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

Multiple Intelligences: Interpersonal (4 of 7ish)

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to work with and relate to other people. These individuals are generally more aware of others' moods, feelings, and motivations, and tend to be better able to cooperate with others in a group setting.  The following example is former pickpocket Apollo Robbins which, while perhaps not the most broad example to be found, I feel portrays a very interesting take on understanding how people think. I believe this recognition, how people perceive and react, is fundamental to working with people (ideally less manipulative though!)  Enjoy.

Multiple Intelligences: Kinesthetic (3 of 7ish)

Bodily-kinestheitc intelligence, I hope, is fairly self-explanatory. Personally, I can barely hit a baseball (hence tennis being my spring sport of choice...), and examples are everywhere. People strong in this intelligence are the movers - dancers, athletes, even actors. Check out the video below for a collection of incredible athletic feats and physical awareness that at the very least make me regret that last doughnut and maybe even go for a walk...

Multiple Intelligences: Visual (2 of 7ish)

This week let's check out what I believe is a great example of Visual-Spatial Intelligence. People strong in this area have a greater ability regarding visual problems, spatial judgement, and navigating the concrete world. These people (not to used categorizing language - this exercise is intended merely as one of awareness, both personally and socially. Coincidentally enough, both of those being different, distinct intelligences... I guess throughout I seem to be creating my own example in the process!) have strengths in seeing with their mind's-eye, angles, facial recognition, navigation, and fine-details in their physical environment.  The individual in the following video is able to see and recognize the colors and shapes created by cooking pancake batter, and uses this ability to create some pretty cool pictures.  Enjoy!

(By the way, there are a lot of these out there, so if you're interested I'd encourage you to check out others! "Your Week in Pancake Art" is pretty cool, and "Star Wars Pancakes"is one of my favorites.)

Multiple Intelligences: Musical (1 of 7ish)

Cruising around YouTube the other day, I came to a realization. Not only are people capable of really cool things, but their abilities may also serve as a learning experience. Darndest thing, right? We all remember high school, when favorite subjects were more and more apparent, and seeing some of our peers excel in some areas while others excelled elsewhere - whether it was standout athletes, genius mathletes, or that one friend who could sing like angel. Still not free from controversy (don't worry, as per the MO of this blog I'm sure I'll write a post arguing against the theory someday soon), Howard Gardener posed the theory of multiple intelligences back in 1983, which asserts that everyone not only have different skills and abilities, but the way we learn and retain information is different as well. Now, just a heads up, I won't go into much more detail on the theory (I do encourage you to research it though...a lot of great info out there!); this string of posts are simply examples to showcase these innate abilities.

First up: Musical. These people are more sensitive to pitch, tone, timbre, and meter, and can often sing and/or play (an) instrument(s). Sitting, listening, to monotonous lecture simply won't cut it.  Check out the video below for what I think is a fantastic example of musical intelligence, as these guys have found new, creative, and incredible ways to use a single piano...

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....

Apparently because I'm tall...

I deserve less consideration.  According to a (relatively) recent article in the New York Times regarding the airline-seat-reclining-fiasco not too long ago, tall people shouldn't be thought of as any different than short - excuse me: "vertically challenged" - people.  And I would never argue that point.  As a vertically gifted person (6'6"), I've long accepted that, contrary to the American Myth, I cannot do whatever I set my mind to.  I will never be an undercover espionage agent (I don't blend).  I will never be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force nor an astronaut (height restrictions) nor a very good jockey (unless I'm on a Clydesdale taking a break from pulling the Budweiser wagon) .  I will always be asked "how's the weather up there?". I will never excel at hide-and-seek.  I will forever be self-conscious on the dance floor because I can say without a doubt that everyone will be keeping close tabs on the gargantuan flailing around for fear for their personal safety.  These are things I've learned to live with.  I know.  The trials and tribulations my people face.

But in the article, the author cites statistics that we shouldn't really complain.  After all, tall people earn more each year and have more sexual partners than our "average" brethren. Ergo, I mean, obviously, we don't deserve the same consideration; indeed, having some dude gain 3 inches of "comfort" compared to my suddenly feeling like I'm in a toy version of a Geo Metro is almost justified!  Who cares that I can't walk down the aisle of a plane without hitting my head on every damn thing around. Or have to walk sideways because my shoulders don't fit between the luggage racks.  Or not even be able to put my tray table down without it sitting on my knees regardless (always a good test of character when the guy in front of you reclines and sitting next to you is a socially-conscious individual who lets you use a corner of their table so you don't have to worry about gravity defeating your flimsy cup of ginger ale). But no, we have it coming.  I see that now.  It's karma for the life decision I made years ago to be tall.  Damn my short-shortsightedness!   

