ability to communicate and to reach out and instead we are reaching further in. Our social circles are shrinking instead of expanding. We isolate ourselves because we tell ourselves that we don’t have the time or resources for others.
We serve ourselves first and if we are feeling charitable, we might throw some of our scraps to those in need. But in that wonderful tradition of isolation we give in the way we know best, monetarily. We don’t have the time or the energy to serve, and I say we really don’t care to. It's much easier to sign a check and put it in the mail. This way we can reserve our time, our energy, and maintain our emotional distance all while allowing individuals and governments to clear their consciences
I love cars. I'm not alone, but I really love cars. I have spent far too much time reading about torque, horsepower, understeer/oversteer, fit and finish and visiting car lots to smell the new upholstery I cannot afford. We love our cars; we just cannot give them up. The automobile is a perfect example of American individuality. Every morning and evening on the way to and from work the scene remains the same, rows of vehicles with a diver and rarely a passenger but virtually always plenty of available seats. We as Americans consume 40% of the worlds available oil supply even though we represent only 4.3% of the world's population. Likewise we are the largest contributor to green house gases. By percentage we share the largest burden in the destruction of the ozone but we want cheaper gas and bigger trucks to burn it in.
Of course that's not to mention the stress that we put on the environment in a plethora of other ways. The amount of electricity that we consume is amazing, and all that energy has to come from somewhere. Most all of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and some comes from nuclear sources, but far too little comes from clean, renewable energy sources.
But we want stuff cheap, and I'd argue that that desire for cheap products is driving the country into a hole we may not be able to dig ourselves out of. We don't want to pay a fair price for anything. Even what we consider fair is far from it. If we don’t want to pay a fair price, how can we in turn expect to receive a fair wage? Mexicans are coming across the border to work the jobs that Americans don’t want? It's not that Americans don’t want the jobs, it's that Americans cannot live on the wages that other Americans are willing to pay for those jobs, and the list of "those jobs" continues to grow. Other countries will work cheaper in labor and technology and they'll do it with no benefits and less safety measures in place. But don’t be angry with them, you would gladly take the work as well if you were in their position. But you're not; not yet anyway. How bad does it have to get for us to wake up?
There was a saying that I heard while I lived in Central America. There in the middle of the Latin world, in the country of Honduras, I often heard the following baseball analogy "Americans are born on third base, but they all think they have hit a triple." Neither I nor the Hondurans who mentioned this phrase to me believe that it is true for every American. But I do believe it is a fairly accurate assessment of the psyche of far too many Americans. There is a tendency to believe, or a desire to believe, that we are essentially better people; that we are in some way superior to those of the rest of the world. We must be more intelligent, harder working, more pious, somehow more deserving. But how often do we recognize that we have long been the beneficiary of a system that was fought for and established by previous generations. And that we are the beneficiaries of the very people that we look down upon. We reap the physical resources and the sweat equity of their nations while they are left with the scraps.
Of course those feelings are not reserved to those outside our country; we maintain plenty of similar emotion for our neighbors. We begin in grade school. What are parents have not already taught us, we teach one another. We separate one another, we find ways to differentiate, and we develop hierarchies where none existed. Social psychologists dedicate mush time to understanding the phenomenon. It boils down to elaborate means we devise as ways of protecting our fragile egos. Is it natural, or is it learned? That’s another timeless argument in and of itself, but likely it is both. The important question however is, must it remain that way, can we learn to get past it, and to what degree?
Why are our public schools bad? Are our schools so bad? Will throwing money into the system fix the schools? Will fixing the schools noticeably improve our education? What are the common threads between successful schools? How do we define successful schools? Studies have suggested that the schools and systems themselves relatively little compared to the desire of the student and the support the student has outside the campus. Chicago was the first large public school system to offer students the opportunity to enter a lottery system to attend the better schools. Many students enter the lottery to get into these schools but only a fraction was selected and able to attend. When Steven Levitt analyzed years of the Chicago schools systems records he came up with some interesting findings. Throughout the school systems in general the students who applied for the lottery did well verses those who did not apply for the lottery. The students who "won" the lottery and attended the "better" schools did not however do significantly better than the students who had applied for the lottery but had "lost."
