I love all of the innovations that people are creating to make our lives better via technology. This is just yet another clever way that technology can make us that more efficient ... and maybe could even allow my wife and I to make a little cash from the empty space in our garage during the workday!
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/12/parking_panda_rent_your_unused_parking_space.html
By connecting people sick of wasting time and gas circling blocks searching for parking spots with people who have parking spaces to rent, everybody wins. And that's a perfect example of how our modern technology is raising our quality of life.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Moving forward from Newtown
As conversations about Newtown, and how to reduce the chances of this happening again, take place in our own minds and with our friends and families over the coming weeks, I submit a request of everyone.
Purge your mind of all ideological loyalties; forget every talking point you've ever heard and any bumper sticker "wisdom" you've ever read; ignore the political party of anyone offering ideas and disregard all partisanship of any kind. This certainly isn't an issue that should be seen as a "political" issue -- it's far too important to fall into the realm of deceipt that generally comes when things are seen as "political." Set aside your own ego and your own "beliefs" and your own paranoias in favor of really, truly hearing and understanding all of the facts, insights, and perspectives that are out there, in order to reach the best objective conclusions possible.
We need a fresh, intellectually honest, and sincere conversation about this topic nationally, conducted in good faith. No longer can these topics be fodder for political campaigns or fundraising tools for special interest groups. We all need to come together and sincerely work to try to find the best answers we can. There will be no perfect answers, but there certainly is a whole lot of room for progress. I am positive that is what virtually everyone wants above all else.
I still haven't even begun to wrap my brain around all of the issues, and frankly, it's hard to even really try when I still find myself tearing up each time I think about what happened. I need some emotional distance from that reality before I can start developing my own opinions in the abstract.
For now, the debate is moving forward without me, and that's fine. I just ask that when you are ready to take part in it, please do so in the most open minded and intellectually honest manner possible, while purging all of your "beliefs" on the topic. Beliefs have a role in society, but they can't be an excuse to justify positions that don't stand up to facts and logic.
Now is time to work together, concede our own biases, purge our own prejudices, and try to find some imperfect, but necessary, answers that may make it less likely that what we saw in Newtown happens again.
Purge your mind of all ideological loyalties; forget every talking point you've ever heard and any bumper sticker "wisdom" you've ever read; ignore the political party of anyone offering ideas and disregard all partisanship of any kind. This certainly isn't an issue that should be seen as a "political" issue -- it's far too important to fall into the realm of deceipt that generally comes when things are seen as "political." Set aside your own ego and your own "beliefs" and your own paranoias in favor of really, truly hearing and understanding all of the facts, insights, and perspectives that are out there, in order to reach the best objective conclusions possible.
We need a fresh, intellectually honest, and sincere conversation about this topic nationally, conducted in good faith. No longer can these topics be fodder for political campaigns or fundraising tools for special interest groups. We all need to come together and sincerely work to try to find the best answers we can. There will be no perfect answers, but there certainly is a whole lot of room for progress. I am positive that is what virtually everyone wants above all else.
I still haven't even begun to wrap my brain around all of the issues, and frankly, it's hard to even really try when I still find myself tearing up each time I think about what happened. I need some emotional distance from that reality before I can start developing my own opinions in the abstract.
For now, the debate is moving forward without me, and that's fine. I just ask that when you are ready to take part in it, please do so in the most open minded and intellectually honest manner possible, while purging all of your "beliefs" on the topic. Beliefs have a role in society, but they can't be an excuse to justify positions that don't stand up to facts and logic.
Now is time to work together, concede our own biases, purge our own prejudices, and try to find some imperfect, but necessary, answers that may make it less likely that what we saw in Newtown happens again.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff - why is reaching a deal so hard?
As we know, the GOP and the Democrats are having a hard time agreeing upon the specifics of a budget deal that would allow us to avoid the (perhaps silly-named) "fiscal cliff." Why is this? Is it because both are valiently fighting for specific policies that are true to their constituencies' wants and desires?
