Us vs. Them

Once again, trying to get back into the writing spirit (last post was in January after all..). So here's a tidbit I started writing late-January/early February.

---

I sat down to write just now, inspired, compelled even, to put my thoughts out there, and suddenly, as my computer was booting up, I realized, as so many times in the past, my own inner conflict. The thought that comes to mind, no matter how long it's been brewing in my head, suddenly becomes less...convicted? Less... I don't know the word. I suddenly start poking holes in my own thought process (which may be why I haven't updated the blog in far too long, and for that I apologize). But almost at the same time, I realize that's pretty much what this is about. I mean, look at the title for crying out loud. So here goes:

I would think that the basic, fundamental difference between the political right and left isn't about caring for people - I think that, on some levels, even when it's hard to see - both sides are looking out for people. The crux lies on #1: which people we're looking out for, and #2: who's doing the looking out. #1 I'll leave be for the time being (mostly because it only just came to now, but I stand by it. I just haven't had time to flesh it out for you, so thank you for your patience).

So we'll focus on #2. Two things inspired me to sit down right now (one reminding me of the other). Several months ago I (foolishly) had what I thought could be a calm, rational discussion of gun control - let me clarify: not gun control itself, but rather how strongly, how passionately people feel about the issue on both sides. The topic coming up, again, foolishly on my part (because if the topic is about a passionate issue, why wouldn't the response be impassioned? Hindsight is 20/20), as I scrolled through a message board on an article about, lo and behold, guns. And I had to laugh. Literally. Laugh. First at the thought of ever getting into a heated argument online (let's be grown-ups people), then at the arguments people are making. Because none of them supported a side, only put down the other - as though the idea that "if I can show people you're wrong, that means I'm right" was a real thing. Well, this message board happened to be about guns. So I ask this person (back to the in-person conversation,; I'm not playing the comment section game!), "Why is it that this topic is such an emotionally-driven issue? Why is it that this issue, seemingly more than any other, is so strongly driven that anything that detracts from it is taken as a personal affront?"

*sigh*

However, from his answer - because "some people want to be able to protect themselves, while other people want to take that constitutional right away", and my apparently ludicrous follow-up question about the police ("you can't trust the police to keep you safe!"), not only reaffirmed my original question (shortly thereafter I let him know I would not continue this conversation because I was hoping for a clear and level-headed dialogue and due to his emotional responses indicated otherwise, and I walked away). And thinking about it later, the hypothesis was apparent: it was about safety. Some people feel safest when they have a gun to protect themselves because they don't know what that person over there is going to do. Other people feel safer when they don't have to worry about getting shot at in the first place from that person over there. I doubt he was able to shift his paradigm (not necessarily change,  but to simply be able to understand)  to think of it that way and I'd like to think I'm smarter than to revisit the topic.

Have issues - politics, policies, parties, etc - always been this devoid of gray area?

What are we trying to achieve?

Let's call it a guilty pleasure. Well, no, not a "pleasure" per se, really more of a vice? Hmm, words are failing me.

Either way, I really can't help but scroll through comment sections following online articles. To the point where I find myself skimming the article itself just to get to the angry, vitriolic, spiteful opinions people spew toward just about anything and everything: refugees, guns, Islam, the minimum wage, Planned Parenthood, guns, the presidency, guns, Catholicism, guns...

It's just astounding. The level to which people seem to hold themselves higher, that they, in fact, know exactly what's best for everyone else and what everyone else deserves. I often myself at a loss for words. The internet more and more is becoming simply nothing more than a platform for people to laud themselves and create this delusional and egotistical idea of self-importance. Moving beyond simply comment sections, look through any form of social media. Facebook alone seems to have predominately only served as a forum for people to carefully craft the person they want other people to see.

(I touched on this once upon a time: http://mielkewaylearning.blogspot.com/2015/02/generational-gaps.html)

And for a bit more background, here's a fun study: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-happier-life-facebook.html. After just one week without Facebook, people reported greater levels of happiness and lower levels of self-dissatisfaction.