Every since I was a child I have felt that I am meant for greatness. I cannot say exactly what but I know that I am not alone in that feeling. Most children have great aspirations; they see a future bright with possibility. As I have aged I have held to the notion that there is something great ahead of me.
I am not suggesting that I am completely disappointed with my early adult life. I am a father of three wonderful boys and the husband of a woman I hardly deserve. I believe that being a father and a husband are opportunities for greatness in and of themselves; responsibilities I hope I fulfill half as well as my own father has and does.
With age however the brightness of that hope tends to dim. Why is that? Many would say that the dimmer switch on life is the reality of the real world. In other words, childhood naïveté. While I'm not going to deny that some of our childhood aspirations were perhaps a bit lofty, a bit uninformed, I take issue with the idea that childhood's line of thinking is all wrong.
Personally I think that as a culture and a society we do a bang-up job of quelling the stirrings of youth. I hear the voices all around me, coming from every direction. Some of the voices are systematic and deliberate. Others are ingrained in us as a society and as individuals. Perhaps the most pervasive and systematic are the results of industrial psychology and corporate econo-babble. Other voices, just as powerful, come from a long and ingrained history of what I'll call class system predestination (I trust you understand what I mean by that). The media drops whispering altogether and yells at each of us at every turn. All of the aforementioned voices rapidly accentuate and drive the battle of the whisperings within. Self doubt is a powerful crippling agent.
I fear that I have become somewhat cynical and jaded in recent years. Once again there are those who would simply reply "life will do that to you." This pessimism is something I find myself battling more often then I am comfortable with. I cannot shake the somewhat romantic notion of grandeur in my future, no matter the heavy doses of reality checks.
I believe that a few of the key ingredients to my cynicism lye with those political leaders in our world, our countries and our communities. Currently (October 28, 2006) the media outlets around the United States are rancid with political banter. In my own state (Missouri) there is a heated race for U.S. Senate between Democrat Claire McCaskill and the incumbent Republican Jim Talent.
Both candidates and parties are attempting to persuade me to vote for them by telling me how terrible a person their opponent is. We all know the negative ads, and I understand the psychology of the negative ad campaign. Talk about inspiring confidence. And they wonder about the disconnect between politicians and the public they serve. No! They don’t wonder! They have to know. So I ask; do they care?
I want to vote, I really do. So as happens far too often it becomes a case of who is the lesser of two evils. I mean I don’t personally know the people, all I have to go on is what I catch in the media and we know that’s a lot of help (worthless degenerate waste of money).
There is part of me that would like to be President of the United States some day. But the probabilities are against me, and though I will not give up hope, I imagine that now is as good a time as any to begin introducing some of my thoughts to the world. Honestly, my thoughts are the kind that more than likely will bar me from any real opportunity to pursue much of a political career. I cannot see myself forsaking these thoughts however. The fact is that the answers to most of our political, social, and economic woes do not contain complex strategies or new theories. The answers have been around for some time, we as a society just do not want to hear them.
The solutions to the woes of American Society lie with the American People. In particular the lower and middle class Americans who have long since relinquished the majority of what power we once had. The vast majority of the population of the United States feels essentially powerless to effect change of any real substance. Not only is this not true, but this is exactly what the vast minority (those who wield the power) wants us to think. We have positioned ourselves as victims, and if we want real change we are going to have to do two things that most of us want nothing of, sacrifice and become actively united.
Any general sociology class will introduce you to history and current state of western social structure. I took an interesting course in college called "Class, Status, & Power" that offered a particularly eye opening look at who has the influence and why. Sadly much of it can be boiled down to the lower and middle classes never being able to come together and fight for a cause, weather the storm and then remain unified. Many people do not have any ambitions of grandeur and that’s fine. Those people become satisfied after even the smallest and most temporary of victories. In their satisfaction they become comfortable and lax. The problem is that they quit fighting and they begin to lose ground. The vast minority is not ever going to quit fighting for wealth, power, and influence.