Not exactly. In fact, the reality is, neither of their constituencies really, truly wants a deal of the kind that needs to be made. That creates a lot of problems.
Everybody likes lower taxes for themselves. Everybody also likes government spending that benefits them. Therefore, the only tax hikes that people tend to like are ones that don't impact themselves (which is why the narrow "tax on the wealthy" is so popular among the unwealthy). At the same time, people love theoretical cuts in spending on things that they believe (albeit often naively) only benefit other people, but when it involves spending near to their own hearts, suddenly that spending is vital!
This piece from Reason Magazine frames things up very nicely, and I highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic give it a quick read.
In essence, the GOP wants spending cuts in theory, but doesn't want to take the blame for proposing specific spending cuts (as even the majority of Republican voters oppose those cuts, and the public at large really hates those cuts). So they are trying to get the Democrats to be the ones to list specific cuts. Of course, the Democrats are refusing to do that and are demanding that the GOP provide the list of specific cuts, and then be accountable for them. Neither party wants to be the "bad guy" that cuts stuff that most of the voters like.
At the same time, the Democrats certainly aren't willing to fall on the sword with any bold proposals on tax increases, either. They stick to the idea that only wealthy people should see any tax hikes, even though a broader tax hike would generate a lot more revenue. Politically, they are also being wusses, as they know that a majority of the voters support taxes on the rich (and a huge portion of those voters are presumably not rich themselves), so they just cherry pick the policy that they know polls well and refuse to consider anything else.
So we have two parties that are both afraid to propose any specific policies that don't poll well. Of course, to reach a deal of any significance, they MUST include policies that don't poll well.
So this whole debate is partially about two sides sticking to their ideological guns (even though the GOP is in a horrible bargaining position, and everyone knows it, and doesn't really have much leverage to stick to any negotiating tactic too long), the larger and more immediate problem that is keeping us from seeing a real deal moving forward is the fact that neither party has had the policial courage to embrace policies that are good policies and good for the country, but are bad politics for their own political self-interests.
Not exactly. In fact, the reality is, neither of their constituencies really, truly wants a deal of the kind that needs to be made. That creates a lot of problems.
Everybody likes lower taxes for themselves. Everybody also likes government spending that benefits them. Therefore, the only tax hikes that people tend to like are ones that don't impact themselves (which is why the narrow "tax on the wealthy" is so popular among the unwealthy). At the same time, people love theoretical cuts in spending on things that they believe (albeit often naively) only benefit other people, but when it involves spending near to their own hearts, suddenly that spending is vital!
This piece from Reason Magazine frames things up very nicely, and I highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic give it a quick read.
In essence, the GOP wants spending cuts in theory, but doesn't want to take the blame for proposing specific spending cuts (as even the majority of Republican voters oppose those cuts, and the public at large really hates those cuts). So they are trying to get the Democrats to be the ones to list specific cuts. Of course, the Democrats are refusing to do that and are demanding that the GOP provide the list of specific cuts, and then be accountable for them. Neither party wants to be the "bad guy" that cuts stuff that most of the voters like.
At the same time, the Democrats certainly aren't willing to fall on the sword with any bold proposals on tax increases, either. They stick to the idea that only wealthy people should see any tax hikes, even though a broader tax hike would generate a lot more revenue. Politically, they are also being wusses, as they know that a majority of the voters support taxes on the rich (and a huge portion of those voters are presumably not rich themselves), so they just cherry pick the policy that they know polls well and refuse to consider anything else.
So we have two parties that are both afraid to propose any specific policies that don't poll well. Of course, to reach a deal of any significance, they MUST include policies that don't poll well.
