"Freely given and freely received; freely bestowed and freely embraced. This is the way of love. For love never forces itself upon another, nor obligates another to accept what love gives. And love gives hopeful that the gift will be received and appreciated, but with no thought or expectation of getting something in return."
(For K, who was stuck on having to buy Christmas gifts.)
Well, it's officially Winter here, and my poor car has survived its first-ever winter weather accident. Unemployment is less than a week away, but we who were left behind have heavily medicated ourselves with baked goods and mirth.
The winter holidays are traditionally a time of generosity. The giving of gifts to family and friends, and the sharing of wealth and self with those less fortunate, can add meaning and pleasure to the holidays. But as with so many things that have become ritualized, something that is expected is never quite as pleasurable as something that is spontaneous.
The phrase 'freely given' has come to my mind several times this holiday season. I had thought that phrase to be pagan in origin, but googling it produces results that are largely Christian in context. The origin of the phrase is perhaps less important than the idea it conveys - there is something better about, if not critical to, the notion of giving when the giving is done without the expectation of something in return.
Too often acts of generosity come with the expectation of a reward of some kind: recognition, or reciprocation in kind. We have Christmas gift exchanges where we set limits on what can be given so that no one feels cheated by the exchange, and perhaps also so that no one feels overly prideful about the exchange. We stress equality because we do not give and receive freely.
There is perhaps no more incompatible worldview for the future of humanism than the one that treats everything as a potential medium of exchange. Human beings revolt at the idea that certain things can/should be bought, sold, or traded instead of freely given. That response may be irrational in light of evidence that anything really can be bought, sold, or traded, but it is fundamentally human to want to give. Spontaneously doing/giving something to make another person happy or in response to a genuine need feels good. Why should this be?
Why do people who donate blood without receiving compensation stop doing so when plans are revealed to charge patients for the freely-donated blood? Why does nothing kill genuine desire like the expectation of having to put out? Why does giving feel better than a commercial exchange? Why does the TSO song Old City Bar always bring tears to my eyes?
Of course the flip side to giving freely is receiving freely, without attempting to 'clear the debt' of the giver's gift. It's difficult, for example, to take a compliment without feeling obligated to return it. As a society we have evolved a whole set of unspoken rules about the expected reciprocity of giving. One of my favorite examples of this unspoken expectation of reciprocity is the persistent idea that "the cost of a wedding gift should equal the the cost of the guest's meal." (That one kept me from going to a wedding once; the bride had been very explicit about how much the dinner was costing.)
Or the third date rule. (sigh)
If there's an enhancement to be made to our notions of 'giving' and 'generosity', let it be that what we give, we give freely, without expectation of something in return. What we have been given, we receive freely, without being put under obligation. It's not always the easiest thing to do. Sometimes you have given so much that you can't help but feel as though you are owed something. But you move from 'giving' to 'trading' only when the terms of the exchange are spelled out before the exchange takes place.
In the absence of such terms, what you have been given is a gift. Take it freely, without obligation.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Right Before Your Eyes
"What is for sure is I'm gonna to go
I'm gonna to live and I'm going to learn"
They say that self-knowledge is the key to enlightenment. And there's nothing like a major life change for pushing you to answer the questions 'Who am I?' and 'What do I want?'. Imminent unemployment has pushed my coworkers and I to answer these questions in concrete terms.
It's fascinating to watch the process of self-discovery unfold. And for all the power that self-knowledge puts at your disposal, it's amazing how little of it some people have. Which leads me to a few questions - Do other people always know your better than you know yourself? Are we built to hide certain truths from ourselves about who we are, in favor of certain ideals that we've been programmed to believe in? If so, how well can the process of self-discovery take place in isolation?
I'm continuing to struggle with being honest about who I am and what I want. I've always thought - and to a certain extent still do think - that there were certain things I had to do, and certain things that it was better to be. In the past, I've had a hard time identifying what I really wanted to do because I couldn't ignore what I thought I had to do. If I'm willing to take the trouble to carefully identify what I believe, shouldn't I be as honest as possible in identifying what I believe about myself too?
Who am I?
I'm gonna to live and I'm going to learn"
They say that self-knowledge is the key to enlightenment. And there's nothing like a major life change for pushing you to answer the questions 'Who am I?' and 'What do I want?'. Imminent unemployment has pushed my coworkers and I to answer these questions in concrete terms.
It's fascinating to watch the process of self-discovery unfold. And for all the power that self-knowledge puts at your disposal, it's amazing how little of it some people have. Which leads me to a few questions - Do other people always know your better than you know yourself? Are we built to hide certain truths from ourselves about who we are, in favor of certain ideals that we've been programmed to believe in? If so, how well can the process of self-discovery take place in isolation?
I'm continuing to struggle with being honest about who I am and what I want. I've always thought - and to a certain extent still do think - that there were certain things I had to do, and certain things that it was better to be. In the past, I've had a hard time identifying what I really wanted to do because I couldn't ignore what I thought I had to do. If I'm willing to take the trouble to carefully identify what I believe, shouldn't I be as honest as possible in identifying what I believe about myself too?
