An interesting quote

We tend to judge others by their behaviors and ourselves by our intentions.

-Albert Schlieder

Learned Apathy

So I'm thinking that apathy is learned.

I think apathy becomes learned, bred, and eventually ingrained through any number (or combination) of unaddressed, unchanged circumstances. Through the continued, consistent factors that eventually wears us down to the point of checking out.  And I believe this extends across all walks of life and environments, from work to school to the home. While I'm sure there are vastly more factors, the biggest ones I've seen so far include

• Those around you - co-workers, peers - just don't care anymore. Apathy becomes contagious.  Consider any moment, in work, in school, in life, when someone else was checked out. (An aside here may be the levels of employee engagement, from engaged - those who invest themselves in their work, to disengaged - those who show up, punch the clock, and head out, to the actively disengaged - who actively work against the company). Imagine those in either of the latter two categories you consider co-workers: you're doing the same job, the same pay, day after day. And even though you're invested - personally, financially - in the job, nothing changes. Why keep trying when so-and-so isn't? Why should I keep showing up on time when this other guy is consistently late and no negative repercussions seem to happen? (Although, rereading this, arguably the root of the issue doesn't sound like it's on your co-worker...) 
• Those above you - parents, teachers, managers - don't care either. Now apathy isn't just learned, but almost taught. We model those we look up to. And it's the same as above. But let's look at schools now. For those of you unfamiliar with Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin's teacher is a perfect of example of someone who's checked out and just counting the days until retirement. And in schools we also have to think about the impact of parents. If parent's don't care about their child's performance or actions, why would the child?
• Changing/shifting guidelines and expectations - when what you're told or what's expected of you is changed more frequently than not. The same goes for which things are priority: if everything is the most important thing, nothing is (Monday it's this thing, tomorrow it's this, Wednesday a third thing "just has to get done!", Thursday jumps back to Monday's priority, and by Friday directions just sound like parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon). 
• Being treated as inferior or the expectation of poor performance - I feel this one is rather self-explanatory. I do believe we rise to the level expected of us, for better or worse. Of course, the caveat is that the person has the knowledge, tools, resources, and support to rise to the expectations set for them. So I suppose an addendum would be that the combination of high expectations and low support, ability, and authority to actually do anything is, in essence, setting someone up to fail. And what would be a logical conclusion from there...? For more information, check out the results of Robert Rosenthal's 1964 experiment, as well as the Pygmalion Effect.

I do believe that people want to do well and be proud of their work and the results they can affect. But somewhere, at some point in our lives, we learn to just phone it in. The question then becomes, how can we reverse the trend?

Another question about policy

To follow up my last post A question about policy, this one was inspired by a comment made from an article on the internet (oof, don't even get me started...), regarding the 14th Amendment. The 14th, among other things, grants citizenship to all people born on United States soil. And this is being "abused" by immigrants, who cross the border only long enough to have their "anchor baby", and capitalize on the policy of allowing undocumented parents to remain with their citizen-child.

Now, validity aside, I just want to be clear: so because an Amendment is being followed according to the letter, via a literal reading of the words, it's being "abused" and it's "not following the intent of the authors" and should therefore be repealed. Okay, but who says the author's intentions? Isn't that going to be immediately and incredibly subjective?

One may argue that it wasn't the "intent" of the Framer's for the First Amendment to protect the Westboro Baptist Church, KKK rallies, violent, threatening online posts (these were tossed out), or any number of other examples. One could probably argue that the Second Amendment wasn't "intending" to allow for some paranoid doomsday-sayer to stockpile thousands of guns and ammunition for the someday apocalypse. It's fun. Our "right" to be able to walk around in broad daylight with a fully automatic rifle and 50-round clip is boisterously defended. But don't you dare think for a second you can have a baby here! It's a matter of national security!

It's always amused me, when the "intent" is used as a defense. We seem to be awful quick to assume we know what other people were thinking when we can't seem to even be able to do it for ourselves.

Wait wait wait...who's responsible?

As mentioned last month, I've been going through a recently-rediscovered stockpile of old drafts and post ideas and uncovered this gem, first drafted back in March of 2013. While the specific inspiration for the post is long lost on me, I thought it was still relevant when thinking about accountability. Enjoy!