So this whole debate is partially about two sides sticking to their ideological guns (even though the GOP is in a horrible bargaining position, and everyone knows it, and doesn't really have much leverage to stick to any negotiating tactic too long), the larger and more immediate problem that is keeping us from seeing a real deal moving forward is the fact that neither party has had the policial courage to embrace policies that are good policies and good for the country, but are bad politics for their own political self-interests.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Overcoming tribalism - your own stories
Let's get interactive! How many of you can name an example from your own lives where you had previously held a belief inspired by tribalism of one sort or another, but then came to a realization that you had been completely wrong and changed your view on that topic?
In other words, let's share examples of where we had previously held an opinion based on willful ignorance (based on strict adherence to a religion, political party, ideology, favorite football team, etc.), but later gave up that willful ignorance and embraced a far more enlightened and informed position?
We've all done it, no doubt, at various times in our lives. I will share some examples of mine in a long-ish post in the next few days, but I'd love to hear examples from others as well, as hearing these kinds of stories is really quite inspiring to me. It speaks to people's abilities to grow emotionally and intellectually over time and to set aside our egos (which want to believe that we are always right, no matter how wrong we may be) in favor of embracing objectivity, and thereby become far better able to reach sound conclusions based on facts and logic.
In other words, let's share examples of where we had previously held an opinion based on willful ignorance (based on strict adherence to a religion, political party, ideology, favorite football team, etc.), but later gave up that willful ignorance and embraced a far more enlightened and informed position?
We've all done it, no doubt, at various times in our lives. I will share some examples of mine in a long-ish post in the next few days, but I'd love to hear examples from others as well, as hearing these kinds of stories is really quite inspiring to me. It speaks to people's abilities to grow emotionally and intellectually over time and to set aside our egos (which want to believe that we are always right, no matter how wrong we may be) in favor of embracing objectivity, and thereby become far better able to reach sound conclusions based on facts and logic.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Of Guns and Drugs
The idea for this topic, pairing two topics into one, came to me the other day from one of those chain facebook pictures with political words on them. So for whoever came up with that bumper sticker wisdom, thank you!
Guns and drugs, and the level of regulation of each by the government, are some of the most divisive topics in the land. And by divisive, I mostly mean that people on both sides seem to just talk past one another without actually listenting to each year and finding areas of agreement.
Why I'm including these two topics together is that I see a lot of similarity in terms of how these topics became so divisive, and the fact that I think that both topics are ones that most people probably actually agree on most of the issues' major points, if they'd just allow themselves to go down that road. But thanks in large part to gun control activists, the NRA, and anti-drug crusaders, it seems that these topics are usually discussed in an flurry of dumbed down and paranoid talking points instead of in substantive reality.
These topics are also a nice match because they expose more of the bizarre contradictions within both the stereotypical "conservative" and "liberal" political gangs.
In essence, both issues really come down to a debate about how much the government should try to prevent people from having/using objects/substances that can cause harm to a relatively small group of people. In one of the issues (guns), it is the stereotypical conservative that supports people having access to the objects that can cause harm. In the other (drugs), it is the stereotypical liberal that is in favor to people having access to the substance that can cause harm.
I'm guessing I've already caused some kneejerk outrage based on what I've said already... but bear with me and I think most will agree with my logic.
First, let's lay out the facts about guns:
That said, no matter what laws we have, extraordinarily motivated bad guys will still have handguns. Therefore, it seems reasonable to let people have handguns to protect their own homes and persons ... assuming there's nothing about them that would suggest that they are a danger to others by having one.
So setting aside the Second Amendment (an Amendment that Madison really should have spent a bit more time upon -- what a horribly confusing bit of writing that was), it seems to me that the best public policy would be to allow everyone to have handguns, as long as they are able to get over some rather short hurdles:
As for the argument that we can't trust our government to enact reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and how government people might instead discriminate against people ... yeah, that's always a possibility. If we looked at our criminal justice system, one could certainly find historic examples of discrimination. But I also don't see the risk of not being allowed to own a gun as being quite a dire as the risk of being executed for a crime one didn't commit.
