The world is full of many ideas and belief systems. Many of these ideas are contradictory, and they can't all be true. It is obvious that believing something does not mean it is reality, no matter how many people believe it, no matter how good those people are.
Yet a lot of people are motivated to convince you to believe like they do. Many of these people are highly skilled in the arts of persuasion, and we're all at risk of believing a lie.
So how can you sort fact from fiction, truth from lies? It's not always possible, but good mental habits can increase your odds. Ultimately, the best judge of reality is you. If your goal is like mine, to bring your beliefs as close to reality as possible, then read on.
Mental Habits for Finding Truth
1. Accept the idea that you are probably wrong about some things. Not all of us can be right all the time. The chances of you being right about everything you currently believe are pretty slim. If your end goal is to be right about as much as possible, you'd better start feeling comfortable about being wrong!
When we encounter something that may prove us wrong, our brains produce discomfort. This is called Cognitive Dissonance. It may make you feel angry, defensive, restless, confused, or uneasy. If you can learn to be comfortable with cognitive dissonance, and be open to new information that may change your mind about something, you'll be closer to the truth at the end of the day.
2. Realize your brain is susceptible to "Confirmation Bias". Confirmation bias is often commonly referred to as "selective memory". The brain is naturally in the habit of remembering or noticing only what it wants to. Usually, the things that grab our attention are those that support our existing beliefs. Information and events that may contradict our beliefs often go unnoticed.
For example, if you think all teenagers are hoodlums, you will notice all the news reports about teenagers being arrested. Those stories all go into a memory pile of mounting evidence to justify that position. You will probably not pay attention to or remember news stories about teens who volunteer at hospitals, or when a teen smiles and wishes you a merry Christmas. Statistically, most teens stay out of trouble, but you will definitely not notice that.
Awareness of this mental instinct will help open your mind to notice more aspects of reality, even when it doesn't fit your existing views.
3. There is no "Absolute Truth". Yes, there are many things we can objectively observe that are completely real within the context of human senses. Water is wet, the earth orbits the sun, humans require food to live. Reality is real, and insofar as anything can be tested, it's probably safe to say those things are absolutely true. Or self-evident, as Thomas Jefferson might say.
But there are many things that can't be tested (yet?) or have been tested with inconclusive results. There are many things that were tested and thought to be true, and then retested and found to be false.
There are also "subjective truths". For instance, I like chai tea quite a lot. Just because I like chai tea does not make it the best drink on earth, or the One True Drink. That's because you may hate it, and someone else may be allergic to it. It's really a matter of opinion, biology, or brain chemistry, all of which are unique to each individual.
When questioning objective, testable reality, it helps to seek out existing, objective research to find out if that thing is "true". Did a certain historical event really happen the way someone is claiming (or the way you were taught in schools)? Read about it from different sources, and note what kind of documentation exists to support the claims. Does a certain vitamin help cure a specific disease? What research has been done, and are the research methods sound? Will a certain proposed law resolve a problem or cause disruption? Research to see if that law exists in another part of the world, or if there are any existing statistics or rationales to back up any claims.
Once you find objective truths, be flexible enough to realize the world is a complex place. The evidence may be wrong or misinterpreted. Be ready to change your mind later on, if confronted with new information.
For subjective truths, realize that everyone is different. Be comfortable with your own subjective truths, while at the same time accepting of others. This will help you understand others better, but also be able to defend your own subjective beliefs without stepping on anyone else's rights to their own preferences.
In this, I include personal experiences, spiritual truths, psychology and personal growth, likes and dislikes, and interests.
Maybe you had a dream that really effected your life. The message in that dream was probably only meant for you. Maybe you read a book that changed your life. Maybe a philosophy or spiritual path makes you happy. These things strike specific chords in you, based on your temperament, personality, beliefs, goals, and past experiences. They probably won't effect everyone the same way.
Being able to separate objective truth (applies to everyone, can be tested and proven) from subjective truth (applies to you, cannot be tested or proven) is an important step on the road to thinking for yourself.
4. Question Everything. Just because you heard it, believe it, or saw photos of it, doesn't make it true. Looking for truth requires a habit of healthy skepticism.
