A Vindication of Love (Pt I)

From a book that I happen to be reading - "A Vindication of Love: Reclaiming Romance in the Twenty-First Century" by Cristina Nehring (2009) ...

"For women authors in general, love - whether it be reciprocal or spurned, happy or sad, chaste or promiscuous - seems to be a public relations gaffe, a death blow to one's credibility as a thinker... To be respected as a thinker in our world, a woman must cease to be a lover. To pass for an intellectual of any distinction, she must either renounce romantic love altogether or box it into a space so small in her life that it attracts no attention."

"The reputation of a male thinker is either untouched or improved by an erotically charged biography. The reputation of a female thinker is either subtly undermined or squarely destroyed."

"Men, in other words, are defined by the missions they have accomplished, the dragons they have slain, the prizes they have won, while women are defined by the men they have loved. This is indeed unforgivably reductive..."

True that. (sigh)

I intend to return to this topic post-chaotic employment mess.

Tend and Befriend

"The dominant model of human responses to stress has been the fight or flight response.... From the standpoint of human beings, however, this analysis of stress responses is incomplete." - Wikipedia

It's been an eventful couple of weeks. Yours truly found out that her company has fallen prey to the economy, and will be closing by the end of this year. She shares this stressful state of job loss with a cohort of coworkers.

There's a part of me that tries to remain a detached observer with regard to group dynamics, and this situation is no exception. As we all move closer to unemployment, it's been interesting to see how we, individually and collectively, respond to the stress of having our jobs/income ripped away. As hinted at in the quote above, the traditional model of stress response - fight or flight - seems inadequate to describe the observed responses to this particular threat.

Indeed, the nature of the threat is such that neither fighting nor flight are really possible. There is nothing any of us can do to make the jobs come back (fight), nor can we successfully escape the threat of a lost income (flight). If I wanted to argue that the fight or flight response did explain my response to this stressful situation, I might do so in the following way... Initially, the fight response prompted me to question our right to severance. (We have none, due to the nature of our company and the reasons for its closing.) I might also say that the fight response prompted me to mobilize my resources for a campaign to regain an income. (Alternative stress response: use humor to offset tension. We are now on 'a campaign to regain our income.')

But this line of reasoning seems to me to be too much of a stretch from the original observations that led to a 'fight or flight' theory of stress response. (I generally hate overgeneralizations.) Much about our current situation and the behaviors that I have observed in myself and others reminds me of an alternative model of stress response that I only recently learned about - tend and befriend.

Tend and befriend has been presented as a predominantly female response to stress. The model was developed after Shelley Taylor, a health psychologist, realized that most of the studies leading to the fight or flight model had been conducted on male animals. I don't particularly like that overgeneralization, but I can't really use observations from my current situation to argue with it either.

The more critical difference between how the two models might be applied to the situation of job loss seems to be in the nature of the threat. Job loss may represent a range of stresses - from losing a critical component of one's identity, to losing one's friends/associates, to losing food/shelter as a result of losing income - rather than the single, immediate threat of a predator. The things that you stand to lose when you lose a job are things that come from interaction and exchange with other people. Regaining what you've lost requires setting up a replacement network of interaction and exchange. (Hello again, Facebook!)

Additionally, regaining an income requires information about potential new jobs. Surviving the threat of job loss requires interaction with other people. Whether you choose to call engaging in this interaction 'fighting' or 'befriending' probably reflects aspects of your personality/worldview more so than it reflects the actual behavior and the reasons for it. Or maybe it reflects actual gender differences in preference for a particular worldview. I have to wonder - Is there a measurable difference in success and/or personal happiness, independent of gender, that comes from internalizing one of these models over the other? "I wondered which one is right. Or, are they both right?" (q)

As to my personal application of the tend and befriend response... I believe I'll spend the better part of today 'tending' my humble abode, which is in dire need of such. I generally ignore this particular chore, but somehow I find it oddly soothing right now. Likewise, I'll probably attempt to tend/befriend coworkers and friends alike with the application of baked goods. ;)

A Multi-dimensional Assessment of Belief

"But out of limitations comes creativity."

I find myself lamenting the limitations of the standard believer/nonbeliever dichotomy. More specifically, I hate that the word 'skeptic' has come to signify a dogmatic group to which one belongs, rather than an esteemed state of critical thinking. It got me thinking about why a person holds a particular set of beliefs, and how we might more accurately identify the reasons for a person's adherence to a particular belief.