My view on drugs is similar -- we need to balance freedom against the risk to society, and we need to do so based on some reasonable understanding of the issues instead of hyperbole of the activists.
For starters, we all need to agree that drugs and alcohol DO cause a lot of harm in our society. So the anti-drug crusaders, and even the prohibition people in the 1920s did have a valid point.
However, we need to balance that against the reality that, for a vast, vast majority of users, alcohol and drugs are not inherently dangerous, and they do drive a lot of satisfaction from it. Contrary to the rather bizarre arguments of some, people doing things that makes them happy DOES have value and should be given respect.
So in my opinion, we just need to find that magic line in the sand to draw to determine where a drug is so dangerous that the harm it causes is greater than the joy people derive from using it. People have tried to draw that line at alcohol, which is kind of a strange place to draw it, as most illegal drugs tend to be considered less dangerous than alcohol. So I'd just argue that the line should perhaps be drawn at someplace like heroin instead of at pot, where it is now.
That would provide more freedom to Americans, less money spent needlessly prosecuting victimless crimes, and more tax revenue to put into drug dependency programs to treat the small minority that have problems with drugs and alcohol. It would also have the huge advantage of bring that piece of our capitalistic society into the regulated sphere of the visible economy and out of the shadows of the violence-enforced world of the black market.
To state the obvious, anyone commiting a crime against another person because of their drug/alcohol use should be prosecuted ... including DUIs. Allowing freedom while keeping people accountable for their actions should be the ideal goal of our nation's laws, in my opinion.
Guns and drugs, and the level of regulation of each by the government, are some of the most divisive topics in the land. And by divisive, I mostly mean that people on both sides seem to just talk past one another without actually listenting to each year and finding areas of agreement.
Why I'm including these two topics together is that I see a lot of similarity in terms of how these topics became so divisive, and the fact that I think that both topics are ones that most people probably actually agree on most of the issues' major points, if they'd just allow themselves to go down that road. But thanks in large part to gun control activists, the NRA, and anti-drug crusaders, it seems that these topics are usually discussed in an flurry of dumbed down and paranoid talking points instead of in substantive reality.
These topics are also a nice match because they expose more of the bizarre contradictions within both the stereotypical "conservative" and "liberal" political gangs.
In essence, both issues really come down to a debate about how much the government should try to prevent people from having/using objects/substances that can cause harm to a relatively small group of people. In one of the issues (guns), it is the stereotypical conservative that supports people having access to the objects that can cause harm. In the other (drugs), it is the stereotypical liberal that is in favor to people having access to the substance that can cause harm.
I'm guessing I've already caused some kneejerk outrage based on what I've said already... but bear with me and I think most will agree with my logic.
First, let's lay out the facts about guns:
- Guns do, in fact, cause a great deal of injuries and death in our society. If we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all guns in the world (except for hunting rifles), we'd be stupid to pass up on that chance, as the benefits would far, far, far outweigh the costs.
- That magic wand doesn't exist. And Pandora's box is open. We will never be able to get rid of all guns. Therefore, no matter what laws we pass, some people will still have guns.
- Rifles serve a very real and utilitarian role in our society -- they are designed for hunting, which is vital part of wildlife management and also allows many people an effective way to put food on the table.
- Rifles can, indeed, be used to kill people. But they aren't really the best tool for the job. Most people on people shootings are at close range and are of an ambush nature. Rifles are not good for that purpose, and sniper-type murders just aren't that common. Therefore, I don't see rifles as being particularly dangerous in our society.
- The handgun was designed to kill people. It can be used for other purposes (target shooting, defense against bears in the forest, etc.), but it's primary reason for existing is to kill people. That makes it a very dangerous weapon in our society. Of course, as noted, Pandora's box is open on handguns, and we will never purge our society completely of handguns.
That said, no matter what laws we have, extraordinarily motivated bad guys will still have handguns. Therefore, it seems reasonable to let people have handguns to protect their own homes and persons ... assuming there's nothing about them that would suggest that they are a danger to others by having one.
