Happy Holidays!

My apologies for not expressing this sentiment last week (or earlier in some cases), dear reader, but I hope you all had a Merry Christmas, a Happy Festivus, a Merry Kwanzaa, a Happy Hanukkah, and a generally good December.  Tomorrow marks the advent of 2014, a new year, a fresh start in some cases, but mostly a memorable date on an otherwise unremarkable Wednesday to wax nostalgic while avowing any number of things to change, modify, add, or subtract over the next 365 days.  Remember, it doesn't take January 1 to make a resolution.

That being said, I hope we can fondly remember the good times of 2013, look forward to more in 2014, and make those changes for the betterment of not only ourselves but those around us as well.  Happy New Year everyone!

The Corporate Structure

Scrolling through drafts in this here blog, I stumbled across this tale, obviously hastily written in an attempt to get it down while the frustration was still fresh.  So I reread it, polished it up, and figured I'd share it with all ya'll!

A few months ago, I was in the process of changing my phone provider but attempting to keep my same number.  I had frankly started to think that the snafus down the road due to a new number may, in fact, be less troublesome than undertaking this process.  Here's the bright-side though: it certainly gave me a hands-on, concrete experience regarding corporate structure, and, more importantly, the sometimes ridiculous setup some (sadly, probably many, if not most) have.

So here's how it went down: each time I called customer service of this new provider, I follow the voice commands to get to my answers, pressing one for English, pressing five for more options, so on and so on.  All in all, I ended up calling seven times. Count 'em, seven.  On that seventh attempt, I was informed that the person on the other end could not help, but would, in fact, transfer me to another department.

Fair enough, super duper.

Shortly thereafter, I received an email (from the transferred-to department) explaining that the zip code I had provided for my old billing address was incorrect, and was given a number to call as well as my case number for reference.  On to lucky call number eight.  Again, following the command prompts, I followed the breadcrumbs to the department where I was told the issue was something completely different.  I gently explained the email I received.

Aha, the email was correct and it was mistaken zip code.  The service rep misspoke.  

Okay, I can handle that.

So I asked what I needed to do to move this process forward.  At this point it's been well over fifteen minutes (I realize it doesn't sound like much, but that was fifteen minutes well-spent sitting and waiting while the rep on the other end struggled to believe the apparently far-fetched story I was selling).  I was told that I would need to provide the correct zip code.

Okay, and I gave my old zip code.

"No, no, no, I'm sorry sir, I can not change that information.  I will transfer you to the blah blah blah department."

After explaining to the rep my confusion (and hiding the frustration as best I could) that I received this email and followed it to a tee to solve the problem, so why I was being transferred to a different department?  Why I wasn't just sent to the problem-solving department right off the bat instead of the problem-reporting department?  There was no real answer to that.

By the end of the half hour call, I had been transferred one more time before the issue was solved.  Though I'm not entirely sure how.  I don't know what kind of computers they're using, but by the sound of it they had to type in each number and letter in binary code.

So here's the question: what exactly are the cost-saving measures of having multiple departments that can't really do anything to help?  How many of us have worked under layers of bureaucracy, stifling creativity, smothering productivity, and sending clients on a round-about chase?  Is that really a Lean organization?

I mean really. 

Making Mistakes

I found this quote last week and it really struck a chord:

"Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgement"  -Will Rogers

Looking into making mistakes a bit more, I found a lot of materials out there that allude to our perspective - more specifically, how me perceive the mistakes we make.  Are they a failure? A minor setback? A major one? Or do they give us an opportunity to try again?  Winston Churchill once said that "Success is moving from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm" and I think that is very poignant.  

So let's top it off with the Dalai Lama (undoubtedly somewhat paraphrased):

"If a problem can be solved there is no use worrying about it. I it can't be solved, worrying will do no good."

Really just a simple thought on a dreary Tuesday morning, but one that I feel deserves a second look.

Logic?

So I was having a great conversation the other night about logic as I posited that I don't particularly believe in it.  As I see it, "logic" really boils down to nothing more than having the answer already.  I think about so-called "logic puzzles", and, having read more than my fair share, would I be able to assert that I am more logical than someone who hasn't experienced as many?  For instance, a relatively well-known puzzle goes like this: you're in an otherwise empty room with a candle, a book of matches, and a box of small thumbtacks.  Your challenge is to light the candle in such a way that the flame is six feet off the ground.  Spoiler alert: empty the box of tacks and pin it to the wall.  From there, simply set the candle on the box.  Boom.  Now, I know that answer.  No, I did not initially come to that conclusion on my own, but I have it now, so who's to say any different?  So am I currently more "logical" than anyone else?  I would say no.

Now, through the course of the debate, some interesting counter-points were made that really got the ol' brain box working.  One such argument would be that logic, as it were, comes down to the ability to connect prior knowledge with new and novel challenges.  Touche.  However, I would say that that is the definition of intelligence - the ability to take previous education, experience, and background and reapply concepts in different situations to reach a conclusion which then gets assimilated into your working memory once more for future situations.  Now even this isn't my own thought.  Over the course of my own experience I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to a cornucopia of others and this paradigm comes from the works of Daniel Willingham (the article can be found here).  So again I would argue that much of what we "know" is a direct product of external stimuli.

A bit off topic I realize, but by now the conversation had shifted slightly this direction anyway so we ran with it.  So, I asked, what would the difference be between logic and intelligence? How does knowledge factor in? What about common sense? I would say that there wouldn't really be a difference per se, but that logic is a misused synonym for intelligence.  I've often thought about logic (and I would assume you have as well) as a black or white issue.  Either you're logical or you're not, whereas more and more we've broken down intelligence into different types (read more about multiple intelligence) and "objective" levels.  I think about Spock, often commenting whether or not a decision was logical, not whether or not it carried any level of intelligence.

So then where exactly are we?  Here I tried to summarize my argument about the whole ordeal: if intelligence is the product of years and years of external stimuli being processed and rearranged into new a different situations, and we want to say whether something is logical (or common sense) wouldn't that very logic be entirely subjective and different from one person to another?  And if it's subjective, how could we ever assume logic as a constant?  See, I received a very different educational experience than even those I went to school with. Just as they had a very different experience than me. I've had life experiences others haven't or experiences in a different order, crossing a bridge before or after others have long since been there, done that. And everyone, you included, have experienced things I never have, and often, never will.  So where does that take us?  And consider the ramifications of this interculturally and globally!

