The Good Shepherd (Pt I)

"I am quite aware that it is necessary for the success of any complex undertaking that one man should do the thinking and directing and in general bear the responsibility. But the led must not be compelled, they must be able to choose their leader."

What I wish political elections reminded me of... "He who takes the greatest danger, he who bears the heaviest burden, that man is King."

What political elections actually remind me of... "All history is only one long story to this effect: Men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others."

People are reasonably smart about choosing a leader. In small groups. In real-world settings. In situations where they have seen the options in action.

They will follow the person who is the smartest. Who has the best information and/or can use it the most effectively. Who can communicate to the group what the group needs to know. Who acts for the good of the group.

They do respect the person who takes on the dirty or difficult jobs that no one else wants to do. Who will bear the responsibility of a bad outcome without trying to shift the blame. Who does not have unreasonable expectations of them. Who is not afraid to consult them about what they know.

So why does the process of choosing leaders for much larger groups (e.g., states or nations) deviate so much from these simple yet effective criteria and observations?

That's largely a rhetorical question. I have no intention of trying to summarize the psychology of political elections. I am merely baffled by the discrepancy in how people behave in elections and how they decide to follow/nominate a 'leader' in their immediate circumstances/environment. And since I have a blog wherein I can rant about such things, here are just a few thoughts on leaders and leadership...

• A leader should fill a recognized need of the group. A group may need direction in completing a task, or they may need a representative voice, but they should have a clearly defined need before seeking a leader to fill that need. A leader should also be clear about the needs that s/he has been called to fill, and how s/he will go about filling those needs. The absence of a need should mean the absence of a leader.
• A potential leader should be assessed on his/her merits alone, not in comparison to 'the other guy'. Nothing is so dispiriting to the group psyche as feeling like you have only chosen 'the lesser of two evils'. Nothing (to me) embodies the antithesis of leadership so much as a potential leader who will encourage any perception of 'I'm not as bad as...'.
• Leadership is a burden that should be borne gracefully, not a title that should be sought desperately. Leadership should be a situation-specific response, not a coveted status. Nothing makes a leader so useless to his/her group as his/her own self-interest in preserving the status of 'leader'.

I've cast my votes in this election already, but not without thinking a great many thoughts in line with those stated above...

The Second-Class Employee

"Nothing, I am sure, calls forth the faculties so much as the being obliged to struggle with the world."

"The company also expects to use 150 to 250 seasonal, or "casual," employees who would do the same work as regular, full-time employees but for less pay and no benefits." (q)

Welcome New Employee,

We are pleased to have you on board as a [casual/seasonal/temporary] worker here at Company X. If you've been reading the newspapers lately, you'll have noticed that positions like yours are becoming an increasingly-popular way for companies to cut labor costs. Of course, you're probably just happy to have a job at this point, but let me spell out a few things for you about your new position...

The most important thing is, of course, that you are expendable. You were hired to fill a need, but that you will also be the first to go once that need has been met, regardless of how well you perform and/or how poorly the permanent employees perform in comparison to you.

You will have no benefits. This is the primary difference between you and a permanent employee. We don't want to incur the additional expense of your health insurance and your paid time-off. Voila! To avoid this expense, all we have to do is lay you off every now and then.

Because you are expendable, it will be assumed by everyone that eventually you will no longer be here. We will act accordingly and not invest too much effort in getting to know you. Also, the fact that you make less money and have no benefits makes us uncomfortable and reminds us just how close we might be to losing our jobs/benefits. So be prepared to only socialize with those sharing your status.

There's a good chance that we permanent employees sold you out to save our own jobs, but no gratitude will be forthcoming. We'll mostly just assume that you are stupid for agreeing to do this job for less pay and no benefits.

You will have to work harder than a permanent employee to be perceived as valuable. Since you aren't going to be here that long, we aren't going to invest a lot of time or effort in your training, so you'd better catch on quickly, and don't ever let us see you slacking.

Insecurity is your new companion. Really. You have to keep in mind that this job will soon end, and you should be thinking about what you're going to do after this. We also reserve the right to move up your end date at will, according to our needs.

Good news! We might keep you on longer than we said we would. Nothing about your status changes though, so don't get comfortable. (It'll be up to you to notice if we are violating any labor laws by having you as a de facto permanent/full-time employee without compensating you as such.)