Before adding a piece of information to your "Things That Are True" file in your mind, take a little time to research it. This is really easy and often takes only a few minutes, especially now that we have the internet. If you don't have time to research it, or can't find anything on it, add it to your "Things that I heard were true, but might not be" file. Be aware that some sources are more reliable than others. It may help to also research your sources, or try to find multiple sources.
It may also help to cast some doubts on everything you currently believe. Move everything you haven't verified into the "It Might Be True, But Am Not Sure" file. Only add them back to the "Things That Are True" file when you've verified through research. Or if you researched and found your belief to be false, of course throw it in the "Things I Once Believed Were True, But Found Out They Weren't" file.
Of course most subjective truths can only be researched so far, and often cannot be "proven". In this case, if it works for you, then it's true -- for you. That's the whole point of a subjective truth.
5. The world is not black and white. It's not even shades of gray. It's a rainbow of 32 million colors. Situations are complex. Issues have many facets. While it's good to have basic principles to guide you, it denies truth to blindly follow those principles in every situation without a little investigation and thought.
Usually people, things, ideas, and situations have certain characteristics. Almost nothing is absolutely good or totally evil. An idea may be unfeasible, impractical, or may have negative consequences, but it isn't "bad". Giving it such a simple label limits our thinking. It's more helpful to think about the actual characteristics that may make something undesirable. Maybe there are some merits to a "bad" idea that could be resolved. Maybe we can gain some insight on how the world works if we can view all the characteristics of a "bad" person or group, to help understand why they behave the way they do.
At the very least, we can better solve a problem if we understand specifically what caused it. If we focus on vague generalities like "bad", "evil", "no good", "stupid", and "useless", we cripple our ability to solve anything.
If someone is telling you X is totally negative or totally positive in some way, it probably isn't. This is a warning that this person is probably using black and white thinking, and may have limited judgment because of it.
6. Take what you like and leave the rest. Because the world is not black and white, it's important to realize there is truth to be found everywhere. A book or system of ideas may have some really truthful parts, but that does not mean the whole system of ideas is true or desirable, objectively or subjectively.
Do not reject an entire work or belief system just because of preconceived assumptions, because it has been labeled or framed a certain way. Chances are, there is something to learn from any school of thought, even if it's just to become more educated about why it's false.
Trust yourself to be a rational being. You will not be sucked in, converted, or "deceived" just by reading an opposing viewpoint, especially if you practice good mental habits.
It is possible to learn only what you need, and dump that which does not fit. I am no longer Christian, but the bible contains a few passages that still resonate with me and that I still live by. I've also adopted parts of Taoism, Neo-Objectivism, Zen Buddhism, and other religions and philosophies.
Likewise a historical book or scientific paper may be partially true and partially false. It makes no sense to throw it all out (or retain all of it) based on a few errors.
If a group or belief system asks you to stop seeking out other sources, or claims to have all the information you need, it is probably trying to control you and limit your reasoning ability. If the belief system only references its own research or literary works to prove itself true, it is also suspect.
7. Words mean different things to different people. Have you ever been in an argument that degenerated into semantics? Many debates would be better served if semantics were the first order of business, to get them out of the way and make sure everyone is speaking the same language.
Nearly everyone wants freedom, justice, and peace. The problem is, not everyone means the same thing when they use those words. The meanings may seem obvious, but even these basic words carry a lot of baggage. Let's break one down. Freedom. Are we talking about political freedom? Civil freedom? Financial freedom? When you say freedom, do you mean freedom from an oppressive government? Freedom from fear? Freedom from want? Freedom from responsibility?
Usually, our different perspectives on words come naturally. We learned the meaning of those words under different contexts. We have different source material. Sometimes, however, groups will change the meanings of words to purposefully limit the thinking of their members. When studying cults, researchers call this "Loading the Language". In 1984, George Orwell called it "Newspeak".
Some words can be charged with a lot of negativity, myths, assumptions, or preconceived notions that make it difficult to think or talk about the concepts they represent. Consider these words: Cult, War, Racism, Fascism, Leftist, Gay, Punk, Selfish, Polygamy, Drugs, Corporation. At least some of these words probably summon up a reaction, or a series of ideas and images. It's possible your assumptions are limited, and do not reflect a good understanding of these concepts.