Don't worry though, the author does go on to point out that he wouldn't recline if he was paid to do so.  Quoting another author, he asks if his kind were such "monsters", why is no one willing to pay him to stop?  And, admittedly, even as a relatively intelligent individual, I find myself dumbfounded by this argument.  That someone could even dream of opening that door.  Because let's stop for a second and think about the vast array and extremes of applications for the logic that "if we don't want someone doing something, we should pay them not to".  I hope you're there by now. I mean, he might as well go on to consult our corrections programs.  Turns out we've had it wrong all along!

In essence, instead of bribing people to be decent, why not just be decent?  This is a very simplistic example, but let's see if he could follow it: if you know that people don't like the seat in front of them reclining, wouldn't it appropriate to either a.) not recline the stupid damn seat or b.) have the common decency to at least turn around and ask?  It's just a seat.  Don't be a jerk.  It's not hard.

Unless of course the person behind you has it coming.  Like if their tall.

Love it

I do appreciate Weird Al's latest parody... I feel it resonates with so many of my gripes about the displayed intelligence of contemporary society.

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...

As the relatively recent "psychological" movement of Positive Thinking would have you believe, positive thinking will bring one wealth, friends, and wealth.  That simply thinking happy thoughts will help you ace that job interview, land the perfect partner, win friends, sway any argument, and generally come out a winner.  Apparently, if I wake up every morning with a daily affirmation that "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, by golly, people like me!", I can land whatever I want!  If I repeatedly tell myself "I will get the job, I will get the job, I will get the job", and perhaps click my heels together three times, I, in fact, WILL get the job!

What a load of hooey.  Positive Thinking seems to be very based on the idea of getting more stuff.  A bigger house.  A better job.  More money.  More happiness.  All without reflecting on and being content with what you have.  Ambition isn't a four-letter word, but a continual battle to acquire more stuff eventually hits a roadblock, and that's where we get down on ourselves.  Coincidentally enough, such a movement really provides another opportunistic avenue to lay fault squarely on YOU for many systemic issues keeping people behind.  Now, I'm not saying that all bad things that happen to a person are outside of their control, or that people shouldn't take responsibility for the circumstances in which they may find themselves.  I'm simply of the mind that saying someone isn't wealthy because they didn't want it enough, or because they didn't believe in themselves.  Not happy?  Not successful?  It's YOUR fault.  All your fault.  You should be ashamed.

And, see, I don't buy it.  I am absolutely sure that people do have a say in their future, that each one of us has the ability to influence the outcomes of daily circumstances.  But I don't think that simply thinking happy thoughts will get you there as some would have you believe.  Rather, I believe that by closely monitoring our perspective of daily hurdles, we can essentially affect our attitude, which in turn may potentially lessen the burden.

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!

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.

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Thinking and Learning II

Several weeks ago, I wrote about how the more you know, the more you can learn (accessed here).

Adding to it with a bit of Ken Robinson into the mix (an animated TED Talk he's done can be found here).  Initially, I predominately indicated that it's useful to have a depth of knowledge from which you may be able to draw referenences and points of comparison, effectively interconnecting the web of information that exists all around us.  And I most certainly still see that as an incredibly valuable asset to have.  The ability to observe a situation, understand the circumstances, recognize likely outcomes, and acknowledge the otherwise unforeseen effects is an incredible ability indeed.

However, I beleve that there may in fact be two sides to the coin.  On the one side, we have depth of knowledge - expereince and insight perhaps only gleaned through conscious effort to learn.  On the other side, I think we can find breadth of knowledge - experience and background into a wide range of topics.  This one's a bit more difficult for me to convey, mostly because I'm not a psychologist.  But I'll give it a shot:

The human mind is perhaps one of the most intricate and interconnected system of avenues and information in the history of the world.  no computer has even come close to providing anything on par with it, and as such, there's still much we don't fully understand.  What we, as humans, have come to learn about the human mind is that it's very dynamic and very diverse.  Two hemisphere's compose the brain, one, on the left, controlling logical/deductive reasoning and the other, on the right, controlling our artistic ability, spatial awareness, and creativity.  It's fun - to draw the left hemisphere, we need the right.  To study and learn about the right hemisphere, we need the left.  The two sides don't operate in a vacuum: they intermingle data from one side to the next, back to the first, shoots it over...and so on and so on and so on and so on, and it happened faster than you read this sentence.