We as an American People are gluttons. We feel like we are entitled to a way of life that is virtually impossible to sustain. We expect to have three bedrooms, two baths, a big screen (preferably hi-def) a two car garage (likely full of junk) who knows how many cars in the driveway, central air conditioning, jetted tubs, a stocked fridge and freezer (maybe an extra pair in the garage or basement), a barbeque grill on the deck out back, and I haven't even touched the toys and activities we pursue. Now don't get angry with me. I'm not suggesting I'm any different, but I'm trying to be. If you don’t have it, you want it and you're going to complain about it. If you have it you want more and you're complaining about it. And if whatever you have or don’t have is hard enough to maintain, I can guarantee that you're complaining about it too. I'm guilty too!
Practically always it is a story about the big man keeping the little man down. Now that story may partially be true, how could anyone refute that (of course the big man attempts to in his own condescending way)? But the more powerful part of that story is the implication that we are all powerless victims. Of course everyone has the answers, we all been guilty and we've all heard the talk, but where's the action. We are great at talking the talk but terrible at walking the walk. I have always envisioned myself as being part of the solution rather than perpetuating the problem. I too however have long been another talker. Now this talker turned writer is attempting begin a change within myself that hopefully I can model for and with others. I realize that I cannot change things on my own. But wouldn’t it be great to be part of a cultural revolution the world is waiting for.
We live in a country that is as individual as they come. We celebrate our individuality. But there is a fine line between the self reliance we profess to seek and the ignorant pride we too often possess. We seek exclusivity; we insulate our lives with the walls of our homes, privacy fences, Toyota Camry's and Ford F-150s. All the technology we have to expand our ability to communicate and to reach out and instead we are reaching further in. Our social circles are shrinking instead of expanding. We isolate ourselves because we tell ourselves that we don’t have the time or resources for others.
We serve ourselves first and if we are feeling charitable, we might throw some of our scraps to those in need. But in that wonderful tradition of isolation we give in the way we know best, monetarily. We don’t have the time or the energy to serve, and I say we really don’t care to. It's much easier to sign a check and put it in the mail. This way we can reserve our time, our energy, and maintain our emotional distance all while allowing individuals and governments to clear their consciences
I love cars. I'm not alone, but I really love cars. I have spent far too much time reading about torque, horsepower, understeer/oversteer, fit and finish and visiting car lots to smell the new upholstery I cannot afford. We love our cars; we just cannot give them up. The automobile is a perfect example of American individuality. Every morning and evening on the way to and from work the scene remains the same, rows of vehicles with a diver and rarely a passenger but virtually always plenty of available seats. We as Americans consume 40% of the worlds available oil supply even though we represent only 4.3% of the world's population. Likewise we are the largest contributor to green house gases. By percentage we share the largest burden in the destruction of the ozone but we want cheaper gas and bigger trucks to burn it in.
Of course that's not to mention the stress that we put on the environment in a plethora of other ways. The amount of electricity that we consume is amazing, and all that energy has to come from somewhere. Most all of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and some comes from nuclear sources, but far too little comes from clean, renewable energy sources.
But we want stuff cheap, and I'd argue that that desire for cheap products is driving the country into a hole we may not be able to dig ourselves out of. We don't want to pay a fair price for anything. Even what we consider fair is far from it. If we don’t want to pay a fair price, how can we in turn expect to receive a fair wage? Mexicans are coming across the border to work the jobs that Americans don’t want? It's not that Americans don’t want the jobs, it's that Americans cannot live on the wages that other Americans are willing to pay for those jobs, and the list of "those jobs" continues to grow. Other countries will work cheaper in labor and technology and they'll do it with no benefits and less safety measures in place. But don’t be angry with them, you would gladly take the work as well if you were in their position. But you're not; not yet anyway. How bad does it have to get for us to wake up?
There was a saying that I heard while I lived in Central America. There in the middle of the Latin world, in the country of Honduras, I often heard the following baseball analogy "Americans are born on third base, but they all think they have hit a triple." Neither I nor the Hondurans who mentioned this phrase to me believe that it is true for every American. But I do believe it is a fairly accurate assessment of the psyche of far too many Americans. There is a tendency to believe, or a desire to believe, that we are essentially better people; that we are in some way superior to those of the rest of the world. We must be more intelligent, harder working, more pious, somehow more deserving. But how often do we recognize that we have long been the beneficiary of a system that was fought for and established by previous generations. And that we are the beneficiaries of the very people that we look down upon. We reap the physical resources and the sweat equity of their nations while they are left with the scraps.