Here's another puzzle for you: In an otherwise empty, windowless room, with only one locked door in and out, you have a saw, a baseball bat, and a piano.  There exist three ways out of the room using only these materials (no, you can't break down the door or saw through it).  This one I won't spoil for you.

But if you figure out the three exits, consider if it's "logical" or simply a product of your experiences.

And whether or not it actually matters.

Time to Simplify

Alright everyone, here's the dealio. For much of the summer, I've been living life on the road. Not the same road I had been on for the past four years - oh no. That road stayed almost entirely in Wisconsin, traveling from top to bottom as I facilitated programming. This road took me from West Virginia to Ohio to Colorado to Montana to California and many places in between. This has been a time of truly living out of a suitcase, often relying only on what I could comfortably fit in the truck, or, more frequently, what I could fit into two checked bags and my carry on. The pinnacle was at the end of the season, as I ended up doing both - driving to a site for several weeks and flying straight from there to another job, living (comfortably) on only what I had with me.

Understandably, by the time I got home, after 6 weeks away, living and working in close quarters with several other people, making due with only what I had with me, I found that the apartment has far too much stuff.  Suddenly, I found myself surrounded by things, and missing the people. As such, I've come to a paradigm shift: I need to simplify.

Drawers and closets full of clothes that are rarely, if ever, worn. Junk drawers (yes, plural) stuffed with stuff that, for whatever reason, I haven't thrown away. Tables, cabinets, desks, drawers, cupboards, and closets packed to the brim with things. Items. Stuff.

Junk.

And so I've decided to get rid of it. Well, most of it anyway. I've realized that to have all these things really hasn't made a difference. It hasn't benefited me, or anyone else to my knowledge, to have this clutter choking my living space. In fact, it's arguably detracting from being, and remaining, content. Stuff begets more stuff, and, quite frankly, I don't really need anymore.  Things get lost and misplaced. Suddenly, we end up with several of the same thing because we couldn't find the original nor many of its replacements.

Admittedly, this has been a challenge from time to time over the last week and half as I fill bags with clothes that are torn, stained, too small, or simply aren't worn anymore; as I toss unnecessary junk; as I go through the volumes of notebooks I've filled with one-time relevant information that is now, and has been, obsolete. I find that I've grown some sort of emotional attachment to many things. Memories come back about when it was used or when I couldn't do without. I think about how much time I've spent with some things, how much time invested in this, that, or the other thing...

And then I realize that I haven't used it in years. I realize that I have no need for so much of it.  I realize, perhaps most importantly, that some things have been outgrown.  That to continue to hold onto them is to reserve space - both physically and mentally - that could, and should, otherwise be taken by whatever comes next.  I have, quite literally, reached an epiphany: out with the old, in with the new.  It is time to close those doors and anticipate those to come.

And I look forward to finding out what that is.

My Apologies

Good morning cool cats!  I know it's been awhile since my last post, an issue I hope to remedy.  For the last several weeks I've been out on the road for work, seeing first hand the Big Sky - a well-deserved nickname - guiding, and the night-and-day dichotomy between the lights of Stateline, NV and the quiet simplicity of Lake Tahoe building and training.  It's been a great experience, always doing something, always busy, and now it's back home.  I'll be settling in and adjusting (the first couple days in particular!) and have every intent to get back into my posting regimen.  Please check back soon!  

Try it, change it, try it again...

The title of this post comes from a camp I've worked at, and it stands as one of their "Seven Qualities of a Collaborative Leader".  This poem reminded me of it (and fittingly, as I'm currently reading Alice in Wonderland):

She drank from a bottle called  DRINK ME
And up she grew so tall.
She ate from a plate called TASTE ME
and down she shrank so small.
And so she changed, while other folks
Never tried nothin' at all.

-Shel Silverstein

 Of course, it's easy to wonder why in the world Alice would eat or drink anything she just found laying about in a strange place (that exact act, by the way, is in no way advocated!), though the point stands: unless you try something new, there's no way to think you'll change.  I actually like to think the inverse as well: unless you change, you'll never try something new.  And, either way, without trying something new - without taking a chance, without a new experience, without risk, without challenge, without stepping outside your comfort zone - there will be no change.

For better or worse.

But there's really only one way to find out, isn't there?

Quote of the Week: 8/1/13

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.

-Henry Ford

"Team-Building" is Killing Teamwork

I've worked with a lot of teams, groups, bunches, and gatherings of people, and by and large many seem (on the surface anyway) to understand what it means to work with other people.  Others have no idea.  Yet others think they do, but, well, nope.

Here'e the real deal: people argue.  They clash. Discussions become "heated".  And that's alright.  Too often groups come to me with this mentality that if they don't ever argue, they're doing alright.  They've been primed to believe that everyone needs to sit passively, waiting for each person to share their thoughts, and engage in polite conversation because that's how we come to a conclusion.

Not a chance.  And if issues aren't explored, a team may very well implode as bottled resentment builds and builds and builds until the meltdown comes with such a roar that the ensuing strife is beyond repair.

In 1965, Bruce Tuckman introduced his stages of group development - forming, storming, norming, performing.  Now I adhere to a slightly altered version, placing norming after forming and adding "re-norming" after storming, but the principle is the same: a storm is necessary in many situations, especially if there are undercurrents of frustration, if a team is expected to work together for some time, and if it's a collaborative environment.  What the steps mean, in effect is that a group comes together ("forming") to accomplish a task.  They're in the honeymoon phase, with everyone gently side-stepping any issues for the sake of cohesion.  Think about it - it's far more comfortable to get along, even if that means going along.  The group begins to drift into the norming phase, where individuals begin to establish their roles in the group - so-and-so is coming up with all the ideas, these two over here often hang back and do what this other person tells them, so on and so forth.  People begin to establish their identities within the framework of the group, though often those identities are based off what others expect of them.  Cue the storming stage.  Suddenly Suzy is becoming more vocal, a bit aggressive because she's sick of not being heard.  Fred over here is getting frustrated because Ralph isn't paying attention, always in his own world.  Ralph snaps back it's because Gertrude never seems to let him speak.  Things are tense.