Whether it is intentional or not, our understanding of language has an important bearing on our thinking. It may be helpful to revisit certain words or concepts now and then, think about them, and study what they mean to other people, to gain a fresh perspective. Expanding your vocabulary to include new words will help add to your library of concepts and add power to your thinking.
8. We are all human beings, not good groups vs. evil groups. Elitism and Us vs Them concepts are useful for dehumanizing others and limiting thought and idea-exchange between cultures and subcultures. It is a natural instinct that helped humanity survive through the days when small tribes fought over limited resources. But in today's world, it only divides where division may no longer be necessary.
Studies show that members of groups who hate other groups will make exceptions if they get to personally know a member of the opposing group. For instance, when a gay man comes out to his fundamentalist family, more often than not, the family will continue to love their own, even if they still believe homosexuality in general is wrong. This is the "Enemy Mine" scenario. While we may be wired to view groups of Others as enemies, we are also wired to nurture and protect those we know and understand.
While we don't need to agree with everyone on the planet (which would also separate our thoughts from reality), it is helpful to realize that in spite of our differences, we're all basically the same on many levels. We can learn more about the world by being curious and trying to understand the points of view of others.
9. Nobody's perfect. We've heard this cliche' before, yet some groups and schools of thinking will try to convince people that it is possible to find perfection, become totally pure, or reach some other type of impossible state.
By setting impossible standards, a group can keep a person in a vicious cycle of perpetual shame and unending work. A variation on this is the idea that we are inherently flawed in a deep, unrepairable way. This also leads to perpetual shame, as well as the need for someone or some thing to make up for these flaws.
The truth, as it often is, is something in the middle of these extremes. Each human being has a mix of unique flaws and strengths.
Rather than look outside for someone to save you from your irredeemable state, or struggle constantly to make yourself perfect, instead see life as a cycle of self-improvement. Identify your flaws by personal introspection and openness to external constructive criticism. Then, if a flaw bothers you or those you care about, seek ways to improve. Read books, get a therapist, meditate, journal, set goals, make habits. Be forgiving of yourself if progress is slow or if you seem to revert to your old ways.
10. Learn when to trust emotion, and when to trust reason. Emotions are a very valuable part of human existence, however, emotions are easily swayed, and do not always give the clearest view on reality.
Many persuasion techniques involve tricks to shut down intellect and turn on the emotional tap. If someone wants money, they may show you a video of a starving child. You may forget to ask whether your money will actually go to the starving child, or how your money will be used to feed the child. You may not wonder if there may be another charity that will feed more children, or help build infrastructure so the child can feed himself.
When making a decision on what to believe or how to act, go with reason over emotion when there is a choice. Sometimes, we don't have enough facts, and all we have left is "gut instinct". But when information is there, hedge your bet on logic, and you'll come out closer to reality.
11. Gain an understanding of Logic and common Logical Fallacies. Most people like to consider themselves open minded, rational people. In reality, a lot of people practice pseudo-logic and fall prey to logical fallacies.
If you never took a logic class in school (and maybe even if you have), chances are you've picked up some bad mental habits that lead to inaccurate conclusions.
A logical fallacy is an argument that seems logically sound, but is actually deeply flawed.
One of the most common is Ad Hominem, a fancy Latin word for a personal attack. The idea is that if the person making the argument has a character flaw, then their argument is false.
Another common one is called the Straw Man fallacy. This is where a person counters your argument by distorting it (possibly asserting a claim you never made), and then attacks the new claim or distorted view of your argument. For example:
A: I don't believe in government welfare.
B: You're so heartless. I can't believe you'd let children starve to death.
Colin Powell: I'm voting for Obama, because the Republican party has moved away from conservative ideals.
Rush Limbaugh: He's only voting for Obama because he's black. It's hypocritical to vote for someone based on race.
Take some time to study and become aware of the many formal and informal logical fallacies. These are listed on many websites, and there are also a lot of books written on the topic. Even just a few hours perusing these concepts will give you new tools to help you sort fact from fiction.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Cognitive Dissonance and This Election
Let me preface this by stating I am a pragmatic libertarian, meaning I am civilly liberal and fiscally conservative. I add "pragmatic", because every situation is complex, and should be looked at from all sides, where "principle" is only one factor -- reality is another.