Of course those feelings are not reserved to those outside our country; we maintain plenty of similar emotion for our neighbors. We begin in grade school. What are parents have not already taught us, we teach one another. We separate one another, we find ways to differentiate, and we develop hierarchies where none existed. Social psychologists dedicate mush time to understanding the phenomenon. It boils down to elaborate means we devise as ways of protecting our fragile egos. Is it natural, or is it learned? That’s another timeless argument in and of itself, but likely it is both. The important question however is, must it remain that way, can we learn to get past it, and to what degree?
Why are our public schools bad? Are our schools so bad? Will throwing money into the system fix the schools? Will fixing the schools noticeably improve our education? What are the common threads between successful schools? How do we define successful schools? Studies have suggested that the schools and systems themselves relatively little compared to the desire of the student and the support the student has outside the campus. Chicago was the first large public school system to offer students the opportunity to enter a lottery system to attend the better schools. Many students enter the lottery to get into these schools but only a fraction was selected and able to attend. When Steven Levitt analyzed years of the Chicago schools systems records he came up with some interesting findings. Throughout the school systems in general the students who applied for the lottery did well verses those who did not apply for the lottery. The students who "won" the lottery and attended the "better" schools did not however do significantly better than the students who had applied for the lottery but had "lost."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Am I rational?
It is apparent that there is much debate over whether or not "rationality" does or even can exist as mankind would attempt to define it. Many have applied various theories of rationality (Bound rationality, Rational Choice theory, etc.) in an attempt to explain just how or what rationality is.
In some fields of study (philosophy, psychology) something may be deemed "rational" if it is valid or logical, while in other fields (economics, sociology) something may be rational if it is considered to be optimal in the advancing to ones goals. The problem of course is that one can find themselves contradicting these attempts at defining rationality. (Wikipedia, Rationality)
Rationality seems dependent upon reason, or at least it is closely related to it. Rationalism is defined as a philosophical position, theory, or view that reason is the source of knowledge in contrast to the experience of the senses (Wikipedia). As for me, rationality is dependent upon truth, and this may be the most important argument. Of course the notion of truth (what is it, where does truth come from) brings out a whole other can of worms. But that is another discussion for another time.
I agree with the thought of Herbert Simon in his work, Models of my life. He believes that most people are only partly rational that they are irrational and led by emotion through most of their actions. I have alsways liked the notion of the Sophists with regards to reality. Is there really a reality? Many of them debated that there is not, that there is only ones perceptions. We recognize of course that societies establish norms that become part of what we call reality, but individual to individual there may be no pure reality, only perception.
It is as if we all have lenses, crafted by our individual life experiences, through which we perceive the world around us. Our own lenses, and therefore our perceptions, change with the edition of experiences. Just as these lenses are so incredibly unique, so too are our perceptions.
Would this notion of perspective and reality not greatly affect rationality?
Keep that thought in mind next time you disagree with someone, especially if it is me; we know I’m never wrong.
In some fields of study (philosophy, psychology) something may be deemed "rational" if it is valid or logical, while in other fields (economics, sociology) something may be rational if it is considered to be optimal in the advancing to ones goals. The problem of course is that one can find themselves contradicting these attempts at defining rationality. (Wikipedia, Rationality)
Rationality seems dependent upon reason, or at least it is closely related to it. Rationalism is defined as a philosophical position, theory, or view that reason is the source of knowledge in contrast to the experience of the senses (Wikipedia). As for me, rationality is dependent upon truth, and this may be the most important argument. Of course the notion of truth (what is it, where does truth come from) brings out a whole other can of worms. But that is another discussion for another time.
I agree with the thought of Herbert Simon in his work, Models of my life. He believes that most people are only partly rational that they are irrational and led by emotion through most of their actions. I have alsways liked the notion of the Sophists with regards to reality. Is there really a reality? Many of them debated that there is not, that there is only ones perceptions. We recognize of course that societies establish norms that become part of what we call reality, but individual to individual there may be no pure reality, only perception.