And that's okay.

As a facilitator, when this point comes, it's an opportunity to get these frustrations known - in a constructive manner! - a chance for people to express themselves and how they're feeling.  Even when that point comes after a particularly frustrating task or challenge.  But we make these things known, clear-headed and even-toned; the explosion came and went, we think, we reflect, and we collaboratively (and by "we", I mean "they" - the facilitator's role is to instigate the process, guiding when necessary, but if the group can't work through on their own, suddenly they develop a crutch, a figure necessary for any progress) come up with a plan to address people's frustrations and work toward an environment that all are happy with.  This step isn't cooperation.  It's certainly not compromise.  There are no concessions.  This is collaboration - building on the strengths of each person to create what otherwise was uncreatable.

And I believe this is near impossible without the storm.  Without that opportunity to voice your needs.  So, please.  Don't be afraid to be heard.  But be sure you bring that issue to light with a solution because pointing out a flaw without adding a possible fix does no good.  Believe me, I've been as guilty of it as any.

And, no, sitting in a circle and politely listening to everyone's idea is rarely a good solution.  Find a happy medium between talk and action.  Something I've wanted to get as a facilitation tool is a chess clock to measure the amount of time a group plans vs. how long they do something.  Rarely is this an even sway and I'd love to see which a group does more and who's happy with it.

Next up: talking versus communicating.  Yes, there is a difference.  Think there could be some tension created there?

I shouldn't need to register this!

Damnedest thing.

So I went to buy a car from a third-party seller; really just saw it on the side of the road and thought it would be a great addition.  So I talk to the guy, hand over the cash, and, get this, now I have take it to the DMV to have it registered.

With the government.

It's like, "Hey, Big Brother, get out of my personal business", right?  I mean, they're putting me in a database, monitoring my activity of whether I'm a good driver or not, and using my license number to identify me.  And you just know that if this list of car-owners was published, heck, I would certainly be at higher risk of having my car stolen once people knew I had one and where I lived.  And, I mean, it's obviously more likely that it's the people who don't register that will get into car accidents.  Criminals don't care if they're in the database or not, so really, this process is just getting in the way of law-abiding drivers like me.  Unregistered drivers will find out some way to get their hands on a car.  Plain and simple.

That's why I support the National (Automobile) Association's stance that I shouldn't need a background check to buy a car, and that I should be able to buy one from a private seller without the nanny-state looking over my shoulder.  It's called privacy, and I have a right to it.

Yep.

I know, I know, I know!

Alright enough!  I realize it's been almost an entire month since my last post, and I just know that it's starved you, dear reader, of my witticism, acute observations, and biting critiques of whatever comes to mind each and every week.  But alas, I have left you wanting.

Let's lay blame to a myriad of factors, not the least of which is a tough-to-conquer case of writers block.  Believe me, I've a stockpile of drafts ready to be posted, a plethora of reflections just waiting for their day in the sun, but 'tis not to be.  The words I've been putting on paper are nothing short of trite (and yes, I do realize the very low bar I set, so you know they're bad!); mindless driveling as I try to figure out a more prosaic way to express my vast insights.

I also do fully realize my modesty and humility is second to none.  Some would say that I, indeed, am very best at humility, and many extol the depth of my modesty.  You get used to it, really.

Even now, I'm more or less droning on in lieu of any useful orations.  Again, writers block.  But please stay optimistic, dear reader, more to come!

Put Down the Phone

I was thinking today about the social impact of our culinary, dietary, and, really, our eating habits in general.  Now, I'm not going to use this forum to preach about healthy eating or offer my critique of various dietary preferences.  Instead, the thought was really more about how we eat and its impact/reflection on our society as a whole.

I think that our practices while we eat is very much a chicken and an egg scenario - I think that our rituals are not only a reflection of our societal customs, but also an influence on those very social interactions.  For instance (and obviously there may very well be external factors at play!), one of the organizations for whom I've worked insists on eating "family style".  At this camp in particular, breakfast is at 8, lunch at 12:30, and dinner at 5.  If you're late, you've chores to do - sweeping, restocking firewood, returning dishes to the kitchen, etc.  Here it's a matter of respect: respect for those who cooked your food, respect for others' time as they wait for you, respect for the customs and traditions of the organization.  Participants are more than welcomed beforehand to help set the tables, laying out uniform place settings with a plate; fork on the left; knife and spoon on the right, knife on the inside, blade facing in; cup above to the left; and napkin under the knife and spoon.  Every setting, every time.

This alone I think is noteworthy, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell asserts in a TED Talk that kids need structure.  And really I think we all do, young and old. I think taking that pride in what we do transfers into other aspects of life.  It is also at this location, by the way, that participants of multi-day programs are expected to help clean up.  Simple things that make a big difference: sweeping, vacuuming, wiping down the coffee and hot chocolate station, doing a walk through for garbage...little things that really add up.  Again, I think this adds to the overall culture of this camp that all people (staff is right there with them!) should be accountable for the place they're in.

An illustrative interjection: In working with one group (around 12 middle school students in my group with around 50 others in different small groups), staff noticed that even by the middle of their second day, the place was becoming a mess.  Garbage cans over-flowing, the woods tracked across the floor...  I had reached a comfortable stopping point for the time being, around 20 minutes before we had to be in for lunch, when this crossed my mind.  I rallied my group: "C'mon ya'll, we'll all pitch in and have this place tidied up in less than 15 minutes."  It took us 10; a simple run through to neaten the place up.  As we stopped to admire our work, the other groups suddenly burst through the doors like the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes cartoon, leaving trash, spilled liquids, and the better part of the surrounding forest in their wake.  To this day, the reaction of my group is the greatest teachable moment I've had facilitating.  The frustration at the lack of appreciation and the disappointment that it was made messy again, more quickly than it was cleaned, I think left a lasting impression.