So setting aside the Second Amendment (an Amendment that Madison really should have spent a bit more time upon -- what a horribly confusing bit of writing that was), it seems to me that the best public policy would be to allow everyone to have handguns, as long as they are able to get over some rather short hurdles:
- Pass a gun safety class. There are safety skills testing for using a car, and I think we're all happy about that. Using a gun is equally dangerous, so passing a class or an exam to have a handgun seems reasonable. We took "Hunter's Safety" classes growing up, and I think that was well worth it -- those lessons stuck.
- Some kind of rudimentary psych test. I walk by crazy people every day in San Francisco, and the idea of one of them having a gun is terrifying. I've been threatened and yelled at many, many times by people whose grasp on reality is tenuous. I usuallly just remain a bit cautious around them, and make sure I'm not close enough to get stabbed without having an eye on them. But if they had a gun and decided that I was Satan that day (as some have in the past) ... well, I'm dead. So I do think it makes sense to take steps to try to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.
- We already don't allow people who are felons to have guns in many places, and that seems reasonable as well. If they've proven in the past that they are going to abuse guns (I like that phrase), then they should lose those rights for the future.
- If somebody is drunk or high or otherwise willfully impaired, and they are carrying a gun ... definitely needs to be illegal.
As for the argument that we can't trust our government to enact reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and how government people might instead discriminate against people ... yeah, that's always a possibility. If we looked at our criminal justice system, one could certainly find historic examples of discrimination. But I also don't see the risk of not being allowed to own a gun as being quite a dire as the risk of being executed for a crime one didn't commit.
My view on drugs is similar -- we need to balance freedom against the risk to society, and we need to do so based on some reasonable understanding of the issues instead of hyperbole of the activists.
For starters, we all need to agree that drugs and alcohol DO cause a lot of harm in our society. So the anti-drug crusaders, and even the prohibition people in the 1920s did have a valid point.
However, we need to balance that against the reality that, for a vast, vast majority of users, alcohol and drugs are not inherently dangerous, and they do drive a lot of satisfaction from it. Contrary to the rather bizarre arguments of some, people doing things that makes them happy DOES have value and should be given respect.
So in my opinion, we just need to find that magic line in the sand to draw to determine where a drug is so dangerous that the harm it causes is greater than the joy people derive from using it. People have tried to draw that line at alcohol, which is kind of a strange place to draw it, as most illegal drugs tend to be considered less dangerous than alcohol. So I'd just argue that the line should perhaps be drawn at someplace like heroin instead of at pot, where it is now.
That would provide more freedom to Americans, less money spent needlessly prosecuting victimless crimes, and more tax revenue to put into drug dependency programs to treat the small minority that have problems with drugs and alcohol. It would also have the huge advantage of bring that piece of our capitalistic society into the regulated sphere of the visible economy and out of the shadows of the violence-enforced world of the black market.
To state the obvious, anyone commiting a crime against another person because of their drug/alcohol use should be prosecuted ... including DUIs. Allowing freedom while keeping people accountable for their actions should be the ideal goal of our nation's laws, in my opinion.
I'm dreaming of a post-tribal world
Each one of us suffers from an affliction that is terribly difficult to overcome, yet is sometimes strangely helpful. It's something we inhereted from our ancestors, and our children will inheret it from our genes, no matter how much we hope they don't.
What is it? Tribalism. And it's the primary reason why so many people around the world are able to hate and curse and kill each other every day. It also is probably one of the primary reasons why humans still exist today.
I'm not an expert in this field, so my explanation will sound quite simplistic to someone well read on the topic, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
In the beginning, people who tended to work together tended to survive, and those that didn't tended to die. Therefore, our spieces evolved the instinct to group together into communities/tribes for mutual protection and to collectively work for the public good of the community/tribe.