I've done a lot of reading over the years on how people are persuaded, and how beliefs work in the brain. Most of my studies focused on cults and mind control, but it gives me an interesting perspective on societal dynamics as well.
There is a psychological theory called Cognitive Dissonance/Consonance. A cognition is defined as any thought, belief, feeling, experience, idea, or other mental "thing". We have tons of cognitions, and they all add up to be our total belief system. Our brain is motivated to more or less keep these cognitions in harmony. When we encounter a new cognition that confirms our existing cognitions, we feel consonance. When something goes against our existing cogntions, we feel dissonance.
In a dissonant state, we are motivated to bring ourselves back to consonance. Some here are some examples of dissonance a person may encounter:
* Someone on TV states a fact that goes contrary to what I believe
* There are people preaching against my religion
* A close friend comes out as being in a lifestyle or belief system I don't agree with
* I have an experience that goes counter to what I had previously assumed to be true
* A politician I supported is caught in some scandal.
We can get rid of the dissonance in one of three ways: Alter the importance of a cognition, Change a cognition, or add new cognitions. These three methods can be applied either to help us reject the new cognition, or to accept it. To break it down further:
1. We can alter the importance of our existing cognitions: "Well it didn't matter anyway", "What I believe is more important than this new information".
2. We can alter the importance of the new cognition: "That fact may be true, but it's minor compared to all the facts that support my claim", or "Who cares about those people anyway?"
3. We can change our existing cognitions to be in line with the new information. This is probably the most rare choice, but in my opinion, the most healthy and truthful one. "Well, if that's true, I'll have to look into it more."
4. We can change or dismiss the new cognition, "That guy is not trustworthy, because he's a Democrat or a CNN reporter, so his bias means that information is not true." Along these lines, our perception and actual memory of an experience or what was said can change. "He said it in a hateful way".
5. We can accept the new cognition, but add even more new cogntions so we can keep the old and have it all make sense. For example, if you trust both religion and science, and a scientific fact is released that goes contrary to your religion, you may add new ideas or interpretations of the fact or of your religion, which helps both remain compatible.
The more vested we are in a certain belief system or set of cognitions, the more dissonance will occur, and the more radical our reaction will be. Some of the above can make a person literally crazy if she is strongly attached a certain belief, and is flooded with disconfirming cogntions on a regular basis.
Certain actions can make a person more attached to their beliefs. For instance, if a person's livelihood depends on the belief (clergy, scientists with a life's work, politicians), they will experience more dissonance. If they have made public statements or commitments about the firmness of the belief. If three are friends and family ties that might be sacrificed. If a person has contributed a lot of money to a cause. etc.
Interestingly, one of the things that happens when people with strong beliefs are confronted with a major disconfirming event, is they proselytize. The mental rationale here is that the more people who believe like you, the more true your beliefs must be. It's the warm fuzzy you get when "preaching to the choir" about any topic. A 1956 study was documented in the book When Prophecy Fails, about a cult who believed the world would end on a certain date. The researchers were able to infiltrate this group and observe what happened to the core members when the world did not end. In accordance with their hypothesis, the cult members went door to door looking for converts after the UFO did not come and destroy the world.
How does this apply to this election? The most core, diehard conservatives, who believe in conservatism with all their hearts, have been confronted with a cubic truckload of disconfirmations over the last few years. Their hero, George W. Bush, was caught lying, a lie that took us into a preemptive war. He and the Republican congress created bigger government. After ruining the economy (not something Republicans supposedly do), he's socializing the banking industry. He and the party have been doing a lot of things that go against the beliefs of their constituents. And now McCain, a supposed maverick, doesn't seem much better. In addition, he is making a lot of mistakes.
Rather than step back (like I did in 2000) and ask, "Why is my party not following my beliefs, beliefs I thought we shared?" they maintain their belief in the party and its representatives. They also can't toss out their core beliefs, so instead they add a lot of beliefs to make it work. They get behind their guy and prosyletize. They listen to talk radio and go to rallies and get all fired up.