But back to food.  I think in group settings, we lose focus of how important it really is for people gathered together for meals.  On goes the TV.  Out come the phones.  I honestly think the best way to recognize this is to sit with another person and struggle to make conversation while they sit on their phone.  Think about it, what do you do when you're sitting intently and your fellow is texting back and forth?  I believe this disconnect is not only a reflection of our increasingly distant society, but also a continuing affirmation that it's okay.  It almost seems that we're becoming more and more connected to other people but increasingly disconnected from those around us.

Please, stop checking Facebook during meals.  Please, stop texting someone while sitting across from friends, family, and coworkers who are trying to socialize.  One of the first things I tell new facilitators is to invest in a watch.  True, your cellphone has the time, but if you're working really hard at something, if you're invested in the learning process, what would you think if your teacher is busy looking at their phone?  Sure, it may only be to check the time, but how could I have known that?

So how much time do you take around meals?  Invest your time with other people, and I believe you'll gain more from a 20 minute face-to-face conversation than an eternity making Wall-E come true...

Quote of the Week: May 6, 2013

Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one.

-Malcom S. Forbes 

Quote of the Week: 4/22/13

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

-Henry Ford 

More "Help" For the Wrong People

On my quest to read a book each month, I've created my intended stack and just finished up my book for March.  A trend I've realized, reading through this book in particular and pairing it up with other books and materials I've read or leafed through, is that many of the self-motivational, "unlock the inner you", happiness-builders seem to be directed at only a portion of the population, and it's predominately (and predictably) those not revolving around some catastrophic or traumatic event.  The books I'm referring to aren't the memoirs or autobiographies of those facing incredible obstacles, but those written, seemingly, by those coming from an affluent, upper-middle class upbringing, writing for others "struggling" to survive their same conditions.


The Happiness Project, my book for March, certainly has made several insightful observations and doled out its fair share of advice to incorporate into my day.  But by and large, the author really doesn't have any issues from which to base her book.  Living in Manhattan, married (both spouses are employed and financially sound), with two healthy children.  Even the author admits that she's not actually UNhappy, she just thinks she could stand to be MORE happy, going on to talk about her shopping trips and birthday parties and wanton spending on gym memberships and trainers and stopping at a news stand to buy five different magazines each afternoon.  Instead of appealing to a wide range of audiences, she almost seems to alienate herself into a class-divided world, where the haves can afford the luxury of her escapades while the have-not's sit on the sidelines.

To make it clear, I don't mean to call one particular author out, this book is simply serving as the inspiration: Joel Osteen, Martin Seligman, Tony Robbins...really anyone with a book title containing any combination of "real you", "inner self", "reinventing", the "life you want", etc. are all antagonists here.  The issue isn't that I believe some people shouldn't be writing on the subject or have nothing to contribute.  I'm simply pointing out that many of these "self-help" books focused on "living the life you deserve", "unlocking your true potential", and "making the most of each day" seem to have a secondary commonality: none of these people have really any idea some of the obstacles facing many many people.  I'm also not saying that I'm in any position to write to this invisible majority, only that if you're climbing the ladder to the upper economic echelon of society, please stop talking about how much sleep you lose at night worrying about money or the future.  There are real people out there wondering how to pay for the next doctor's visit or scraping enough together to pay for an orthodontist for their child because insurance won't cover the braces.  Please stop talking about how much work it is to plan a birthday party because you're stumped on the type of invitations to send.  There are people with real problems.

A Tangential Thought from that Sociology Class...

I just had another thought on my last post about the Econ class experiment.

It's an excellent representation of a misdirecting statement - it provides some information while phrasing other pieces in such a way to force your perspective into conformity.

This example came to mind:

Three men walk into a hotel to get a room for the night.  The manager at the front desk tells them that a room is $30 per night.  Since they're only staying one night, they each pony up $10 and head up to the room.  Shortly thereafter, the manager realizes he made a mistake and the cost of a room for the night it only $25, so he gives the bellhop $5 to take to the men.  On his way up, the bellhop realizes that splitting $5 evenly among three people is a very difficult task, so pockets $2 and gives the men the remaining $3.  So now each man has paid $9, equaling $27, and the bellhop has $2, for a total of $29.  Where's the last dollar?

Boom.

Now, would you assume a logical explanation for this phenomenon or simply be convinced that the last dollar vanished into thin air?  If you expect the former, I see no reason to swallow the tale of the economics professor hook, line, and sinker...

The Economics Class Socialist Experiment

As I'm sure many of us have read already, there's a continually circulating tale on the internet about an economics professor failing an entire class through an experiment in socialism.  Just in case you haven't read it (and because I'm not going to transcribe the whole story here), here's a link to several variations: Social Injustice.  Take a second and read through it again so it's fresh in your mind.

Now, I know you may be worried that this post may become a long-winded diatribe about socialism (or capitalism), or even advocating for one economic system over another, but I hope to write this as neither.  This is to be simply my reaction to what I see as an over-simplification of complex systems.

In the story, the professor takes all the students grades and averages them together and provides each student the same grade, regardless of effort.  If he were a true economist, wouldn't he recognize that in any system, at least at the onset, each individual arrives at various levels?  Think for a minute of the ten people with whom you most associate.  Your friends, colleagues, etc.  Are you all on an even keel regarding income?  Home-ownership? Equity?  Net value?  Educational level?  I would image that if this was to be an effective lesson, the professor would have noted that every society has certain systemic inequalities - whether those be income, ethnicity, gender, heritage, and so on.  Should these not be factors in any experiment?  In setting it up, then, I believe the instructor should have provided some students "A"s before class even began because their parents earned really good grades in school already.

I also wonder how he would have constructed this experiment to reflect the benefits of capitalism.  Since capitalism is, essentially, one person selling their labor to another person, would this new experiment consist of 80% of the class studying really hard then providing crib sheets to 20%.  That 20% then gets an "A" and the other 80% gets "C"s.  Now some of those 80% may also study really really hard and eventually get a "B", sure, and more power to them.  But don't forget that because half of that 20% are going to get an "A" anyway because of their parent's really good grades, so it really doesn't matter if some people don't want to study for him/her (although, let's face it, it's pretty much "him").  Oh, and if we want to exalt the American system, for every score of 100% a male student gets, we should certainly award an even proportion of female students who studied just as hard a 81%.  Right? (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, page 55)

I believe this to be an incredibly vast oversimplification of a societal system - both mine and theirs - to the extent that the story serves little more than a McCarthyist legend, the same propaganda that has shaded American beliefs of anything other than republic governments and capitalist mentalities.

