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!