So here's today's two-bit attempt at improving the world.

Think of this as a Myers-Briggs type personality assessment. (I'll have a name for it by the end of this post.) Let me explain the dimensions...

Self <-------> Authority (Source of Beliefs)
This dimension reflects the likely source of a person's beliefs. Is he a critical thinker who examines arguments and evidence for himself before reaching a decision? Or is he content to let an accepted authority figure tell him what is right/wrong?

Diverse <-------> Homogeneous (Environmental Preference)
This dimension reflects a person's preference for social environment. Does he prefer a diverse group of friends with differing beliefs? Or is he more comfortable associating with people who possess similar beliefs and values?

Uncertain <-------> Certain (Tolerance for Uncertainty)
This dimension reflects a person's tolerance for uncertainty. Is he willing to act on information that he is not completely certain about (high tolerance for uncertainty), or is he likely to hold off on acting in the face of uncertainty?

I would argue that these dimensions are autonomous enough that a score on one scale does not necessarily predict scores on the other scales. But that's just my hunch. Certainly you could see where a person who had a higher tolerance for uncertainty might prefer a more diverse social group, but it need not follow. A person who is required by some other aspect of his life to have a high tolerance for uncertainty may actually prefer a more homogeneous social group. (There are limits to our ability to tolerate uncertainty.)

What would this scale be useful for? In theory, it could predict a person's tendency toward affiliations with belief-based groups, and their willingness to act based in support of that affiliation. A person who prefers a homogeneous social group, but who is not willing to accept 'truth' from authority, may be less likely to commit aggressive acts in the name of that group's agenda. A person who prefers a homogeneous social group, and who has a low tolerance for uncertainty, may react more aggressively to perceived threats to that group's stability, whether ideological or social.

Here's an interesting quote that I found in the blogosphere today - "We can signal loyalty to a group by showing our confidence in its beliefs. And our ability to offer many reasonable arguments for its beliefs suggests such confidence. But sometimes we can show even stronger loyalty by showing a willingness to embrace unreasonable arguments for our group’s beliefs. Someone who supports a group because he thinks it has reasonable supporting arguments might well desert that group should he find better arguments against it. Someone willing to embrace unreasonable arguments for his group shows a willingness to continue supporting them no matter which way the argument winds blow." (q) This quote suggests that parsing the reasons why a person holds a particular beliefs (especially one whose 'truth' value is questionable) might be of value in predicting their actions.

For all I know, something similar already exists. I still don't know what to call my proposed assessment, so I'm having a hard time googling for something similar. (I did find a few interesting things though.) My apologies if I reinvented your wheel.

In addition to the uses I've just described, I'd like to see people substitute this three-part self-assessment any time they feel like identifying themselves as a 'believer' or a 'skeptic' of any kind. At the very least we'll be getting a more honest picture of why you hold that viewpoint.

So... who has some grant money for me to develop this idea? :)

Between Man and Man (Pt II)

"You have to turn the sheep loose before you can start to herd them."

"Authority is easily abused. But authority can do good. It takes power to make the real changes needed in the world. A good person who is good at dealing with power can make the world a better place for everyone."

"Only thing that's on my mind is who's gonna run this town tonight."

The ironic thing about power is that everyone thinks they're good at managing it. Even me. But that doesn't mean that I'm actually good at managing it. Judgments about your own use of power are only valid when made by someone else.

Recently I was empanelled on a six-person jury in a trial for two civil offenses. In Our Fair State, only a five-person majority is required in order to convict in this situation. But we were asked to try for a unanimous verdict.

[Disclaimer: I'm going to grossly overdramatize my (internal monologue) here to make a point. Though this was not what was running through my mind at the time, the fact that I can think about it this way now indicates that similar knowledge/feelings may have existed in my subconscious at the time. I have nothing but respect for my fellow jurors, especially The Dissenter, who held out for two hours against the onslaught of my brilliant logic and dynamic personality. ;) ]

Once the jury was sequestered, our first task was to appoint a foreman. (Not It! Never be the face of authority.) So I quickly sized up the situation and nominated the person who turned out to be The Dissenter. He was quick, confident, and articulate, and there were no objections. Aside from me, he was probably the most dynamic person in the room. [What an ego, eh? ;) ]

Unfortunately, the first thing he wanted to talk about was something that the defense attorney had mentioned in his opening statement but never during the actual trial. Anything said in the opening or closing statements cannot be considered as evidence. (Silly sheep! Tricks are for kids!) Yours truly feels compelled to pipe up and stop this nonsense before it goes too far. He resists me. I persist. (Fight me! Do it! Bring it!)