Am I saying one is better than the other?  I am not.

Do I regardless recognize that any economic system and governmental structure has flaws?  Of course.

But if we are to begin falling behind anecdotes as arguments, then our partisanship surely has completely left the harbor (pun intended).  It's stories such as these that erode our ability to maintain civilized dialogue and empathetic listening.

Bully-Free Zones

It's been on the news quite a bit recently: the issue of bullies.  Now, I've been to a fair number of schools for work, and frequently I see signs indicating that the school is a "Bully-Free Zone".

And that just seems to be a backward route to tackle the issue.

Isn't a sign advertising that no one in that building is a bully merely inviting bullies?  I mean, to someone - often with mental issues and an addiction to bully-filled video games - walking down the street, they see the sign, and recognize it as an easy opportunity to just go in and start bullying people.  Simple as that.

Instead, I think what we need to do is allocate federal money to bully-training and begin posting bullies in each and every school.  I mean, trying to stop a bully using only your words or telling a teacher is a bit like trying to fight a fire without a fire extinguisher, isn't it? You need the right tools to push back against the problem.

Mutual assured destruction style.

After all, the only way to stop a bad person who's a bully is a good person who's a bully.

Makes sense, right?

Teach violence to combat violence, right?  The more bullies we have on the streets, the less likely it will be that someone is bullied.  It's really quite simple!

Facts and Truth (Quote of the Week: April 1, 2013)

 These quotes are possibly the best summary of any Truth and Fact conversation we can have:

"There are small truths and great truths.  The opposite of a small truth is a falsehood; the opposite of a great truth is often another great truth."

                                                           -Niels Bohr

“It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth.”

                                                               -Milan Kundera

 (see also: Facts and Truth #1 and Facts and Truth #2)

Revisiting Facts and Truth

In a companion post to Facts and Truths, I found a recent exchange more than a little relevant.

A Facebook acquaintance recently posted

We always hear about the tragedies that occurred in Germany during WWII; when will American history books acknowledge this tragedy that happened on OUR soil with more than just a passing paragraph? Or what about the millions killed at the hands of Russians? I think the general world population would have greater respect for America if we took responsibility for when we've screwed up rather than just being the "dominant winner." But then again, the winner writes the rhetoric...

While providing an opinion, this individual attempted to lay out a simple plea for educational equality.  Two comments down, jumping to the contrary, another acquaintance argues for their own fundamental truths:

Is there some sort of debate about this that I'm not aware of? Hardly anyone disputes that FDR's internment of American citizens during WWII was wrong. It was also many orders of magnitude less severe than what the Nazis or Soviets did, and it was done for vastly different reasons; to compare them is sort of disingenuous, isn't it? On your last point, I'd be eager to see some evidence that our adversaries have any practical interest in our apologies for past policies.

The reason I see these as related phenomenon is that there was less of an attempt on the part of the commenter to understand and listen to and think about any perspectives contrary to his beliefs than their knee-jerk reaction to jump into defensive posturing.  The facts of the case are clear: the U.S. detained Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans throughout the second World War in light of the attacks on Pearl Harbor.  Right or wrong, it's what happened.

One person's truth asserts that this action should be more widely circulated and discussed as part of U.S. curriculum while another person's truth seems to declare that this isn't necessary (somewhat poorly, might I add - declaring an action less noteworthy than arguably similar - if less atrocious - actions because "it was done for vastly different reasons" appears to be neither an affirmation of the means nor the ends but another truth up for debate...).

I found this quote, and it's one I will certainly keep in mind:

"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have."

-Emile Chartier

We often spend so much time listening to those perspectives we already agree with - we read the books painting our chosen political party in a positive light, we listen to the pundits spouting whatever nonsense we already adhere to...  If you believe that guns don't kill people, that people kill people, guess what?  You're absolutely correct!  And you'll find reams of evidence that prove the more guns save lives!

But, if that's your perspective, hold on a second: there exists an equal amount of evidence to prove (also) that guns do, in fact, kill people, and that tighter restrictions indeed limit the number of deaths.

How 'bout that?

Personal test time: I challenge you to come up with three arguments and pieces of evidence for each side of the following debates:

Free Markets vs. Government Restrictions
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights
Small Government vs. Involved Governments
Prayer in Public Schools vs. Separation of Church and State
Universal Healthcare vs. Privatized Insurance
Social Programs vs. Privatization of Education/Welfare/Medicaid/Infrastructure/Military/Police Force/etc.

There.  That's your challenge.  Now here's the kicker: I would argue that if you can't come up with at least three legitimate arguments to both sides of each argument, that you, perhaps, are part of the problem.  And, from personal experience, that you're probably a vocal proponent of your selected side...

"If only closed minds came with closed mouths."

No offense.

Just Get a Job!

How many times have you heard this as an argument to reduce government spending on welfare benefits?  Many of the loudest critics of our nation of "takers" claim that spending on programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are allowing citizens to develop a something for nothing mentality.  Some figures even estimate that 49% of American households now receive some sort of social welfare.

Well, fair enough.  Why exactly is it that so many people abuse services intended to help them get back on their feet? Why don't more people realize their own "American Dream", work hard, and find financial security on their own?

Because this issue is not in a vacuum, that's why.  If we're to talk about welfare reform (which I believe we should), why would not also, in the same breath, bring up the vast income disparity afflicting U.S. workers?  Wouldn't it make sense to talk about what people are getting paid hand-in-hand with why they need these benefits in the first place?

Conservative estimates put the number of "working poor" in the range of 146 million Americans.  That is, workers - with jobs - generally with no savings, no retirement fund, living paycheck to paycheck and hoping no sudden cost springs up such as a sick child, their car breaking down, or housing repair.  Some businesses thrive on the labor of their low-paid employees, with the typical worker receiving a paltry $13,900 a year.  Executives, on the other, wrangled an average of $9.4 million in annual income, with an additional $175 billion - billion - going to shareholders.  But hey! It's the shareholders that invested in the company in the first place!  Their holdings allow the company to grow and expand and so they deserve their dividend! And the executives set the strategy and vision for the company to post a profit!  They deserve it too!  Ok.  Fair enough.  In that case, since it's the shareholders and executives that make dreams come true, let them roll up their sleeves and stock the shelves.