Perhaps the most valuable piece of advice we can give you is this - It is not in your interest to help us improve our processes. Any such improvements will only result in us no longer needing your services that much sooner.

Like we said before, you're probably just happy to have a job - any job - right now. This isn't the kind of job you take out of anything except need/desperation. We know this, and frankly, it doesn't raise our opinion of you. Expect us to act accordingly. But do keep showing up to work with a smile on your face!

We can't tell you how restructuring our labor force to include [casual/seasonal/temporary] workers is not contributing to the development and perpetuation of a caste-system in the American labor force. We can tell you that 1) we will realize substantial savings in our labor costs, and 2) we will be reluctant to let those savings go once we can no longer plead this as a necessity of 'the economy'. Ironically, the continuous flux of you [casual/seasonal/temporary] workers in and out of the work force might actually contribute to a much slower economic recovery. But that's not really our problem.

Any psychological problems you might be having as a result of your second-class status can be directed to our Employee Assistance Hotline. But we advise that you try not to dwell on the inequalities. After all, doing a job well is its own reward!

Welcome Aboard!

Your New Employer

Free To Be... Disabled?

"...by intentionally bringing a child into the world who has a disability, it significantly violates the child’s right to an open future."

"The capacity to empathize with others is undeniably a revered characteristic in our society." (q)

"But if we want to continue to have exceptional, creative geniuses, those pathological traits are an absolute necessity."

Ask and ye shall receive.

For a few weeks now, I've been chewing on the issue raised by this post: Is it morally correct to select for a genetic trait that most people consider to be a disability? The post uses the example of non-syndromic, autosomal recessive deafness, but also touches on the autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In both cases, advocacy movements have formed to promote (among other things) the right to intentionally reproduce atypical/disabled offspring. In the case of non-syndromic, autosomal recessive deafness, preimplantation genetic diagnosis makes this possible (though not yet with ASD).

In some more-recent, unrelated web surfing, I came across the idea that people with Asperger's syndrome actually had higher levels of (affective) empathy than neurotypical (NT) controls. (Additional web surfing brought me to numerous instances of aspies affirming this claim.) That brought me right back to this section from Buchman's post... "This is because of the “dual nature” of ASD, that is, while these individuals may have difficulties negotiating the social world and possess other traits that might be regarded as disabling, some individuals with ASD tend to be intellectually gifted and others even possess savant-like qualities. Indeed, Ludwig Wittgenstein, arguably one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, was believed to have had Asperger syndrome. Since Wittgenstein’s (and others) intellectual giftedness is inseparable from other traits causing disability, then obliging to not bring such individuals into the world would be a loss to society as a whole. This latter dilemma is what Gillett refers to as the unwitting sacrifice problem: the ethical challenges that arise when selecting for disabilities that can cause suffering in the individual, but can also be advantageous to both individuals and society. Gillett notices that, in selecting for disability, these individuals are born as unwitting sacrifices to society’s or parent’s desire for certain genetic traits that are deemed valuable. Ought we permit somebody to be an unwitting sacrifice?" (My emphasis.) Does increased empathic sensitivity (and its presumable decrease in the desire to cause suffering in others) add to the balance to 'justify' selecting for individuals with Asperger syndrome, and how is that weighed against the suffering of the individuals involved?

[SIDE NOTE: Creativity seems to be another area where the advantage/disadvantage line might get a little blurry.]

Historically, people have been mostly free to mate with whomever they choose, with all the incumbent hopes of capturing a portion of something from that person in the resultant offspring. The genius, the athletic prowess, the personality, or the simple outward aesthetic. In this respect, the child was subject to the whims of the parents. Any damage or disadvantage to the child as a result of that particular genetic pairing may have been deemed unfortunate, but the child could not hold the parents to account for his/her misfortunes. Obviously, genetic testing technology changes that critical portion of the relationship between parent and child. Before 'genetic awareness', a parent could not be held responsible for the genetic 'condition' of the child. A child could not blame the parents for wilfully inflicting a genetic disadvantage upon him/her, or for failing to give him/her any specific genetic advantage. After 'genetic awareness', a parent has a new set of choices to (possibly) regret later, and a child has a new criterion by which to judge his/her parents. I can't help but wonder how the parent-child relationship will change as the parent's ability to design the child increases.