Who am I?
- INTJ - The Mastermind. (I can hear your laughter.) "Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists...." "Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency." "Problem-solving is highly stimulating to Masterminds, who love responding to tangled systems that require careful sorting out. Ordinarily, they verbalize the positive and avoid comments of a negative nature; they are more interested in moving an organization forward than dwelling on mistakes of the past." [Disclosure: The 'I' and the 'N' are solid; the 'T' and the 'J' are closer to the middle of the spectrum.]
- I thrive on challenge, but I refuse to have the same fight over and over again.
- I enjoy being creative. I especially enjoy being creative in response to challenge.
What do I want?
This is where things get more difficult. I've never had a clear goal about where I wanted to end up in life. Do I want to be a published writer/public speaker? Do I want to spend my days blissfully solving problems in an ivory tower somewhere? Or do I want to be on the front lines, taking on important issues and making a difference in real-time?
For eight years I thought that there was something that I had to say. In the process of saying it, I was surprised to discover that there was something else that I wanted to say. Over the last year or two, I've become less attached to the idea that I had to be a scientist, and more comfortable with the idea that I could do something equally important by establishing groundbreaking precedents and arguments in the field of cognitive liberty.
I'm still in the process of gathering information. (Thanks to B and M for independently pushing 'leadership'!) In terms of practical moves, I'm looking at what it takes to get an agent and/or a publishing deal for The Book. (The good news is that I have a good start on having a marketable 'platform'.) I'm also looking at gaining some experience in a legal environment to see if I have what it takes to be a lawyer. (I'm guessing it's more than just an exceptional ability to formulate razor-sharp arguments. ;)
And no worries - this blog will resume its regular schedule of philosophical musings.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A Vindication of Love (Pt II)
Some more thoughts on love, expressed in quotes...
"Sensible people are not inspired people. Sensible people, in fact, are often shortsighted people. They cannot penetrate into the secrets of the universe... To see into the core of things, you have to be transported. You have to be in love."
"In order to be inflamed intellectually, we need to be enlisted emotionally. In the absence of emotional engagement, most people do not interrogate themselves about topics for which there is no immediate or pragmatic urgency... Love makes us explore. Love makes us blaze through new subjects and new cultures; it makes us hatch new visions."
"The love between the two thinkers was not exclusive, but inclusive. It asked. It comprehended. It cherished. And it survived."
"The two philosophers began by identifying the truths about each other and ended by identifying the truths about their time."
"It is curious that only those incapable of producing great work believe that the contrary is the proper conduct: to take science, art, or politics seriously and disdain love affairs as mere frivolities."
"They knew that, far from representing an act of weakness or docility, women's love - like men's - is a struggle. It is conquest and self-conquest. Far from proving incompatible with a muscular intellectual life, it is its natural counterpart. Strong thoughts engender strong emotions. A woman accustomed to reasoning for herself is unlikely to leave courting, desiring, sacrificing, swaggering, or indeed self-dramatization to the opposite sex. She is unlikely to shrink from a fight."
"Love, for the strong-hearted and strong-minded woman, is a game like all others - albeit perhaps the most important game."
"We had played too many games for me not to try this one too."
"Still, after all they had been through together, he understood her more than any other man on earth."
"...even while lovers are striving to be truthful about their feelings to their quarry, they must hold something back for the quarry to hunt in them."
"Sensible people are not inspired people. Sensible people, in fact, are often shortsighted people. They cannot penetrate into the secrets of the universe... To see into the core of things, you have to be transported. You have to be in love."
"In order to be inflamed intellectually, we need to be enlisted emotionally. In the absence of emotional engagement, most people do not interrogate themselves about topics for which there is no immediate or pragmatic urgency... Love makes us explore. Love makes us blaze through new subjects and new cultures; it makes us hatch new visions."
"The love between the two thinkers was not exclusive, but inclusive. It asked. It comprehended. It cherished. And it survived."
"The two philosophers began by identifying the truths about each other and ended by identifying the truths about their time."
"It is curious that only those incapable of producing great work believe that the contrary is the proper conduct: to take science, art, or politics seriously and disdain love affairs as mere frivolities."
"They knew that, far from representing an act of weakness or docility, women's love - like men's - is a struggle. It is conquest and self-conquest. Far from proving incompatible with a muscular intellectual life, it is its natural counterpart. Strong thoughts engender strong emotions. A woman accustomed to reasoning for herself is unlikely to leave courting, desiring, sacrificing, swaggering, or indeed self-dramatization to the opposite sex. She is unlikely to shrink from a fight."
"Love, for the strong-hearted and strong-minded woman, is a game like all others - albeit perhaps the most important game."
"We had played too many games for me not to try this one too."
"Still, after all they had been through together, he understood her more than any other man on earth."
"...even while lovers are striving to be truthful about their feelings to their quarry, they must hold something back for the quarry to hunt in them."
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
"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.
Friday, November 27, 2009
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. ;)
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. ;)
Monday, November 9, 2009
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? :)
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? :)
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