Wouldn't it, instead, make sense to take care of those individuals that actually do work?  Those that actually make the company move forward?

Since 2008, 60% of the jobs created in the U.S. have been low-wage jobs.  Now, I'm not saying anyone should claim to be "above" certain industries, regardless of education or background.  If you need a job, get a job.  Flipping burgers is a job.  Get out, provide a service to the greater society.

But when 1 in 4 Americans are now earning less that $10/hour, we can't also assume that people are abusing the welfare system.  At some point we have to realize that the system is abusing the people.  Walmart, for instance, has been under the microscope for moving to "Flexible shifts", a move that critics say was designed to force full-time employees down to part-time, losing their benefits at the same time.  One study estimated that workers for Walmart alone cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year because of the giant's lack of benefits. At some point, we have to realize that when wealthy people set the salaries for other wealthy people, the social distance between rich and poor will only continue to grow.  I say let the employees decide the reimbursement for the executives - then we might see change.

For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
CEO Pay and the Top 1% (Economic Policy Institute)
Fortune 50 CEO Income Compared to Average Worker at Company (Payscale.com)

Facts and Truth

What's the difference between fact and truth?

This is a question I've been rolling around for quite some time (and will undoubtedly continue to do so long after this is posted...).  The conclusion I think, so far, that I've arrived at is that facts are what happens, truth is what we think happens because of facts.  Fact: top government officials have been unable to thus far (at the time of writing) been unable to reach a fiscal agreement to avoid across-the-board budget cuts.  Plain and simple.  Truth: top government officials are more concerned with preening and posturing for their constituents than keeping the U.S. economy moving forward.

Could one argue for or against the latter statement?  Sure.  Heck, I'll do it now: it's not about posturing but rather a concern for the sustainability of various options provided from both sides, from spending to taxes, that have been contributing to an increasing ideological rift. Suddenly the truth goes from feet-dragging do-nothings to ideological combatants, fighting for what each sees as "right".

Now, I see this issue as incredibly problematic when it comes to people spouting truths as facts.  When personal interpretation is imposed on others as "the actual way things are".  Think, for instance, about legislation that "infringes on belief": the blanket contraception requirement churches and other religious institutions' insurance plans - one person's truth conflicted with another's.  Or restrictions on same-sex marriage.  Same deal.

Of course, with such reasoning, enacting 90% of legislation would be at an impasse.  So it's a good thing most of our politicians try to see things from as narrow a perspective as possible.

I think the second issue comes to head with our Confirmation Bias - we don't look so much for information as we search for confirmation.  Think of the news you watch, the papers and magazines you read, the pundits you prefer...I would guess, on a hunch, that many of these sources align more toward your already-held beliefs, rather than toward the contrary (e.g. conservatives are more likely to watch Fox News, liberals would tend to tune into MSNBC...).  So I would affirm that there is less to be said about the actual happenings (facts) of a situation than there is about our perception of those happenings (truth).  In a 1979 University of Minnesota study, subjects read about a week in the life of the fictional Jane.  Jane, in the narrative, often showcased both extroverted and introverted tendencies in various situations throughout the week.  A few days later, the researchers split the subjects into two groups, asking one group if Jane would be well-suited for a career as a librarian, and asking the other group if she would be well-suited for a career as a real-estate agent.  In the group first asked if she would make a good librarian, the subjects recalled instances of her exhibiting introverted behavior, and the real-estate group - you guessed it - recalled her as an extrovert.  After presenting their case for their respective careers, the groups were then asked if she would be well-suited for the other (i.e. the librarian group was asked if Jane would make a good real-estate agent and vice versa).  Each group stuck to their original assessment - Jane would not, in fact, make a good librarian as argued by the real-estate group (McRaney, 2011, You are Not so Smart).

Another great example (and one I think I'll reference more often!) is this picture:

http://www.mpocares.com/news-events/mpo-visual-illusion/young-woman-old-woman-illusion/

Fact: it's a picture.

Truth: It's an old woman.

Truth: It's a young woman.

So what truths do you take as fact?

Oh, and I am more than aware that listening to someone endlessly assault you with their "truth" is both infuriating and physically tiresome...  Please balance empathetic listening with self-restraint, and, when need be, the good ol' "just walk away" method!

When Conversations Are No Longer Constructive

I was facilitating a group of teachers this past week (coincidentally enough, at the same school which inspired The Golden Rule and Fair vs. Equal) and as we proceeded through the sequence, I noticed a shifting trend in their conversation.

We had just completed an activity in which the 13 participants were provided a string, all of which were tied to a metal ring, through which was fastened a marker.  Their challenge was to collectively draw their school's mascot holding only their end of a string.  The group did an excellent job of planning their work: they first discussed the orientation of the drawing (which way is up, which way it's facing, etc.), agreed on a common visualization (so they were all drawing the same representation of the mascot, as opposed to variations that existed), and asked the cap be left on for a draw run - i.e. they practiced moving the marker together to first get a feel for the task.  Shortly thereafter, we removed the cap, and away they went!

After the completion of the activity (and each teacher signing their work :)...), we began processing the experience.  The group brought up great reactions regarding their progression through the activity - how they planned, listening to each others ideas, working toward a shared vision, practicing their work before beginning, and collectively understanding each person's role and responsibilities.  All in all, I think it was a great experience...to a point.

After conversing about ways to transfer these ideas they'd come up with after the activity back to the classroom and work with colleagues, one teacher commented that it was a great experience largely because I didn't level any additional specifications.  They appreciated the opportunity to take full ownership of the entire process, from planning through action.  This lead (rather organically) to a conversation about the difficulties of holding students to this same expectations - as they rise through the ranks (this was a group of teachers from across grade levels), students seem to lose this ability to think independently and engage in the same process with their school work.  Somewhere along the line, students grow more and more dependent on teachers spoon-feeding them directions, which is an incredible sentiment and one that I would love to explore further...