It's not the real world.

We get to hide behind the safety of our screens, slowly encasing ourselves in the safety of self-segregation, reading only that which we agree with, "defriending" people that don't, and building these virtual walls around ourselves to avoid any and all thoughts, ideas, or perspectives that in any way challenge our beliefs. And, I believe an outcome of that, then, is that these beliefs become more and more cherished and embodied, becoming not just something we believe, but a foundation on which we build our identity. There is no critical thought, no open-minded dialogue. All conversations become a debate, at a time when "debates" are yelling matches, and the end goal no longer becomes a search for greater understanding, but an attempt to make someone else see it our way. Schoolyard tactics - yelling, taunting, name-calling, bullying, and racing to embarrass the other person into submission - is the now the norm among adults. And how do we suppose this affects our kids, as their old strategies are being annexed more and more by their supposed role-models.

It's frustrating to see. In 1960, around 5% of parents polled indicated that they would be displeased with their son or daughter marrying someone of a different political party. In 2010, it jumped to around 40%. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/really-would-you-let-your-daughter-marry-a-democrat/262959/)

So what happens next? I have no idea. But I can't say I'm particularly optimistic about it.

A question about policy...

Let's preface with acknowledging that I don't have the answers. And I'm neither endorsing nor condemning (per se...) any of the following. I'm simply trying to look at the current state, compare to the proposed future state, and ask what I think are relatively common sense questions...

So on the one hand, we have some calls for a raise in the federal minimum wage to $15 and hour. Admittedly I'm not an economist, so I'm not an authority on predicting negative outcomes. So let's just go with the loudest detractor: an increase in income will create an uptick in purchasing, which will lower supply (less stuff on the shelves), increase demand (people still want the stuff), and drive up prices. In essence, more money in the economy=higher prices for everything. Fair enough.  Right off the bat, I feel compelled to ask why supply and demand never seems to go the other way.  Prices always seem to rise, but never really fall. Sure, a couple cents on gas here and there, but I don't think the economic doomsday mentality is worried about pennies...

The other big issue people seem to have with a higher minimum wage is that "minimum wage jobs aren't meant to provide a living wage". As one commentor put it, minimum wage jobs are intended to inspire people to work harder and better their position. (Of course, I feel as though I've been fairly open regarding my perspective on this mentality - A Self-Made Man, Just Get a Job, I think I can I think I can etc.)

Okay, either way, let's just keep that argument in mind, that if some people have more money, everyone has to spend more.

Now, let's change gears. Recent presidential candidates have been (loudly) voicing immigration reform, up to and including deporting everyone. A pinnacle argument they make is that these people, this "other", are taking not only our federal support money (read: welfare and subsidized housing), but "stealing" jobs that would otherwise have "hardworking" Americans.

[Just a quick aside on the "other" that's living off the system: funny that the very crowd these candidates are trying to incite with their rhetoric about the sin of handouts are, well...here's the top five articles that address that idea. Since I'm not sure about copyright and such, they're listed generically: first article, second, third, fourth, fifth]

Beside the point.

Anyway, okay, let's roll with the premise. Now, they also admit that these "undocumented workers" have these jobs because employers can pay them less. Five bucks an hour, twelve hours a day, seven days a week with no overtime or benefits? I hate to say it, but that's just the free market at work. Again, beside the point.

So now we can put American citizens into these jobs.with the full protections afforded them (check out Imposed Regulations if you're wondering my thoughts on true free market capitalism. However, the very idea that the same people are advocating imposing more rules on employers while simultaneously touting the free market is just hilarious to me).

Again, beside the point.

So now these workers make at least minimum wage, OT after 40 hours, benefits, maternity leave, the potential to *gasp* unionize... So, wouldn't, um, this, erm, add money into the consumer's pocket? In effect, wouldn't this do the same thing increasing the minimum wage?

Now again, I'm not an authority on the subject. I don't have any answers, only questions.