Of course, to do this effectively, the brain had to develop a few tricks to make it all work. For instance, you had to be able to view the killing of a person from another tribe as a far less "bad" thing than the killing of a person from your own tribe. Being completely objective would have been a character flaw. After all, you had to have a moral compass that essentially held that whatever benefitted your tribe was good and whatever hurt your tribe was bad.
So when the other tribe invaded your territory and stole from you and killed your people, that was obviously bad. But when your tribe invaded their territory and stole from them and killed their people (thus making it less likely they could harm you in the future), that was seen as a good thing. We became programmed, through evolution, to be willing and enthusiastic hypocrites. Because we placed a huge value on our own tribe, and very little value in the other tribe, we developed the instinct to apply motivated reasoning to simply delude ourselves into thinking that whatever "they" do is bad, while whatever "we" do is good.
Of course, it's not hard to see how this human instinct manifested itself over time. Our tribes of early days morphed into all sorts of different things -- including religions, races, nationalities, sports fans, and political parties.
In each of those modern "tribes," we see evidence of the same kind of motivated reasoning taking place that existed back then. To a completely objective outsider, most of the disagreements between these kinds of groups sound completely absurd. Both sides hold on to beliefs about their own religion/race/nationality/sports team/political party that ignore any negatives or flaws, while they view the "other" with nothing but comtempt and spite. But to the outsider, both sides are completely full of shit (which is generally always the reality).
Each of us suffers from biases resulting from our own tribalism, and it's incumbent upon each of us to overcome that in order to even begin to start to reach sound conclusions on any issue.
When we are faced with an issue, we need to be mindful to clear our mind of our desires to believe what we want to believe (colored by our own tribalism) and truly view the issue on the merits of the facts and logic available.
Instead, far too often, we see people giving in to their tribalism.
Instead of seeking out the best objective information available, they only listen to people of their own tribe that tell them what they already want to believe (which not coincidentally always tells them that their tribe is right and the other tribe is wrong).
Instead of respecting and thoughfully considering the ideas and perspectives of those from the "other" tribe, they assume the worst about the character, intellect, and motives of those people in order to justify dismissing everything "they" say.
Instead of being intellectually honest and consistent when comparing "us" to "them," the tribespeople will have a completely different set of standards to judge actions of members of the tribes, always showering praise on their own and scorn on "them."
All of this may sound like the approach of a deranged person ... but it's not. It's how each of us already acts, in varying degrees. We need to stop. We need to cease allowing ourselves to be ignorant in the name of tribalism. We need to stop pledging allegiance to any tribe if it ultimately forces us to give up our objectivity. We need to be post-tribal.
On that note, however, a few caveats need to be noted. There actually are benefits to tribalism, particulary when it doesn't result in the behavior I noted above. For example, I think one could claim that pride in one's community is an offshoot of this tribalism, and that's certainly a good thing. It's just when the pride in one's community is amped up to include scorn for everyone else's community that it becomes a problem.
Then there's also the matter of sports fans, as I mentioned earlier. In most cases, sports fans are arguing and fighting over things that are so pointless and shallow that it really doesn't do much harm to anyone. It could almost be seen as a masturbatory version of these ancient instincts. So maybe one could even argue that sports fans acting that way is a positive thing -- it channels those ancient instincts into something harmless and gets it out of our systems (I'm saying this as a life-long sports fan myself).
But again, even that can always go way too far, as tragic stories such as that of Brian Stow sadly prove.
So on this blog, I will attempt to write what I write fully aware of my own tribal loyalties, and do my best to avoid the motivated reasoning that comes with them. I will try to be as objective and fair as possible. I'm not interested in advancing anyone's existing agenda -- I just want to find the best answers, no matter where they come from or who else holds them.
I ask each of you to do the same.
Just for a Kumbaya sign off ... just imagine how great our world could be if every person did this. For a bit more tangible visual, just imagine how much more intelligent and constructive the political debates in our country would be if everyone did this!