- - - - - - -  - - - -

Here's a fun tidbit I've been observing.  And bear in mind that there's a good chance that after reading it, your only response will be an eye-roll, a self-acknowledging shrug, and a rhetorical, open-ended "yeah, and...?".  Anyway, why is it that it seems that when things are going well for you that you're the one who created that situation, but when things aren't going your way or the cards don't fall in your favor, it tends to be someone else's fault?   I mean, when you're doing well enough, it's because you've earned it, right?  "I put myself where I am today.  I worked and toiled and sweated to get where I am.  I earned this."  We're entitled to the fruits of our labor; after all, it's not like anyone helped us out, right?  It's those poor people, those leeches on welfare that keep taking from my hard-earned cash-cow, right?  "I worked hard, and look where I am!  Why can't they do the same?!?!"

But, same coin here folks, why is it that when it comes to things heading downhill, chances are it's someone else's fault?  We like to blame our boss, the jerk in the next cubicle, the Democrats or Republicans, the 1% or the 99%, the economy, our kids' teachers...whatever we may not like, for the conflicts and hurdles thrown in our path.  I know I'm guilty of the same thinking from time to time (and probably more often than that), vilifying people who have "taken what I've worked for", finding it easier to blame someone, anyone, other than myself.  How could it be my fault?  I worked to build it up meaning someone else knocked it down.

But at least it's not my fault, right?

Mo' Material Wealth, Mo' Problems

Winston Churchill is quoted with

"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Taking a stab at what he was talking about, I would argue that it's not so much about politics (especially contemporary parties!) or beliefs, but rather about preservation.  I believe he was referring to the basic human reaction to gain: preserve it as best you can, using the same tactics used to get it.  Liberalism - progressivism - is a tool to be used to break the status quo.  It can be, and is, used to disrupt the current state.  Out with the old, in the new.  Young people for generations have served as the foundation (read: not the whole thing.  Please don't argue history with me. Same goes for my use of "liberalism" in the previous sentence.  We'rte talking about the base ideology, not political affiliation.) for ideological change.  "Old" people have, for all intents and purposes, served as the primary pushers and movers of maintaining that very status quo, integration to rock'n'roll.

They say each subsequent generation suffers and solves the problems of the previous one. But it's that preceding generation who still clings on, desperately  to their beliefs they undoubtedly fought tirelessly to institute.

What does this have to do with anything, you ask.  Well, I respond, a trend I've been noticing as I get older is that those peers I grew up with, as we all go about our lives establishing careers, buying houses, starting families, the same people I once recognized as progressives, are now beginning their journey into conservativism.  From this, I've been beginning to think that the more one gains, the more one has, sways their ideological (and inevitably political) persuasion toward the right.  It seems to me that, simply, the more one has, the more one wishes to keep it that way, even at the expense of others getting their's as well.  In case you're new to my blog, please take a second and shuffle through old posts to figure out exactly how I feel about personal entitlement.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Back?  Good.  So I'm assuming you've learned that I tend to scoff when someone believes their "entitled" to something.  That I tend to smirk when someone tells me they "earned this! No one helped me!".  That I, frankly, find those things ludicrous.

Now, I haven't quite figured out what to make of my observations.  All I can say for certain is that, form what I've observed, the more people have, the more they tend to think they've earned it all by themselves.  And the more people think they've earned it on their own, the more they will begin to resist any and all change to the society that "allowed" them that profit.  It seems that while one can, on occasion, move from the lower to the middle class, they forget exactly what it's like to be that low on the totem pole.  And those born into wealth, they will never know.

Making Mistakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put Down the Phone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Revisiting Facts and Truth

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

A Facebook acquaintance recently posted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Emile Chartier

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

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

How 'bout that?

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

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

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

"If only closed minds came with closed mouths."

No offense.

Just Get a Job!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!

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

When Conversations Are No Longer Constructive

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith in Humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Why do you?"

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 quote I wish I'd found a month and a half ago...

...as politics and Facebook were making life just awful for just about everyone.

Emotional Maturity can be defined as "the ability to express one's own feelings and convictions balanced with consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others."

-Hrand Saxenian (found in Covey 2004).

Are we saying what people are hearing?

Language is a funny thing, dear reader.  I say that because more and more I'm becoming aware of the language I use every day, and particularly with groups I facilitate.  What that inevitably means for me is that I find myself thinking about and listening for words and phrases I use without even realizing it - I'm paying attention very much to things I hadn't given much thought to in the not-to-distant past (yes, I've always tried to be conscious of how the words I use come across and their effectiveness to convey my message, but I think this is a step further).