The Spirit vs. the Letter

Found this from February 2013:

Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law?  On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written.  On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?

In the paper this morning, an editorial sparked my interest in the topic.  A school district had recently adopted a policy regarding the residency of administrators, requiring they live within the district.  This formalized a practice for the past several years, and the school board decided to continue granting a waiver to allow one principal to live outside the area.  Now, apparently while discussing it, the superintendent had raised three points for discussion: the importance of administrator residency, the importance of continuity in leadership, and the importance of honoring contractual obligations.

With that in mind, one board member opted to write a personal editorial, that in his eyes, the last point was the most important, and voted against the waiver on the grounds that living in the district was the rule, and rules must be followed.  Indeed, another letter was written to the paper, expressing her disappointment that more board members didn't vote against the waiver: "I am disappointed that only three School Board members showed commitment, integrity, and knowledge to vote based on the rules in place.  This is leadership.  These are the kind of people that are truly responsible..."

Personally, I find the views of these editorial-writers to be short-sighted and far too rigid to allow for growth and progress.  Neither address the situation of the school, the performance of the teachers or students, of the relationship the administrator has within the community.  Their over-emphasis on the letter of law ignores a significant amount of data necessary to make an informed decision.  

As we weigh any option prior to making a decision, aren't we almost required to consider all aspects?  Don't we have that responsibility, specifically when our decision affects people beyond ourselves, to look at the larger picture?  Now, I could rattle off a laundry list of past examples of the letter of the law becoming out of touch, if not downright immoral, but I think this one example is enough to keep our attention on the issue at hand: do we look at what is written or consider if it's right?

I found this quote last week, and I think I'll be using it more and more:

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

Daily Purpose

A post I've been rolling around in my head for the past several months. I meant to put pen to paper on this topic - reflecting on purpose, identity, and raison d'etre - for months now, though admittedly I'm glad I've procrastinated this long as I've come to a few new insights.

It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.

So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.

Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.

It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.

But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda. 

Knowing

I believe that in order to truly know something, one must be able to argue the opposite.  This idea achieves crystal clarity every election season - everyone's arguing, pointing fingers, and accusing the other side of...something.  Liberals like to raise taxes and take away our guns. Conservatives don't care about anyone except rich white people. Blah blah blah. It's always the same.  And don't get me wrong, this extends beyond well beyond politics and religion, and into every aspect of what we believe we know for certain.

The issue comes up whenever there is conversation more about being "right" than actually listening.  As a sophomore in my undergrad, my roommate and I were polar opposites, particularly on the divisive lines of politics and religion.  But we addressed this head-on.  In fact, we often would just sit and talk, sharing our perspectives and hearing what the other had to say.  We both knew that one, in all likelihood, wouldn't change the other's mind on anything, and with that in mind, we recognized that there was no point in trying.  Why yell and get irate? Why foster bad blood and unhealthy relationships?  Why not seize the opportunity to listen and learn things that you don't understand?

So can you argue, honestly and clearly, the opposite side without any sarcasm or irony? Do you understand the arguments that can and will be made against your stance? Are you able to articulate what the other side believes (and even take it a step further and explore why they believe it?)?  If not, I would argue that more research needs to be done.  I don't pretend to understand everything I believe, much less everything someone else may think, but I'm working on it.  Once we stop communicating and start clashing, when we start a discourse thinking we'll change their mind or our intent is just to convey how dumb they clearly are, we've already lost.  I'm not advocating against have strong, deeply ingrained beliefs.  Not at all. Just to consider arguing against them. Whether you believe it or not.

Changing History

This story came across the news this morning:

http://time.com/3428238/denver-students-history-curriculum-respect-for-authority-jefferson-county-school-board/

The school board proposed editing history texts to only highlight the positive aspects of American history and eliminate "social strife".  Frankly I'm speechless.  Is it fair for me to say that one simply cannot pick and choose which pieces of history to teach?  How can we develop an understanding of how we got to where we are now (for better or worse) if we omit fundamental elements?  History is not a string of unrelated occurrences.  It is an interconnected web - things don't just happen.  And throughout history that social strife, civil disobedience, and outright aggression has, ultimately, affected the greatest changes.  I would also encourage you to check out the Twitter feed.  Some of those are hilarious.  