However, the ball began rolling back down hill soon enough as the group began to reach another consensus: the restrictions and expectations they're held to limit their ability to experiment and try new, creative approaches with their classes.  Now, I'm in no position to assume this sentiment is primarily due to their school's culture or (though this is my leaning) that it's a systemic problem levied against 90% of Amerca's public school teachers.  And while I certainly see the value of airing these frustrations, at some point the conversation took a turn from "what can we do differently" to "what is being to us".

My take away from this experience is to be more aware of the tone of the conversation - how can we keep a proactive attitude?  Transferring this experience to myself, I think of occasions where I suffered from the same affliction - recognizing primarily external forces limiting my abilities and aspirations - rather than realizing my abilities to control my reactions to these forces.  As the adage goes: "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."  I think this is a good reminder that even if it's not lemonade the way mom used to make, it's better than resenting a big ol' pile of lemons.    

Faith in Humanity

A "friend" on Facebook posted the other day about faith in humanity.  He presents examples of some of the tragedies that have plagued mankind, including wars, genocide, and overall violence perpetrated by one person against another.  He postulates aloud about how these man-made events have made some lose their faith in humanity, shaking some people so deeply as to lose hope.  "With that in mind, to anyone who has lost their faith in humanity, I have only one thing to say: What kind of moron are you to have picked humanity as a place for your faith to begin with?  Pick up a Bible, (insert expletive insult here)".  This was followed by a comment from another, declaring that placing one's faith in humanity is the biggest mistake there is.

Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works.  I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.

That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity?  Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved?   Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson?  Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."  Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.

It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament.  Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?"  which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).

And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity.  Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few).  These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief.  It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.

As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people?  People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow.  Why do you let these things happen?"  God simply looks at the man and responds,

"Why do you?"

Quote of the Week, February 11, 2013

Slaying sacred cows often makes great steaks.

-Dick Nicolose

Just Build a Fence

A current topic creating unrest in and between parties (aside from educations, firearms, religion, women's rights, civil rights, voter ID, foreign affairs, and almost every other topic that could possibly incite an argument, seemingly just for the sake of arguing these days) is immigration policy.

Now, amid the debate is amnesty and probationary citizenship for the 11 some-odd million less-than-legal residents of the good ol' U.S. of A, but that's not my focus here right now.  Of course, it could be, looking at the minimal wages and "cost effective" workforce illegal aliens allow business owners, or the sudden, enormous, influx of income tax dollars should these people magically appear on the books, or, heck, even bring up Lady Liberty, welcoming in any and all in search of a better life.

But no.  Let's talk instead about a fence.  Many voices out there are calling for a fence to go up along our southern border; low-tech, a simple "good fences make good neighbors" situation.  Preceding this call for a Berl- excuse me, "American" Wall, are assertions that some of us belong here, and others, who've emerged victorious though weathered, beleaguered, and tired through legal venue, who deserve to be here.  All well and good I suppose, but my question is, just because some of us were born here means we deserve the freedoms and opportunities heralded across the land?

I mean, off the top of my head, birthright has been a fact of life for thousands of years.  Kings and nobles had a birthright.  Origins of birth brought about the slave trade, civil inequality on both ethnicity and gender, and Paris Hilton's 15 seconds of fame.  If America is the "Land of Opportunity", a place where if you work hard and play your hand right, life turns out well for you.  Personal responsibility and accountability are #1, right?  Well millions of people work hard every day, but find the inability to break free from the bonds of systemic poverty.  Why?  Because they weren't born to the right parents?  Some people will always be fighting for the same rights and privileges as their neighbors because they happened to have been born a woman (the average pay disparity is still about 77 cents to a dollar last I read)?  Doesn't sound fair, does it?

And now there's an argument that says, "we deserve this because we just happen to have been born to American citizens".  From my experience, once people begin feeling they "deserve" something, especially something they never had to personally work for, they begin declaring who else "deserves" it.

In a Stanford study, groups of three students were asked to discuss a list of contentious social issues.  One member was randomly assigned to a position of higher power and asked to evaluate the other students' input.  After thirty minutes, the experimenter came in with a plate of five cookies - the more "powerful" students were more likely to take a second cookie, chew with their mouths open, and get crumbs of their faces and the table (Sutton; The No Asshole Rule, 2007).  The "powerful" student wasn't placed in a higher position for any particular reason, there was no merit system, no avenue by which the students were assigned, yet even over thirty minutes evaluating other students the student in the higher position actually began to see him/herself over the others.

 So if some of us "deserve" to live here, just because we happen to have been born here (again, through no actual effort of our own), where could the potential slippery slope end?  I sometimes wonder if our rights and privileges had to be earned by each and every person from New York to LA.  What if, when we turn 18, everyone had top take the citizenship test?  What if , on the provision we pass, we would be afforded the ability to vote, receive benefits, run for office, etc.?

Perhaps that may also help turn the focus on our destitute school systems...

Radical notion?  Undoubtedly.  But why would such a provision be voted down almost unanimously?  Because there's people out there who've "earned" these privileges...?

3x3 Grid

Attempt to connect all nine dots using only 4 straight lines, without taking your pencil (finger) off the paper (screen).  Have fun!

Another thought on Real-World Preparation

As a companion to my Real World Preparation post:

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

                                                           -Herbert Spencer

Imposed Regulations

It always seems strange to me how very contradictory our economic demands are compared to our public demands.  We in the U.S. hold on dearly to our capitalism, maintaining the “American Dream” – if you work hard enough, you’ll be successful.  If you’re not successful, well, that’s your fault.  Our tycoons and kings of the free markets built their empires through smart business moves and the sweat of their brows, fueling the fires of competition to bring the best and least expensive product to the masses.  Capitalism, after all, is spurred on by competition, hence the Mergers and Monopolies commission, which regulates markets to ensure fair competition.