It is as if we all have lenses, crafted by our individual life experiences, through which we perceive the world around us. Our own lenses, and therefore our perceptions, change with the edition of experiences. Just as these lenses are so incredibly unique, so too are our perceptions.
Would this notion of perspective and reality not greatly affect rationality?
Keep that thought in mind next time you disagree with someone, especially if it is me; we know I’m never wrong.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Our love of Cars.
While this post is long, it is certainly condensed and ends rather abruptly. But see it through and see what questions/thoughts it generates.
I grew up loving cars. My dad loved/loves cars and would occasionally take me to local car shows. I especially loved the American Hot-Rods and Muscle Cars. And like many young teenage boys, I also dreamed about the super-cars of Europe, but these seemed distant and unattainable to me. Of course I imagined my self rich and living in the mansion on the hill, so perhaps I would have my stable of cars after all.
This year I took my own boys to a small local car-show to see some of the same cars I loved.
I have also always loved technology and thoughts of what the future held. I searched the pages of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics incessantly. Of course I also spent a fair amount of time perusing the pages of Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Road & Track, and Automobile Magazine. This love of technology and cars began to conflict with another great love, nature and the environment. I spent time lost in the pages of National Geographic magazine also. I loved being and playing outdoors, and as a young boy-scout I only deepened that love.
My other great interests included (and still do); family, friends, music, and physical activities. If I could be playing sports, rappelling, dancing, etc., and it included family and/or friends, than I was in heaven. If it could some how incorporate music, then how much the better.
It all came together in an unexpected way when I was attending high school in the early ‘90s. My environmental chemistry teacher introduced my fellow students and me to a national solar bicycle race (http://www.solarbike.org/). We formed a team, raised a little money, and entered the event. I enjoyed the experience with friends working on our bike learning more about solar power, battery storage, electric motors, and rudimentary design. That experience has always stuck with me. For me, the need for effective and efficient alternative energy sources became real.
Shortly after this experience, I can remember beginning to feel disappointment with the world’s auto-makers, but especially with the American auto makers. I grew up in a house-hold that always had and has bought American and yet the older I got, the more obvious it became that American cars were of lesser quality (a trend they seem to finally be working to reverse; is it too late?). However, to my knowledge the only “foreign” car that my parents ever briefly owned was a Volkswagen Beetle. It wasn't that my father hasn't recognized the inferiority of American cars in many areas, he was investing in a lifelong relationship, buying an ideal, and a history as much as an automobile. Of course the carmakers know this. I felt let down, even taken advantage of, by the American automakers. Still I tried to carry the flame and buy American.
Like many, I have wondered how much the government, “big oil,” and automakers had to do with it all. I wondered about the “conspiracy.” Sometimes I believe that complacent, lazy, unimaginable, and irresponsible design and business policies have plagued the American automakers more than anything. While I’m certain the government, "big oil" and auotmakers all have played a significant role in the problems at hand, I have to recognize that we the consumers also are to blame. I realize that our desire for convenience and pseudo-independence drives our destructive consumerism which in turn drives many of our other social ills. Don’t believe me? Ask and I’ll be happy to illustrate.
Since I have been married (going on 8 years now) and have become a father, my scrutiny of automobiles has continued to evolve. Now I have a more expansive view. Not only do I see the poor improvement in fuel economy, but I also see our inability to support an ever expanding infrastructure of roads and highways. I find myself thinking about mass-transit and how our current system of building communities cannot efficiently support it.
With today’s high gas prices, there appears to be some motivation to make real progress. We are beginning to hear of cars with real increases in efficiency, like Volkswagen and Aptera’s cars 
boasting 200+mpg.
Did you knw that there was actually an efficient electric car at the turn of the century, the 20th century? Jay Leno has his.
But many are less exuberant. Part of this is due to the consumers demands. We want powerful/fast cars with navigation systems and other luxuries that add weight and cost and zap efficiency. And we want our 2.28 vehicles per household! Actually, due to the way we live, we practically require that 2.28. If it were not for the current price of gas (4.44/gal. here in Anchorage) we'd be all to happy to jump back in line for the SUV's and Trucks. Why not? With exception to their thirst, they are convenient.