*I'm choosing to move past the clear connection to all the historical examples of the government trying to alter history.  It's certainly not a new phenomenon so hopefully we just won't have to teach that to kids and no one will be the wiser....

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. 

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

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...?

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]

Opening the Partisan Doors

Are we even more partisan than ever?  I think I may think so.  But I haven't quite figured out why.

I think, taking a shot in the dark, a large part of it may be our incredible and unrestricted access to information and incessant communication with a larger scope of like-minded individuals.  Hear me out: Before Facebook, Twitter, newsfeeds, daily updates, and bloggers of all shapes and forms (the Dark Ages, if you will), most information was gathered from magazines, books, the news (on the television...), and our own circle of influence.  We were able to develop our own thoughts and beliefs, defining "liberal" and "conservative" based on our own beliefs, agreeing with some aspects of one group, some from the other, and crafting them into a finely-tuned encyclopedia of personal values.  Issues, I believe, were at the forefront - education, taxation, government spending, religion, and interpretations of the Constitution weren't mutually inclusive, where your beliefs regarding one didn't always guarantee where you stood on another.  And because of this, cooperation wasn't a four-letter word.  Because we each, individually, say across lines and parties, it only made sense that this would continue into the public sector.

Now, however, there's a different situation.  Today, we are assaulted with a constant barrage of stimuli.  Everyday, wherever we happen to be, we have such unprecedented access to whatever anyone cares to say, no matter how crass, short-sighted, or immature it may be, and we've lost that individual sense of self.  I don't recall any traffic law specifying that driver's should not read a newspaper while driving.  Now, however, we've all driven down the highway and glanced at the car next to us wherein the driver is completely engrossed in their phone.  What this also entails, I believe, is that we're now confronted with what parties are "supposed" to look like.  What a good Republican or Democrat should be for.  After all, once upon a time, one had to be an actual journalist to reach even one hundred people.  Now any average joe can start a blog and spout whatever nonsense he or she thinks people want to read (case in point...).  So now, rather than a handful of inputs to consider and bounce off our social circle, we face hundreds, if not thousands every week.  Slowly but surely, we are becoming more and more ingrained to what we're "supposed" to believe and the labels that come with one idea or another.  And, in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast, we begin to affiliate, gradually, with other concepts linked (somehow) to one or two with which we first sided.  And I believe this works both ways: reading a post written to (more often than not) an extreme 180 degrees of your perspective, the less you affiliate with those beliefs to any extent - and push us further into partisan positions.

Just look at Facebook.  Go on, scroll through a few posts.  Chances are, there's at least one talking politics (in some way, shape, or form).  Soon, this may just become a full-blown virtual battle, and, if you pay close enough attention, often you'll find people chiming in, people you know, who, you realize, don't actually have a horse in this race.  Gun control is a great example.  On the left, we need more restriction.  On the right, less.  It doesn't really matter what you actually think about guns anymore.  It's about maintaining your loyalty to your chosen brand.

Go on, ask any Mac user if they're willing to trade in for a PC.  And vice versa.  The Mac user will most certainly decline, citing the simplicity of the operating system, the ability to sync it with other Mac devices, and/or the Mac software.  And PC will argue that they've got the better deal as well, of course.  Now, sifting through all the B.S., unless you're using one or the other for work-related reasons (I hear Mac has better video editing software), is one inherently better than the other?  Of course not.  But we've invested so much of ourselves into the idea that we're right that anything to contrary must be wrong.

And so it goes with politics.  How about we stop thinking about which brand we've invested in, and actually start looking at the issues.  I know it's a big step, but how about a dialogue - not a debate, not a right vs. wrong argument, but an actual dialogue in which we try to understand opposing view points.  Surrounding ourselves with the same perspective will most certainly leave us seeing the same thing.