[Disclaimer: I like to fight/compete/argue/debate with a worthy opponent. I can kick ass and take names, and I'm good at it. And I like it. Fear me.]

At this point, I realize that someone else (Me!) is going to have to take charge of this discussion, but not in an overt or disruptive way that destabilizes the group dynamic. The first move? Take control of the white board. [Did I mention that I once went to a literary costume ball as The Art of War?] Give everyone your visual of the situation. There were two offenses, each of which was comprised of two elements. We were all in agreement with the first element in each count, and after only a brief discussion, we were in agreement on the second element of the second count. I diagram this for us to reinforce a sense of accomplishment and unity, and to emphasize our point of disagreement - the second element of the first offense - in order to focus the discussion.

The wording of the second element of the first offense was deliberately vague, and as a result we had to come to an agreement not only as to what 'under the influence' and 'impaired' meant, but also whether or not the defendant had been demonstrably impaired. The evidence left enough room for argument on this point, though five of us rather quickly agreed that the defendant was impaired. The Dissenter held out at this point, not out of stubbornness, but because he actually wasn't sure.

And now we deliberated. And by 'we', I mean mostly him and me. (Bring it!) While we both got a little loud, we both heard each other's arguments and responded to the arguments rather than something else. [Nothing but respect for you, dude. Not many people can handle me when I get going. I won't presume to speak for you, but I enjoyed our deliberation.]

Eventually, with the help of the juror next to me, we finally convinced The Dissenter that the defendant had been impaired. I won't rehash all the arguments that were employed, except to say that they were brilliant! [Geez, squash the ego already!]

What's disturbing to me is that it was easy for me to take charge of that situation. And I did it because I thought I was the best-qualified, smartest, and most competent person in the room. [Damn, woman! How did your ego get that big?] I knew enough about human behavior and group dynamics to be able to manipulate the situation and do it. And I was relentless in applying every argument at my disposal to winning - er, convincing The Dissenter that I/we were right. And I liked it. And because the rest of the group was on the same side as me, I was perhaps more focused on convincing The Dissenter that he was wrong than I was on considering the fact that he might be right. [I still don't think he was right. I'm just saying...]

And for hours afterward I was still wound up in that weird way you get wound up after you've fought and won. This disturbed me more than anything - the intensity of the whole thing, and the fact that I liked it.

Almost everyone thinks that they'd be great at handling power. Hell, I'm sure a great many of us think that we're the 'most qualified' to have such power, whether in the workplace or in a group dynamic. But once you have a certain amount of effort invested in getting power or in obtaining a certain outcome, it becomes increasingly difficult to back down from your position. Not that you should want to, but that status and the ability to direct future actions are now attached to your actions, and attempting to hold your position/power may be more about your status than it is about doing the right thing. For some inexplicable reason, power feels good, and when you have it, it's hard to give it up.

In our culture we routinely elevate people to positions of celebrity/influence - in the realms of spirit and science, as well as other realms. We allow the media to build these people up to us as authorities who are worthy of respect, and we give it to them. [Journalists scare me.] We hand them power, without realizing that power changes a person, and there are very few people who can handle it well. Ironically, we also rely on the media to tell us when these authorities have over-stepped some perceived boundary in thought or conduct, and we allow the media to destroy our ability to trust or respect these same people.

An individual is always fallible. An idea may have merit (or not), but too often we choose to focus on the individual instead of his/her ideas. It's easier. It settles that need that most of us have to be dominated. It gives us someone to fight against. It's easier to set up and get excited about contests between man and man than it is to get excited about a contest purely between ideas. But the individual will always make mistakes, and we will cheer and move on. The individual is always fallible.

Rather than choosing between men in whom you will put your trust, choose between ideas. Choosing between ideas is much harder to do. You will want to use the easy cues of the personal charisma and charm of the individual in order to make judgments about his/her ideas, but personal attributes are misleading. And the individual may have an agenda. You are always better off doing the hard work of choosing between ideas, rather than choosing between individuals.

Between Man and Man (Pt I)

"Pity those who seek for shepherds instead of longing for freedom."