We consume 20.7 million barrels of oil every day in the U.S., or roughly 7 billion barrels a year and that number is currently rising at about a 2% increase anually. Globally we are consuming 30billion barrels a year. China alone doubled its oil consumption from 1996 – 2006 and their consumption is currently increasing at 8% each year. By the way, check the estimates of how much oil we can gain by drilling in ANWR (one fairly unbiased site http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm) and you tell me if you think it would make a difference.
China’s middle class is expanding rapidly. In a country of 1.3 billion people even a relatively small middle class (currently around 300 million, the equivalent of the entire U.S. population) is beginning to flex its economic muscle. Did you know that China's economy is the fastest growing major economy in the world? As the Chinese begin to produce and consume more vehicles, the pressure on the world’s oil resources (and the environment) will increase astronomically. What about if (or when) India, population 1.1 billion, begins to take off economically. And think about all the other stuff out there we consume...think about the trash! (We'll leave that for another time.)
So far we've only spoken of Oil and automobiles. Our consumerism is much more widespread of course. One final thought to bring this all to a close. It is estimated, based on the earths natural resources, that if everyone in the world as we do in the United States, we would need multiple Earths to support us. Visit http://www.ecofoot.org/ to see how many Earths it would take if everyone lived like you. Sadly, it would require 5.2 Earths for everyone to live like me. I’ve got work to do!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
I cannot over-stress how little I feel that we use our minds. And though I feel that I am a fairly deep thinker, when I say "our minds," I do include myself. The problem seems that too often we simply are too lazy to give sufficient thought to the problems that beset us. I recognize that there are simply no absolutes in many instances, no right or wrong, no black or white. Yet in many cases moments of clarity and resolution are only a short way down the synaptic pathways of our own minds.
In academic settings I am always amazed when you hear something like the following:
Teacher: Student A, what do you think about. . .
Student A: I don't know.
Teacher: Student B? Student B: I don't know either.
Teacher: Does anyone have any ideas, thoughts? - - - - - -silence- - - - - -
Teacher: Anyone? - - - -more silence- - - -
Teacher: Bueller?
And that is when I typically dive in. It drives me crazy! But before I say more, let me say that as a psychology guy (just enough to be dangerous, not enough to get a job) I understand the basic textbook answers, and I do recognize that I don't have all the answers myself. I also don't believe that I'm frustrated because I feel that people are not "as smart as I am," but rather because they seem to waste the gift it is to have such a highly evolved brain, the ability to reason. Yes there may be some who are not capable of deeper, reflective, abstract thought; but they are relatively few in the adult population. People seem to come up short on the ability or the desire to think about practically anything at any given time. I'm not only talking about questions dealing with the foundations of the universe or why the sky is blue, I'm also speaking of every day scenarios; things that matter.
Don't get me wrong, it has happened to me. I too have given the answer "I don't know." That said, I typically feel that in those instances, I haven't previously given the topic sufficient thought and I simply ask for a moment to think about it. I get a rain-check if you would. I then try to respond with as well a thought out reply as I can. And it's quite possible that I haven't given the "I don't know" answer often enough. Perhaps I do think that I know more than I do. In recent years, it has come to my mind that perhaps I comment too often, so I have tried to be more selective about when I speak and what I say. I understand that some people will not ever comment as long as someone else will.
But why is it? Are we all just too stressed, to busy, worn to thin, to exhausted? Or have we just not been taught how to think? Just how much blame can we place on the television, the radio, or the video game. I certainly do not doubt that we all should spend more time reading, but I'm sure that years ago there were those who said the same things about books that we say today about television. It likely went something along these lines:
"Dang books are rotting kids brains. All they do is set around and read all day. When I was their age we had to imagine our own stories. Now-a-days there is so such thing as imagination, someone else has to tell the story for you."