But what finally prompted me to write this post was the following thought...

We currently know quite a bit about what is needed to successfully nurture a child, yet we do next to nothing to regulate the environment, stimulation, etc. that a parent must provide for their child. Why should we presume any greater responsibility in regulating how parents choose to 'nature' their child? If parents are free to make poor choices with regards to the nurturing of their children, are they equally free to make poor choices in the 'naturing' of their children? (And at what point do 'differing values' become 'poor choices'?) How have adult children responded to the knowledge that their parents (knowingly) did not give them every nurtural advantage, and what might this tell us about how children will react to being given a natural (genetic) disadvantage?

[This is not intended to be a definitive opinion on the topic of genetic selection, but rather a small contribution to a larger, longer discussion.]

A Creed for the Third Millennium

"Give these pages to the world, and there shall be another mighty religion, another priesthood, another Us and another Them, one set against the other. In a hundred years, a million will have died for the words we hold in our hands; in a thousand years, tens of millions. All for this paper."

(Because I've now heard 'non-overlapping magisteria' one too many times in recent weeks.)

Who knew? Certainly not I, back when I decided to study science. Or the person I was when I was a professional scientist. I even managed to make it through graduate school without getting seriously immersed in (or even really being aware of) the idea that science might be at war with religion. Or that the idea of 'God' was something on which a scientist would/should ever be pressured to comment. All this I learned from the blogosphere. (sigh)

In my head things are a little simpler. (And devoid of Latin.)

• Spirituality - The individual experience of the Unknown. The curiosity, the anomalous, the wonder, the introspection, the yearning. The subjective experience, and its consequences.
• Religion - The communal enterprise with respect to the Unknown. What Man chooses to share with his fellows. The objective experience - what is done with/for/by others with respect to the Unknown.

Having defined religion thusly (and distinctly from spirituality), it is (only) now possible to compare science and religion. Gould's idea of the relationship between science and religion - called non-overlapping magisteria - has been summarized as follows... "[T]he magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." I think that this is an absurd statement, for reasons you may be able to infer from my above description of religion.

Religion was the precursor of Science in Man's attempt to explain the past and predict the future. Because Man benefits by perceiving Order rather than Chaos, those explanations which most satisfactorily explain the past and enable successful predictions about the future survive. When (and where) Man had insufficient facts with which to explain or predict, he (historically) sought to establish Order in his perceptions via the simplest route - a single source, generally conceived in the image Man knew best... his own. A God, whose motivations and desires (being similar to Man's) might be understood, and having been understood, might be acted upon in a way that would benefit Man. Because Man also benefits by being part of a cohesive social unit, and cohesion is defined in large part by shared beliefs, it behooved Man to instruct his fellows and control the behavioral cohesion of his social unit.

This has been the historical function of Religion (the communal enterprise) - to explain and predict, and instruct and control. To perceive 'explain and predict' as the sole purview of Science is to ignore the entire historical context of Religion, and the foundation by which Religion holds its ability to instruct and control. (It also fails to acknowledge those aspects of human experience that (mainstream) Science has not (yet) adequately explained. Like it or not, Religion still offers an explanation for many of these experiences.)

Yet, to function as it was intended, Science cannot be concerned with exerting social control. Control requires suppressing contradiction and stifling contention in favor of maintaining cohesion. Such is contrary to the nature and spirit of true Science. This means that Science, though it can inform us, cannot and should not be held up as the final arbiter of what human beings should do. Science can say 'If you do X, then everything we have observed to date tells us that Y will happen as a result." But Science must stop there, and remain our servant in that respect, and Scientists must never become another set of masters to whom we defer. Science cannot give us a creed, set in stone, without ceasing to be an enterprise of inquiry.

As the explanations offered by Religion are challenged and surpassed by those offered by Science, it becomes possible to challenge the instructions and controls passed down by Religion as well. In many areas this is overdue. Yet this does not mean that any idea put forth by Religion as a moral restraint or control is necessarily a bad idea. It simply means that the dialogue about what is right and what is wrong will have to continually evolve as humanity wrestles still more self-determining power from the realm of the Unknown. Scientists should be prepared to engage in that dialogue, but without assuming the demeanor of conquerors or kings.