They send around emails accusing Obama of being everything from a Muslim extremist who will destroy America first chance he gets, to being a radical black Marxist who will communize America first chance he gets. Nevermind that these accusations have been fact-checked and appear on Snopes as being flat out lies. Nevermind that some of these accusations don't even make sense! (Muslim fundamentalists and 60's radicals have absolutely nothing in common.) They will believe any irrational thing that stokes their consonance, and reject anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.
McCain may be bad, but at least he's not a Terrorist!
Interestingly, this fervor backfires in the minds of those who are not experiencing it. From a different perspective, irrational emails and the spread of outright lies causes a different kind of dissonance and consonance. Like a nagging mother who constantly pesters a teenager to clean his room, this makes the middle and the left want to side with Obama even more.
Not every conservative has chosen this way out of their dissonance. While the core Right is becoming radical, they are in the minority. Many more (both liberals and conservatives) seem to be moving towards the middle. By "middle" here, I mean independents who are more willing to think for themselves than align blindly to any ideology or party. I think after being lied to, and then realizing it was a lie, they are not willing to trust any longer.
Quite a few major conservatives lately (Colin Powell, Chris Buckly, George Will, and others) have been able to see what's going on in this campaign for what its worth, and have spoken out about it. Many have declared publically that they are voting for Obama because he seems the most conservative and pragmatic of the two.
For those of us who are actively seeking truth to avoid dissonance by making up our own minds, the internet is a huge help. It is easy to know when someone is lying. You can just pull up YouTube and see exactly what someone said or didn't say, check out any rumors, or research the information from a campaign ad to see if it's true.
I've done a lot of reading over the years on how people are persuaded, and how beliefs work in the brain. Most of my studies focused on cults and mind control, but it gives me an interesting perspective on societal dynamics as well.
There is a psychological theory called Cognitive Dissonance/Consonance. A cognition is defined as any thought, belief, feeling, experience, idea, or other mental "thing". We have tons of cognitions, and they all add up to be our total belief system. Our brain is motivated to more or less keep these cognitions in harmony. When we encounter a new cognition that confirms our existing cognitions, we feel consonance. When something goes against our existing cogntions, we feel dissonance.
In a dissonant state, we are motivated to bring ourselves back to consonance. Some here are some examples of dissonance a person may encounter:
* Someone on TV states a fact that goes contrary to what I believe
* There are people preaching against my religion
* A close friend comes out as being in a lifestyle or belief system I don't agree with
* I have an experience that goes counter to what I had previously assumed to be true
* A politician I supported is caught in some scandal.
We can get rid of the dissonance in one of three ways: Alter the importance of a cognition, Change a cognition, or add new cognitions. These three methods can be applied either to help us reject the new cognition, or to accept it. To break it down further:
1. We can alter the importance of our existing cognitions: "Well it didn't matter anyway", "What I believe is more important than this new information".
2. We can alter the importance of the new cognition: "That fact may be true, but it's minor compared to all the facts that support my claim", or "Who cares about those people anyway?"
3. We can change our existing cognitions to be in line with the new information. This is probably the most rare choice, but in my opinion, the most healthy and truthful one. "Well, if that's true, I'll have to look into it more."
4. We can change or dismiss the new cognition, "That guy is not trustworthy, because he's a Democrat or a CNN reporter, so his bias means that information is not true." Along these lines, our perception and actual memory of an experience or what was said can change. "He said it in a hateful way".
5. We can accept the new cognition, but add even more new cogntions so we can keep the old and have it all make sense. For example, if you trust both religion and science, and a scientific fact is released that goes contrary to your religion, you may add new ideas or interpretations of the fact or of your religion, which helps both remain compatible.
The more vested we are in a certain belief system or set of cognitions, the more dissonance will occur, and the more radical our reaction will be. Some of the above can make a person literally crazy if she is strongly attached a certain belief, and is flooded with disconfirming cogntions on a regular basis.
Certain actions can make a person more attached to their beliefs. For instance, if a person's livelihood depends on the belief (clergy, scientists with a life's work, politicians), they will experience more dissonance. If they have made public statements or commitments about the firmness of the belief. If three are friends and family ties that might be sacrificed. If a person has contributed a lot of money to a cause. etc.