As silly as that may sound, I can see some truth in it. And certainly there were those who felt that way. But really, where does the blame fall? Maybe it's the government, some big conspiracy to dumb us all down. They control our public education system after all. Or maybe it's the 1% of the population controlling 90% of our nations wealth. The big man keeping the little man down. Are there contributing factors in the environment? Maybe it's our diets, our fast food and preservatives going to our brains. Could it be drugs, pollutants, increased strength of solar rays, increased greenhouse gases, and/or decreased levels of ozone in the atmosphere? Of course, but I sincerely doubt it all.
I think it has been this way too often throughout the history of the world. When do we personally, as individuals start to take some accountability? We often hear the argument that men are accountable for their thoughts as well as their actions. How about fo the lack of thought?
So take a swing at it, take a swing at me. I have no problem with a person disagreeing with me or with anyone else. . . so long as the grounds upon which the disagreement is founded is thought out. Don't give me the almighty "because," or "that's just how I feel," because that just doesn't cut it. Tell me why you think what you think. Let these be the governing rules for all the posts to follow.
By the way, I cant wait to see how many "I don't know" posts I get.
In academic settings I am always amazed when you hear something like the following:
Teacher: Student A, what do you think about. . .
Student A: I don't know.
Teacher: Student B? Student B: I don't know either.
Teacher: Does anyone have any ideas, thoughts? - - - - - -silence- - - - - -
Teacher: Anyone? - - - -more silence- - - -
Teacher: Bueller?
And that is when I typically dive in. It drives me crazy! But before I say more, let me say that as a psychology guy (just enough to be dangerous, not enough to get a job) I understand the basic textbook answers, and I do recognize that I don't have all the answers myself. I also don't believe that I'm frustrated because I feel that people are not "as smart as I am," but rather because they seem to waste the gift it is to have such a highly evolved brain, the ability to reason. Yes there may be some who are not capable of deeper, reflective, abstract thought; but they are relatively few in the adult population. People seem to come up short on the ability or the desire to think about practically anything at any given time. I'm not only talking about questions dealing with the foundations of the universe or why the sky is blue, I'm also speaking of every day scenarios; things that matter.
Don't get me wrong, it has happened to me. I too have given the answer "I don't know." That said, I typically feel that in those instances, I haven't previously given the topic sufficient thought and I simply ask for a moment to think about it. I get a rain-check if you would. I then try to respond with as well a thought out reply as I can. And it's quite possible that I haven't given the "I don't know" answer often enough. Perhaps I do think that I know more than I do. In recent years, it has come to my mind that perhaps I comment too often, so I have tried to be more selective about when I speak and what I say. I understand that some people will not ever comment as long as someone else will.
But why is it? Are we all just too stressed, to busy, worn to thin, to exhausted? Or have we just not been taught how to think? Just how much blame can we place on the television, the radio, or the video game. I certainly do not doubt that we all should spend more time reading, but I'm sure that years ago there were those who said the same things about books that we say today about television. It likely went something along these lines:
"Dang books are rotting kids brains. All they do is set around and read all day. When I was their age we had to imagine our own stories. Now-a-days there is so such thing as imagination, someone else has to tell the story for you."
As silly as that may sound, I can see some truth in it. And certainly there were those who felt that way. But really, where does the blame fall? Maybe it's the government, some big conspiracy to dumb us all down. They control our public education system after all. Or maybe it's the 1% of the population controlling 90% of our nations wealth. The big man keeping the little man down. Are there contributing factors in the environment? Maybe it's our diets, our fast food and preservatives going to our brains. Could it be drugs, pollutants, increased strength of solar rays, increased greenhouse gases, and/or decreased levels of ozone in the atmosphere? Of course, but I sincerely doubt it all.
I think it has been this way too often throughout the history of the world. When do we personally, as individuals start to take some accountability? We often hear the argument that men are accountable for their thoughts as well as their actions. How about fo the lack of thought?
So take a swing at it, take a swing at me. I have no problem with a person disagreeing with me or with anyone else. . . so long as the grounds upon which the disagreement is founded is thought out. Don't give me the almighty "because," or "that's just how I feel," because that just doesn't cut it. Tell me why you think what you think. Let these be the governing rules for all the posts to follow.
By the way, I cant wait to see how many "I don't know" posts I get.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)