For instance, I commented a while ago that I try to avoid labeling things as "easy" or "hard".  Instead, some things may be "more or less challenging" for a particular person or group.  No one wants to come up short on a something "easy" or "simple".  I often use personal examples - for instance, I find it less challenging for me to memorize random, eclectic facts and trivia items.  On the other hand, math has never come easily to me.  Is one better or worse than the other? 

"You all", "ya'll", or simply "team" has replaced "you guys" in inter-gender groups.  While "guys" is perhaps becoming more gender-neutral, it still has a definite masculinity to it.  Granted, this has often brought ripples of chuckles through groups, as they assume I'm adopting some sort of accent for funsies...of course, it does allow me a chance to explain why I use the term. 

I avoid "nice try" at all costs, instead focusing on what was achieved, rather than what was not.  A "good try" indicates that success wasn't found, after all, Yoda pointed out: "Do, or do not. There is no try."  To "try" is to attempt, to give it your best shot but still come up short.  However, if someone climbs 15 feet up a pole, decides that's it and decides to come down, #1, they've made a very empowered decision to choose their own level of challenge rather than compulsory participation, and #2, for a point of comparison, they were at a height roughly higher than a second story floor - and I think that's worth pointing out.  What they did, not what they could have done.

One last example is the language used to describe guidelines or address issues.  I've seen the success of phrasing these in the positive - "let's be sure to walk", "great job holding the rope"; as opposed to "don't run" or "don't hold anything else".  "Keep looking up" is a big one climbing - after all, if I say "don't think about pink elephants!", what's the first thing you think about?  I thought so.  Phrasing in the positive helps people visualize what they can do rather than what they can't and keeps the mindset of doing.
Now, the question is, what does this have to do with anything outside of facilitating?  Well, fortunately that's a ball in your court - how does language affect your work or life?  And don't forget, how something is said can be just as meaningful as what is said...

Thoughts on snacking

There was a news story I just read about a certain snack being banned at some schools, and the comments below were just raring to go on how the government shouldn't be dictating what our kids eat.  “What my kid eats is MY business” said one alias-emboldened commentator.  And yet none seemed to appreciate the irony in the fact that this occurrence is taking place in a public school…an educational system created and functioning because of government involvement.  We demand our children go to school, adhere to laws that decree they can read at or above grade level, and appreciate that everyone, even those without children in that particular school, pay for it.  But suddenly the fight is against government involvement.  Please let me into your reasoning.  We have the responsibility to educate our children, but bear no such onus to stop them from getting fat.  Lovely.  

Hiding Online

What is it about social networking sites that provides people an illusion of anonymity?  I can see how that may come into effect on message boards, where an individuals name and personal information is secured behind a screen name and avatar, but places like Facebook, Twitter, and others are created specifically to display a portrait of a person - who they are, who they know, even where they're from and currently live.  In this aspect, it's not so much a "message board" that shows up on your feed, but an extended conversation consisting of people spouting whatever comes to mind - the inane, the insightful, and everything in between - wherever and whenever they feel so inclined.  However, shouldn't this raise a red flag disclaimer before posting?  Not an official or actual, but a personal aside to think before we speak?  Isn't that something we're told when we're young, to think about what we say and who we say it to?

Now, I'm not a heavy advocate for any kind of censorship, personal or otherwise, for fear of offending someone.  An opinion is a great thing, and I encourage people to find their own truth and things to believe in.  However, in what way does it become alright to spout these opinions to the wide world?  Scrolling through my feed this morning, I wondered how adamant some of these people would be if they were expected to make such wide, sweeping, declarative statements in a tavern somewhere.  Is this something they would exult in mixed company?  With friends?  With family?  With strangers?  Sure, there will undoubtedly be those who agree, but surely several that don't.  Would someone be impertinent enough to sit and argue?  To what end?  I have never encountered a situation in which a person has been swayed by a clashing lecture with someone of a differing opinion.  Namely on politics and religion.  And yet we use our social media for exactly this forum.

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make their beliefs known, or that somehow aren't entitled to them, but what are we tyring to prove by pushing these opinions on other people?  What is the hoped for end result of throwing our beliefs in the faces of others?  Wouldn't we be much better served to begin a dialogue, an opportunity to listen and learn?  Sure, we may disagree with what someone is saying, but isn't it entirely possible to still (in this very partisan day and age) have a clear, level-headed conversation?

The way I see it, anger, resentment, and  sheer bullheadedness - taking the place of level-headed and logical, albeit impassioned defenses for our beliefs - are a facade, behind which we hide our own insecurities and doubts of our personal truths.

Quote of the Week #1

"I am not what has happened to me.  I am what I choose to become."
-Carl Jung