Pretty cool, eh?

But what that means, however, is that as we learn, the dynamic and plastic nature of our mind organizes, accumulates, and reorganizes data in such a way that we haven't even begun to fully understand the pathways and synapses and connections made in the categorization of information.  What we know and what we've experienced shapes our perceptions and influences how we view the world around us.  The language we speak and use influences how we see the world more than how we see the world influences our language.  The experiences each of us have and the encounters we face all play a role in some way, shape, or form how we see the world, and in turn, perceive future events.  As such, if all we study and all we know is, for instance, 19th century English literature, we limit ourselves to (predominately) only be able to perceive the world through that singular lens.  Adding breadth to your knowledge, though, may just be the key to an ability to see more...

Why Go to College, revisited, revisited

What does it actually mean to be well-educated, anyway?  I sometimes scoff to myself when I see or hear a misuse of grammar or spelling.  I admit, I have caught myself flabbergasted when confronted with someone who hasn't seen or read something I think is vital.  I have been caught off guard upon the realization that someone doesn't know a fact or tidbit, can't recall an author, or hasn't heard of someone or something.  But does that mean that particular person isn't just as educated, just as intelligent?

Sometimes, more often than I care to admit, I need to remember that there is no definition of "well-educated".  A most humbling experience for me is to talk cars.  Even beyond what happens under the hood, I struggle in conversations about makes and models of cars, current and classic.  I can't rewire a house.  I don't know the first thing about plumbing.  I can't sit and read through the great philosophers (get to the point already!).  I can't mend the human body.  I can't write computer code.  I can't create beautiful and intricate works of art.  I can't do a great number of things.

But I can do a great number more, and many times I can do things, see things, think things, others can't or don't.  So is one better than another?  I see the only vital part of being "educated" is the ability to critically think and reason, synthesize information, and evaluate concepts.  How do you define "smart"?

Why Go to College, revisited.

In the spirit of arguing with myself, I revisited my post regarding going to college.  I know why I went, but obviously that's not why others may opt to attend or not.  Am I advocating for everyone to attend a four-year institution?  Of course not.  What's right for one isn't necessarily right for all.  Am I advocating that everyone develop themselves enough to think critically and synthesize information and evaluate the validity of an argument?  Of course.  That's a vital part of what I see as a rounded individual.

But what does it mean to be "educated"?  Does it mean an associates degree? A technical degree? Undergrad?  Master's?  Doctoral?  Is one inherently better than another?  Let me pose a side question: what would happen if 100% of United States citizens had a doctoral degree?  Or a graduate degree?  What would happen if 100% of us had a bachelor's degree?  Is that required for most jobs?  Is it necessary to survive?  Would we not still have jobs and careers that don't require that piece of paper?  Would anyone want to do them anymore?  Too often through my undergraduate education and after, I've heard people decrying their entry-level or manual labor jobs, that such work was below them because they "have a degree".  What a crock.  A piece of paper doesn't make you any better or worse than the next person. 

What I DIDN'T learn in my undergraduate experience has been much of what I'm finding to be the more important aspects of adult life.  College didn't teach me anything about engines or car repairs.  I didn't learn any electric or plumbing.  I didn't learn how to build of fix a house.  I didn't learn how to mend, sew, or cook from any class.  

So is necessary for everyone to attend a four-year college or university?  Not in the slightest.  Summers between semesters I worked as a landscaper, rising with the sun, sweating and toiling through the day, and when we finished, we could look at what we'd created and be proud.  Helping a friend with some light remodeling work brought the work boots out of hiding as we plastered drywall, insulated walls, and sealed windows.  And again, we looked at what we'd down at the end of the day and could be proud with that we accomplished.  I've found that some of the most satisfying moments in my professional life have been those where the visible fruits of my labor are apparent (I'm a middle child so I suppose I was born to crave attention!)

And I have caught myself wondering if, knowing what I know now, would I do it all over again?