Interestingly, one of the things that happens when people with strong beliefs are confronted with a major disconfirming event, is they proselytize. The mental rationale here is that the more people who believe like you, the more true your beliefs must be. It's the warm fuzzy you get when "preaching to the choir" about any topic. A 1956 study was documented in the book When Prophecy Fails, about a cult who believed the world would end on a certain date. The researchers were able to infiltrate this group and observe what happened to the core members when the world did not end. In accordance with their hypothesis, the cult members went door to door looking for converts after the UFO did not come and destroy the world.
How does this apply to this election? The most core, diehard conservatives, who believe in conservatism with all their hearts, have been confronted with a cubic truckload of disconfirmations over the last few years. Their hero, George W. Bush, was caught lying, a lie that took us into a preemptive war. He and the Republican congress created bigger government. After ruining the economy (not something Republicans supposedly do), he's socializing the banking industry. He and the party have been doing a lot of things that go against the beliefs of their constituents. And now McCain, a supposed maverick, doesn't seem much better. In addition, he is making a lot of mistakes.
Rather than step back (like I did in 2000) and ask, "Why is my party not following my beliefs, beliefs I thought we shared?" they maintain their belief in the party and its representatives. They also can't toss out their core beliefs, so instead they add a lot of beliefs to make it work. They get behind their guy and prosyletize. They listen to talk radio and go to rallies and get all fired up.
They send around emails accusing Obama of being everything from a Muslim extremist who will destroy America first chance he gets, to being a radical black Marxist who will communize America first chance he gets. Nevermind that these accusations have been fact-checked and appear on Snopes as being flat out lies. Nevermind that some of these accusations don't even make sense! (Muslim fundamentalists and 60's radicals have absolutely nothing in common.) They will believe any irrational thing that stokes their consonance, and reject anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.
McCain may be bad, but at least he's not a Terrorist!
Interestingly, this fervor backfires in the minds of those who are not experiencing it. From a different perspective, irrational emails and the spread of outright lies causes a different kind of dissonance and consonance. Like a nagging mother who constantly pesters a teenager to clean his room, this makes the middle and the left want to side with Obama even more.
Not every conservative has chosen this way out of their dissonance. While the core Right is becoming radical, they are in the minority. Many more (both liberals and conservatives) seem to be moving towards the middle. By "middle" here, I mean independents who are more willing to think for themselves than align blindly to any ideology or party. I think after being lied to, and then realizing it was a lie, they are not willing to trust any longer.
Quite a few major conservatives lately (Colin Powell, Chris Buckly, George Will, and others) have been able to see what's going on in this campaign for what its worth, and have spoken out about it. Many have declared publically that they are voting for Obama because he seems the most conservative and pragmatic of the two.
For those of us who are actively seeking truth to avoid dissonance by making up our own minds, the internet is a huge help. It is easy to know when someone is lying. You can just pull up YouTube and see exactly what someone said or didn't say, check out any rumors, or research the information from a campaign ad to see if it's true.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Changing Group Dynamics
Prior to the internet, group dynamics seemed to be as likely to produce greater stupidity (the lowest common denominator) as it was to create beautiful productive things. Group have even produce great evils that could never come about under a single individual. Members of such groups reflect that they never would have done such things on their own. Much has been written on this. Many researchers and authors attribute this to, among other things, the lack of accountability that a crowd can provide.
Internet technologies appear to be changing that, allowing the greatest common ideas and actions to float to the top. Collaborative review allows acceptance or rejection of ideas before they are implemented. Search and integration technologies allow us to access the right content as it is needed.
The iterative nature of these technologies mean that nothing is cast in stone, and can be quickly changed if needed.
Transparency helps to retain personal accountability that was lost in the large groups of the past. In many ways, you are or can be more anonymous in these new communities. But even with or without levels of anonymity, a record remains, attached to your chosen identity.
Transparency also helps us focus more on our commonalities. In past dynamics, groups thrived on differences. This Us vs Them mentality motivated people to destroy rather than create. With physical barriers removed, information "wants to be free", and we understand each other better.
When I read "We is smarter than Me", in the past I would have laughed and said Fat Chance! Now? Through technology we're able to keep the Me in We, which lets We reflect the best of the group.
Internet technologies appear to be changing that, allowing the greatest common ideas and actions to float to the top. Collaborative review allows acceptance or rejection of ideas before they are implemented. Search and integration technologies allow us to access the right content as it is needed.