Back in the days of the Coffee Evangelist, I had started to make a list of the things I believed. It's been well over a year now, and I only remember one thing from that list - I believe that no man should place himself between another man and God.

Now, the atheists among you will no doubt read that as an indictment against the notion of priests and organized religion. And it is. But it is also an indictment against anyone who would use any appeal to authority as a way to tell another man what to think about God.

Before I read The God Delusion, my thoughts about it were pretty much limited to "Poor sap. He actually thinks it's about God." After I read The God Delusion, I had to wonder if Dawkins didn't understand the more fundamental truth of things - It's not about God. It's about power over one's fellow man, and man's desire to be reassured that someone smarter/wiser/holier than himself has figured things out and can tell him the answers. You'll remember that TGD begins by describing Dawkins' perceptions of Einsteins' views on God/religion. You'll remember that I was heartily annoyed that Dawkins peppered his book with similar claims about great scientists - He was an atheist, and he was smarter/wiser than you. Do you really think you know better than him? (Sorry Dawkins, but it smacked of that whether you said it openly or not.) For all the convincing arguing Dawkins did about the evidence (or not) for God, he still couldn't resist putting in the appeals to an authority greater than himself.

You see, it's really not about God. God is an unanswerable question, because a fundamental aspect of the idea of God is that S/He is outside of our realm of experience. I have nothing against debating the merits/existence of God if you feel you need or want to do that. But do it respectably, by discussing the only thing you truly have - your own ideas, thoughts, and experiences - without resorting to a tally of which respectable person falls on which side of the debate. (Well done on that point, Horgan.)

And decide if your real problem is with God, or with organized religion (Man). Because I'm betting that almost everything you think you know about God actually came from Man. Even those tablets of inscribed stone/gold that are supposed to have come directly from God. Unless God dropped those tablets at your feet, your knowledge of them came from Man.

I wish that God were something intensely personal. I wish that each man (and of course I mean woman also) questioned the unknown aspects of his universe on his own and decided what to believe based on his own thinking and experience. I wouldn't presume to tell someone that he can't feel the presence of God, or the peace that passes understanding, except to say that if he finds these experiences too distressing, there's probably a medication that can help with that. But when one man thinks his vision of whatever is out there is superior to that of others, then the problems start. When one man becomes convinced that he must share that vision, he becomes an authority, at least on that topic. (And I know what some of you are thinking. Yes, that goes for scientific visions too. Even mine.)

When one man becomes convinced that he must defend his vision, he is no longer working for his own understanding - he is fighting for the loyalty/respect/right to influence other people. And once you are in that position, it's very hard not to resort to appeals to the authority of others who shared your vision. Because you have tasted power, and it tastes good. (Pt II will be about my recent experience as a juror, and let's just say... sometimes I scare me.)

Authority is an inescapable consequence of organized group activity. Any time there is a division of labor - such as is required for a civilized society to function - or task specialization among members of a group, one member comes to know things that the others do not. He becomes a trusted authority in that thing in which he specializes. People come to him when they need advice or information about his area of expertise. And this system can work well, because we usually recognize how it enhances our collective strength. We can't all be doctors - who would put out fires?, etc. I just don't think that our knowledge or ideas about God are something that we need to trust to others. God shouldn't be an acceptable area of specialization. You might specialize in the history of the idea of God, or the reasons people want to believe in God. But you do not and should not claim to specialize in God. You do not and should not claim to have any special authority from God.

Let me say it again - God is an unanswerable question, by definition. Talking about God only shifts our attention away from the real problems that prompted us to think about God in the first place. (I can't believe I'm writing yet another post that talks about God. Really. It annoys me.) And those problems are between Man and Man. Even those problems that appear to have no origin in the actions of Man (e.g., natural disasters) can be alleviated somewhat by the efforts of Man. And because Man is a creature of diverse ideas, he will argue and fight for the right to lead other men according to his vision of how these problems should be solved. But his vision should never be confused with God's vision. Even if he believes God may have communicated something to him, he is the one communicating it to you. And he is a man. You are never being asked to choose between God and Man; you are being asked to choose between man and man. Even when you are choosing between your own experience and the experience of others - man and man.

At some point, you will follow someone whose vision or charisma or other attributes you admire. But never give up the right to question that person, or their actions. Never let them convince you that their position is unassailable, or their authority is beyond reproach.

I know what you're thinking - "You're sounding a little preachy there, missy." And in Pt II I'll tell you exactly why you should never unthinkingly give me power or authority.