But wait a minute?  How can we be both competitive and “fair” at the same time?  Isn't that the point of capitalism – “I built it, it’s mine, and the government needs to butt out!” – to build and maximize and adapt to survive?  Our economic system and deeply held cultural beliefs stem from Social Darwinism: only the strong survive.  However, we don’t live in a completely free market economy to allow private businesses the wiggle room to manage their own affairs.  We've added government regulations, taxes and tariffs, and publicly funded programs to the mix, hindering the private markets’ ability to self-regulate.

Damn right, some of you may say.  Let Big Brother get out of the picture and leave us in peace.  Let business take care of business and the government to take care of…something else.

Now, think, what would happen if the government truly played no role in public life, allowed for a fully capitalistic system to emerge, free from influence and free from any of those “social(ist)” programs interfering with the balance of power.  Programs such as welfare, roads, bridges, the correctional system, the military, police and fire protection, minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, labor laws, public education (including the state university systems and tech schools), FEMA, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and tax breaks for businesses, dependents  home-owners, people in school, IRA contributions, work-travel, and charitable donations should all be out the window…

So what do we really want?

"Real-World" Preparation

Here's a little something I found interesting:

The child is constantly confronted with the nagging question: "What are you going to be?" Courageous would be the youngster who could look the adult squarely in the face and say, "I'm not going to BE anything; I already am." We adults would be shocked by such an insolent remark, for we have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from birth. Childhood isn't a time when he is molded into a human who will then live life; he is a human who is living life. No child will miss the zest and joy of living unless these are denied him by adults who have convinced themselves that childhood is a period of preparation.(attributed to Professor T. Ripaldi)

Man, this guy makes a great point.  I had a professor in undergrad who espoused the same idea.  He would open each semester explaining that college wasn't so much "preparation for the real world", but a part of it.  After all, handing in a assignment late or failing a test did, in fact, result in actual consequences.  However, is that really the overarching idea we're establishing in youth?

Today, thousands of kids are being signed up for youth soccer, presumably to be learning the values of teamwork, perseverance, and winning and losing graciously.  Unfortunately, and I hate to break it to you, but only mountains speak for themselves - just because a kid plays a sport doesn't automatically mean they'll learn anything.  Second bummer: how on earth can they learn about how hard work pays off, or that persevering to the end and leaving it all on the field - win or lose - is better than having never even tried in the first place?  How can we expect anyone to pick up on these things when every single player on every team wins a medal just for showing up?  Isn't the new message "As long as you're here, you win!"?

Did you know that there are states, counties, and districts with "No-Zero" grading policies?  In a nutshell, students will never be given a zero on an assignment, an incomplete in some places, but never a failing grade. Students have the opportunity try it over and over and over until either they finally understand the material, their teacher realizes there are other students packed into the classroom and just stamps a "C" on their, or money runs out before that 16-year-old ever finishes fourth grade.

So not only are we teaching kids that all they have to do is show up, but also that we're here to protect them, to gently guide and shelter them until that fateful day when they have to step out into the "real world".

"Don't worry", we inadvertently tell our youth,"you're a winner even though you didn't actually accomplish anything.  All you have to do is be yourself and the world will fall into your hands. We'll solve all your problems and take care of you."

So we keep our kids safe and sound, hovering around, ready to swoop down on any potential challenge that may accost our delicate and frail children.  We tiptoe around frail egos, keeping them safe from failure and making sure they never have to face personal shortcoming.  As it turns out, after a bit more research, we already have a word for this process.

It's called domestication.

And it's no known for making animals smarter.

For more fun reading, I think this article sums it up nicely: Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

The Golden Rule and Fair Vs. Equal

So about a month ago, I was facilitating an off-site program at an elementary school, and in their gym, the teacher had hung a poster about fair vs. equal, explaining that although treatment may not always be "equal", students would always be treated "fairly", according to each students' individual needs.  (To avoid copyright infringement, I won't include a picture, but the poster can be found here).  This poster has led me down a roller coaster of reactions, as at first sight I disagreed with the idea.  To me, it didn't seem to be the best route of establishing a sense of fairness through subjective treatment - I mean, isn't the entire concept of "fair" without being "equal" open almost entirely to opinion?  And is that really the underlying message that we want to provide to developing minds, that people are inherently different, and so justice includes treating them differently.  Because I'm pretty sure that's the very idea many movements through the 1960's fought against...

However, if the teacher is an especially good at his job, designing creative and influential lesson plans, should he be paid the same as an inept teacher at the same school?  Equal would be paying them the same.  Fair would be to recognize the first teacher's abilities, wouldn't it?  Now, an aside would be to wonder which the "real world" most often abides by...  (Don't worry, I'm sure there will be a post on that as well before too much longer!)

So I'm still torn.  Adding to the issue is the "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you would like to treated.  A plea for equality as far as I can see.  And the premise is simple - if you personally would like to treated with respect, treat others with respect.  If you expect honesty, give honesty.  Simple, easy, straight-forward.

But let's delve a bit deeper, eh?  I really like listening to loud music while I study.  Should I therefore, in the spirit of treating others the way I would like to be treated, blare Green Day throughout the library?  Quite simply put, a sadist is just a masochist following the Golden Rule.  So perhaps equality across the board may be a bit too oversimplified.

There have been several figures who have instead offered up the "Platinum Rule" (coined by Dr. Tony Alessandra): Treat others the way they want to be treated.  As George Bernard Shaw surmised: Do not do unto others as you would that they should do onto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists, 1903).  Karl Popper, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russel have all suggested similar sentiments.

So here we have an argument for treating others fairly, though not necessarily equally, recognizing that even though something may be the right for us, it may not be the best option for others.  In a way, it's taking ego out of the equation.  Now, I also realize that many would argue that such a consideration is perhaps reading a bit too much into the semantics of the phrase, throwing out contrary examples for the sake of contrary examples, and to an extent I would agree with you (after all, the title of this blog is "Arguing With Myself" so obviously even I don't think I'm right enough to prove a point!).  I merely offer this up as an alternative suggestion.

So, should we be treated fairly, equally, or can we find common ground on which to tread between these two?  Can we find something both fair and equal?  I don't think that the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule are mutually exclusive, rather, considering both may be the best route.  After all, if we're putting more thought into how we treat others, we're thinking less about ourselves and our ends.

If that's even possible.

[edit]