The iterative nature of these technologies mean that nothing is cast in stone, and can be quickly changed if needed.
Transparency helps to retain personal accountability that was lost in the large groups of the past. In many ways, you are or can be more anonymous in these new communities. But even with or without levels of anonymity, a record remains, attached to your chosen identity.
Transparency also helps us focus more on our commonalities. In past dynamics, groups thrived on differences. This Us vs Them mentality motivated people to destroy rather than create. With physical barriers removed, information "wants to be free", and we understand each other better.
When I read "We is smarter than Me", in the past I would have laughed and said Fat Chance! Now? Through technology we're able to keep the Me in We, which lets We reflect the best of the group.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Guantanamo-eBay.com Opens for Business
Guantanamo-eBay.com Opens for Business
by Luna Flesher
Dec 11th, 2004
eBay, Inc. (Nasdaq:EBAY) announced last month its plans to launch a new website catering to residents of the US Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The announcement was shrouded in secrecy, yet more details became available today, when eBay launched the new site six weeks ahead of schedule.
“We wanted to allow Guantanamo residents the opportunity to get their orders in before Christmas,” states eBay CEO, Meg Whitman.
As with their existing eBay business model, Guantanamo-eBay.com will allow merchants to offer goods for sale on an auction website. Potential buyers place bids over the internet. The product is then shipped to the winning bidder after the merchant receives payment. The new site differs in that it is limited only to buyers and sellers residing at Guantanamo Bay.
“Our market research indicates that there are detainees in this region who did not have access to common products, such as toothpaste, soap, food, consumer electronics and collectibles,” said Michael Dearing, eBay Marketing VP. “Yet at the same time, US military personnel have a surplus of these products they would willingly part with – provided they could be compensated with a supplement to their meager earnings.”
Products up for bid include “Can of Beans, Only Half Used, LOOK”, “RARE – Brand New Bottle of Aspirin, no reserve!”, and “Blasting sound! JVC DSP749 Home Theater System w/ Speakers”.
Bottles of medicine, especially pain killers, sell for as much as $1,500 US Dollars, while a top of the line car stereo system sold for only $14.65. Perhaps the strangest item purchased on this first day of bidding was a 24” collectible Javanese pedang sword.
Shipping is usually free, and products can be delivered in the amount of time it takes to walk across the base.
Some higher-ranking US officials expressed concern about a US company seeking commercial gain from alleged terrorist detainees, especially in such a high-profile situation. Local military commanders, however, seem enthusiastic about the new service.
“If anything, this has helped calm the detainees and boost the morale of our guards,” stated a Lieutenant, who requested anonymity. “Smart [aleck] remarks have gone down. So has violence. Well, except for that decapitation incident in cell-block 17. But rest assured, when we find that towel-headed Arab terrorist … [scum], we will whip him and pull out his fingernails. Again.”
eBay stocks rose a quarter point on news of initial profits generated from the new venture.
by Luna Flesher
Dec 11th, 2004
eBay, Inc. (Nasdaq:EBAY) announced last month its plans to launch a new website catering to residents of the US Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The announcement was shrouded in secrecy, yet more details became available today, when eBay launched the new site six weeks ahead of schedule.
“We wanted to allow Guantanamo residents the opportunity to get their orders in before Christmas,” states eBay CEO, Meg Whitman.
As with their existing eBay business model, Guantanamo-eBay.com will allow merchants to offer goods for sale on an auction website. Potential buyers place bids over the internet. The product is then shipped to the winning bidder after the merchant receives payment. The new site differs in that it is limited only to buyers and sellers residing at Guantanamo Bay.
“Our market research indicates that there are detainees in this region who did not have access to common products, such as toothpaste, soap, food, consumer electronics and collectibles,” said Michael Dearing, eBay Marketing VP. “Yet at the same time, US military personnel have a surplus of these products they would willingly part with – provided they could be compensated with a supplement to their meager earnings.”
Products up for bid include “Can of Beans, Only Half Used, LOOK”, “RARE – Brand New Bottle of Aspirin, no reserve!”, and “Blasting sound! JVC DSP749 Home Theater System w/ Speakers”.