As always, I welcome all comments, whether you agree with me or not.
What is it? Tribalism. And it's the primary reason why so many people around the world are able to hate and curse and kill each other every day. It also is probably one of the primary reasons why humans still exist today.
I'm not an expert in this field, so my explanation will sound quite simplistic to someone well read on the topic, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
In the beginning, people who tended to work together tended to survive, and those that didn't tended to die. Therefore, our spieces evolved the instinct to group together into communities/tribes for mutual protection and to collectively work for the public good of the community/tribe.
Of course, to do this effectively, the brain had to develop a few tricks to make it all work. For instance, you had to be able to view the killing of a person from another tribe as a far less "bad" thing than the killing of a person from your own tribe. Being completely objective would have been a character flaw. After all, you had to have a moral compass that essentially held that whatever benefitted your tribe was good and whatever hurt your tribe was bad.
So when the other tribe invaded your territory and stole from you and killed your people, that was obviously bad. But when your tribe invaded their territory and stole from them and killed their people (thus making it less likely they could harm you in the future), that was seen as a good thing. We became programmed, through evolution, to be willing and enthusiastic hypocrites. Because we placed a huge value on our own tribe, and very little value in the other tribe, we developed the instinct to apply motivated reasoning to simply delude ourselves into thinking that whatever "they" do is bad, while whatever "we" do is good.
Of course, it's not hard to see how this human instinct manifested itself over time. Our tribes of early days morphed into all sorts of different things -- including religions, races, nationalities, sports fans, and political parties.
In each of those modern "tribes," we see evidence of the same kind of motivated reasoning taking place that existed back then. To a completely objective outsider, most of the disagreements between these kinds of groups sound completely absurd. Both sides hold on to beliefs about their own religion/race/nationality/sports team/political party that ignore any negatives or flaws, while they view the "other" with nothing but comtempt and spite. But to the outsider, both sides are completely full of shit (which is generally always the reality).
Each of us suffers from biases resulting from our own tribalism, and it's incumbent upon each of us to overcome that in order to even begin to start to reach sound conclusions on any issue.
When we are faced with an issue, we need to be mindful to clear our mind of our desires to believe what we want to believe (colored by our own tribalism) and truly view the issue on the merits of the facts and logic available.
Instead, far too often, we see people giving in to their tribalism.
Instead of seeking out the best objective information available, they only listen to people of their own tribe that tell them what they already want to believe (which not coincidentally always tells them that their tribe is right and the other tribe is wrong).
Instead of respecting and thoughfully considering the ideas and perspectives of those from the "other" tribe, they assume the worst about the character, intellect, and motives of those people in order to justify dismissing everything "they" say.
Instead of being intellectually honest and consistent when comparing "us" to "them," the tribespeople will have a completely different set of standards to judge actions of members of the tribes, always showering praise on their own and scorn on "them."
All of this may sound like the approach of a deranged person ... but it's not. It's how each of us already acts, in varying degrees. We need to stop. We need to cease allowing ourselves to be ignorant in the name of tribalism. We need to stop pledging allegiance to any tribe if it ultimately forces us to give up our objectivity. We need to be post-tribal.
On that note, however, a few caveats need to be noted. There actually are benefits to tribalism, particulary when it doesn't result in the behavior I noted above. For example, I think one could claim that pride in one's community is an offshoot of this tribalism, and that's certainly a good thing. It's just when the pride in one's community is amped up to include scorn for everyone else's community that it becomes a problem.
Then there's also the matter of sports fans, as I mentioned earlier. In most cases, sports fans are arguing and fighting over things that are so pointless and shallow that it really doesn't do much harm to anyone. It could almost be seen as a masturbatory version of these ancient instincts. So maybe one could even argue that sports fans acting that way is a positive thing -- it channels those ancient instincts into something harmless and gets it out of our systems (I'm saying this as a life-long sports fan myself).