Post Script: Seeking to understand one another is not as simple as waiting for your turn to talk.  Please, stop nodding your head, shrugging your shoulders, and responding "well, it's the way I feel."  They say that when you stop learning, you should be six feet under.  Well, until you actually listen, you're as good as entombed.

A Globalized Economy

Spoiler alert: it was my hope to write this as a non-partisan, neutral look at a contemporary hot-button issue.  My thoughts on the matter may not resonate with you personally, or even any reader happening across this page whilst enjoying their morning joe.  What follows is simply a hypothetical consideration; one of many sides to a significant and ever-growing issue.  Happy reading.

For the past several years, the U.S. has been spiraling through the “Great Recession”, and, as such, a central issue in both the public and private sectors has been putting American citizens to work.  But let’s consider for a moment just what exactly our economy allows for, specifically regarding off-shoring and outsourcing.

Here we are, 2012, a world that has become steadily interdependent and globalized economy.  We enjoy everyday luxuries impossible to consider a century ago.  Standardized clothing, mass manufactured and shipped from the Caribbean (Honduras, specifically, for my shirt right now) and produce, far out of season in the Midwest, fresh on the shelves from Jamaica and South America.  Toys made in China.  Steel, mined in Brazil, ships to the U.S., where it’s delivered to a tariff-free zone (an area not technically considered the U.S.) where it’s manufactured into usable materials import-free (meaning the good ol’ U.S. of A. makes zero public profit) and shipped to the Netherlands where components are put together into a product.  A U.S. company contracts an Asian company to create computer processors, which, in turn, contracts Chinese mining companies to provide raw materials and Indian firms to write and install software, and the whole shebang is then shipped to a separate company (probably a U.S. company taking advantage of less-expensive labor and more lax import/export laws as it sets up shop in a foreign nation) to put it all together, when other companies come in to market, pack, ship, stock, and sell the item.  Then, if something happens and you need tech support, the phone is answered by someone halfway around the world, working third shift to accommodate the time difference, whose paycheck is still signed by the American company.  Obviously, “bringing jobs back home” is a little simplistic.

Now let’s think what would happen if all this work arrived on our shores: The labor that we in America get all up in arms about when we hear numbers like “$3 a day”, decrying how terrible it is to be paying workers such a paltry sum, suddenly shoots up to American standards, somewhere in the minimum range of $7.50/hour.  (Side note: what we often fail to consider is the purchasing power parity, or PPP, which links changes in the exchange rate between two currencies to changes in the countries price levels.  This adjustment then allows for a more direct comparison of living standards…for instance, in 2007 the GNI per capita in China was $2,360, but the PPP per capita was $5,370, meaning the cost of living was less in China and that the GNI per capita could purchase as much as $5,370 in the U.S.  I’m not saying I’m for or against $3/day, but just that single number alone doesn’t paint an accurate picture).

Anyway, say we have 100 workers at $3 U.S./day, working for one day - $300 in labor.  100 workers at $7.50/hour, working an eight-hour day for one day = $6000.  Now think about that over the course of a year.  Now, if output remains the same, but cost of labor increases, what logically must happen to the cost of the product?  You guessed it.

I would say our next step is figure out what we can do, and what we can do better than anyone else. We can’t very well consider our economy in isolation from the rest of the world; jobs don’t just appear.  We can spout all we want about job creation, but until we find something people will pay for, we can’t very well work it.  We’re in the midst of a global system, what happens in one place inevitably affects what happens elsewhere.

So what’s the point?  We live in an ever-shrinking, ever-flattening world.  No longer is a single country autonomous and independent of the activities, the economies, the products of another nation.  Now, I’m not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the current level of out-sourcing and off-shoring, or even that there aren’t some gigs we could do here, simply that “bringing jobs back home” isn’t as easy as that.