Bottles of medicine, especially pain killers, sell for as much as $1,500 US Dollars, while a top of the line car stereo system sold for only $14.65. Perhaps the strangest item purchased on this first day of bidding was a 24” collectible Javanese pedang sword.
Shipping is usually free, and products can be delivered in the amount of time it takes to walk across the base.
Some higher-ranking US officials expressed concern about a US company seeking commercial gain from alleged terrorist detainees, especially in such a high-profile situation. Local military commanders, however, seem enthusiastic about the new service.
“If anything, this has helped calm the detainees and boost the morale of our guards,” stated a Lieutenant, who requested anonymity. “Smart [aleck] remarks have gone down. So has violence. Well, except for that decapitation incident in cell-block 17. But rest assured, when we find that towel-headed Arab terrorist … [scum], we will whip him and pull out his fingernails. Again.”
eBay stocks rose a quarter point on news of initial profits generated from the new venture.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Population Growth
Some places in the world will see huge population increases, while others will see dramatic population drops.
It is no surprise that industrialized nations decrease in population. As these things go, individual motivation is much more powerful than government interventions. Sex ed and free birth control doesn't much help when the people want to have 10 children.
In a third-world nation, people are still subsistance farming. In the absence of labor-saving technology and distribution, each child becomes an economic plus. The more kids, the more food. In urban areas, where child labor is not only allowed, but usually necessary to survival, more children means more money. There may be a "break even" point on the number of children you need to have in order to survive. This would make an interesting study.
In a first-world nation like ours, children are an economic problem. Those of us who do have children, do so for non-economic reasons -- out of love, desire for a family, pressure from extended relatives, accidents, or genetic immortality. We don't bear children to make more money. There is an additional outpouring of money for each new child born, and for that reason (and many others), Americans choose to have fewer children. As do the Japanese, Swedish, Germans, Russians, and other industrialized nations.
Overpopulation is allowed to thrive due to the benefits spilling into third-world countries from the first-world. Infant mortality and death in general is reduced by antibiotics and other modern medicine. But without the first-world motivations to match the technology, more and more children will be born.
This is setting those places up for major problems. Eventually, population mass will reach a critical point -- when there is no longer enough land for subsistance farming, which will lead to worsening food shortages in the urban areas.
The only resoltuion is to provide industrialization. And as long as that industrialization is under the control of militant dicators, the population will continue to be exploited, and the individual people will never receive the wealth that will motivate them to stop having children. What they need, instead, is the removal of despots and tyranists, in favor of constitutional rights and free elections. Let the people make themselves wealthy, through their own adult ingenuity, and the population growth will settle. Child labor will cease.
It is no surprise that industrialized nations decrease in population. As these things go, individual motivation is much more powerful than government interventions. Sex ed and free birth control doesn't much help when the people want to have 10 children.
In a third-world nation, people are still subsistance farming. In the absence of labor-saving technology and distribution, each child becomes an economic plus. The more kids, the more food. In urban areas, where child labor is not only allowed, but usually necessary to survival, more children means more money. There may be a "break even" point on the number of children you need to have in order to survive. This would make an interesting study.
In a first-world nation like ours, children are an economic problem. Those of us who do have children, do so for non-economic reasons -- out of love, desire for a family, pressure from extended relatives, accidents, or genetic immortality. We don't bear children to make more money. There is an additional outpouring of money for each new child born, and for that reason (and many others), Americans choose to have fewer children. As do the Japanese, Swedish, Germans, Russians, and other industrialized nations.
Overpopulation is allowed to thrive due to the benefits spilling into third-world countries from the first-world. Infant mortality and death in general is reduced by antibiotics and other modern medicine. But without the first-world motivations to match the technology, more and more children will be born.
This is setting those places up for major problems. Eventually, population mass will reach a critical point -- when there is no longer enough land for subsistance farming, which will lead to worsening food shortages in the urban areas.
The only resoltuion is to provide industrialization. And as long as that industrialization is under the control of militant dicators, the population will continue to be exploited, and the individual people will never receive the wealth that will motivate them to stop having children. What they need, instead, is the removal of despots and tyranists, in favor of constitutional rights and free elections. Let the people make themselves wealthy, through their own adult ingenuity, and the population growth will settle. Child labor will cease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