But again, even that can always go way too far, as tragic stories such as that of Brian Stow sadly prove.
So on this blog, I will attempt to write what I write fully aware of my own tribal loyalties, and do my best to avoid the motivated reasoning that comes with them. I will try to be as objective and fair as possible. I'm not interested in advancing anyone's existing agenda -- I just want to find the best answers, no matter where they come from or who else holds them.
I ask each of you to do the same.
Just for a Kumbaya sign off ... just imagine how great our world could be if every person did this. For a bit more tangible visual, just imagine how much more intelligent and constructive the political debates in our country would be if everyone did this!
As always, I welcome all comments, whether you agree with me or not.
Why am I doing a blog?
Writing for me is often a form of both therapy and introspection. It allows me to get ideas out of my head, where things are often cluttered, and into a form that sometimes makes a little more sense. If nothing else, that gives me a small sense of accomplishment, which seems to be a rarity in my very chaotic life right now.
More importantly, writing this blog will give me an outlet to try to figure out all of the many complex issues that face us all both in the political world as well as in the personal philosophy realm. I've long relied upon social media as a venue for floating ideas and utilizing the interaction with others to either validate those ideas or to allow others to expose me to new ideas or facts (often leading to my adjusting or even changing my own positions, as we all should). Through this, I've been able to learn so much from so many people.
But most forms of social media have their limits. First, it's hard to control the conversations and keep them from spiraling into a pointless exercise. Second, it's often kind of awkward trying to have conversations of that kind in a place where many/most others aren't interested. The world of online social etiquette is still evolving, but it does seem a bit clunky when people try to start a conversation on places like Facebook that annoy or are off-putting to most people who have to see it.
So I'm creating this -- my refuge. It will be a place where I can set the rules to keep the conversations relevant and constructive, and only those who want to see it will see it.
My ideal scenario would be for this blog to receive a lot of comments from a lot of different people who are all sincerely interested in exploring the topics I bring up (or bring up their own topics). Intellectually honest arguments of any kind, done in good faith, will be welcomed and greatly appreciated, no matter how much you agree or disagree with anything I say. After all, nobody ever learns anything if they only hear feedback from people who agree with everything they say.
Subsequent posts will give more color about how this blog will work and how I will try to make it as constructive and insightful for everyone who reads or posts to it. Thanks for reading, and I hope you find some value in this, and that you decide to post your own ideas and thoughts in the comments of many of these posts!
More importantly, writing this blog will give me an outlet to try to figure out all of the many complex issues that face us all both in the political world as well as in the personal philosophy realm. I've long relied upon social media as a venue for floating ideas and utilizing the interaction with others to either validate those ideas or to allow others to expose me to new ideas or facts (often leading to my adjusting or even changing my own positions, as we all should). Through this, I've been able to learn so much from so many people.
But most forms of social media have their limits. First, it's hard to control the conversations and keep them from spiraling into a pointless exercise. Second, it's often kind of awkward trying to have conversations of that kind in a place where many/most others aren't interested. The world of online social etiquette is still evolving, but it does seem a bit clunky when people try to start a conversation on places like Facebook that annoy or are off-putting to most people who have to see it.
So I'm creating this -- my refuge. It will be a place where I can set the rules to keep the conversations relevant and constructive, and only those who want to see it will see it.
My ideal scenario would be for this blog to receive a lot of comments from a lot of different people who are all sincerely interested in exploring the topics I bring up (or bring up their own topics). Intellectually honest arguments of any kind, done in good faith, will be welcomed and greatly appreciated, no matter how much you agree or disagree with anything I say. After all, nobody ever learns anything if they only hear feedback from people who agree with everything they say.
Subsequent posts will give more color about how this blog will work and how I will try to make it as constructive and insightful for everyone who reads or posts to it. Thanks for reading, and I hope you find some value in this, and that you decide to post your own ideas and thoughts in the comments of many of these posts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)