The Psychology of a New World View
November 14
Rethinking the Future of Humanity
Now, I have come to a really big topic -- rethinking the future of humanity. There will definitely be other posts on this topic, and my time is limited today, so I will try to keep this post brief. My internet website owning experience began with Dolly-Verse, which I spent much time developing. It has expanded to the Box-Free Blog. The two sites may seem very different, but they really approach similar goals in different ways -- rethinking the nature and the future of the human race. The subtitle of this blog is "The Psychology of a New World View" about which many of the early posts were written. However, this topic was never really finished. I am not sure if it ever will be finished. The real meaning of the psychology of a new world view is that we should rethink the world and our place in it. That is also the meaning of Dolly-Verse, although in a more personal, cutesy and innocent way.
Let it be resolved that we consider the following:
1. We are stewards of this world in which we live, not by divine right but by fortuitous genetics which give us intelligence to understand and hands to manipulate. Let us resolve nonetheless to be the best stewards (wardens?) that we can be;
2. We must consider the long term if we are to not only survive but thrive in the distant future. Do not consider this world as though it is due to suddenly end. That will not happen. This planet is in the middle of a cycle lasting billions of years. We must take care of not only ourselves but the ecosystem of which we are a part, consisting of all life on this planet;
3. We are products of evolution and will continue to evolve in one way of another, although the rules of evolution have changed with the advent of modern society;
4. We must move beyond petty forms of conflict such as racism and nationalism in order to operate at the highest and most intelligent level of consciousness which we are capable of as human beings;
5. We are transforming the physical nature of the world at a dizzying rate, but moral and spiritual transformation has not occurred at the same rate. Let us resolve to transform our moral, political, and spiritual world view to progress in concert with our standing as intelligent technologically savvy beings;
6. Let us have respect for all lifeforms and use them, when we must, wisely and humanely, and when we do not need to use them, let us love them. Let us have compassion for all lifeforms, as we are all caught in this same cycle of life;
7. Let us have compassion and respect for our fellow human beings at all times, be sensitive to their needs, and be rational in resolving our disagreements;
8. We are children of the universe and manifestations of the great potential of this realm in which we live. If it is possible that we have life and consciousness, a fact which our intelligent consciousness confirms, is it not possible that the entire universe is imbued with consciousness and intelligence, a manifestation of divinity which some call the God Consciousness? Spirituality and the seeking of greater understanding regarding the mysteries of life and the universe are an integral part of who we are;
9. As human beings, we are of limited knowledge and intelligence, and disagreements are inevitable. Let us resolve to be intellectually honest be accept and be comfortable with our state of unknowingness when contemplating that which we do not know. But let us attempt to honestly understand more without resorting to self-delusion or succumbing to the temptation to make false claims of knowledge.
April 24
This is an essay that I had begun earlier, but changed to a different topic. It is a departure from my current topics, but I needed to finish it. I told one of my students, Stephanie, about these two types of morality, and she wanted to write a paper on it, particularly about regional differences in the Morality of Justice versus the Ethics of Caring. I know I keep changing topics, but that is why I call it the "Box-Free Blog." I will get back to all of the issues I had mentioned eventually.
Two Kinds of Morality
In Psychology, we learn that there are two types of morality. The first one to be studied is what Psychologist Carol Gilligan calls the Morality of Justice. This is what was studied by a Psychologist named Lawrence Kohlberg, although Kohlberg just called it morality. The Morality of Justice is cognitive in nature and has to do with a sense of fairness -- appropriately punishing transgressors and appropriately rewarding the good. According to Gilligan, males are socialized to think in terms of the Morality of Justice. The Ethics of Caring, on the other hand, refers to caring for each other, and ourselves as well, as what is truly moral. The Ethics of Caring is Affective in nature (feeling) and has to do with love. According to Gilligan, females are socialized to think in terms of the Ethics of Caring.
Personally, I do not find the gender contrast beween the two types of morality to be so stark. Both men and women can appreciate both kinds of morality, although males are somewhat skewed toward the justice concept, and females, toward caring. In fact, both types of morality are good and something to be promoted. They do not neccesarily oppose each other, except when punishment is too harsh and does not teach caring. According to the Ethics of Caring, then, any punishment should teach a lesson, while according to the Morality of Justice, punishment is to be carried out in the interest of fairness.
The greater implication of these two types of justice, however, is in whether we have a society designed for caring, or for justice. Do we use the feminine model of morality as a society, or the masculine model? Perhaps that depends on whether men or women "run the show," but perhaps not. Men can also learn to adopt an Ethics of Caring, just as women who become police officers, or attorneys, for example, are trained in the Morality of Justice. Actually, we have something of political split in terms of these two types of justice in the United States, and around the world. Harsher, "law and order, lock 'em up and throw away the key" views of justice associated with social conservatism reflects the Morality of Justice point of view, while more compassionate attitudes toward offenders and potential offenders and efforts to reduce crime by socializing children to be caring and compassionate from the beginning reflect the Ethics of Caring -- perhaps there were extenuating circumstances behind a crime; we should all care for each other, but these individuals may have been mistreated and not properly cared for. This reflects a socially progressive point of view, one which calls for nurturing parenting style. The Morality of Justice, on the other hand, advocates reducing future crime rates through of use of more authoritarian forms of parenting emphasizing respect for ones elders and authority, and obedience reinforced by harsh punishment for infractions. Of course, respect, caring and compassion are all good thing (obedience, not so much), so that parenting which teaches these three qualities is to be encouraged. That is, a combination of Ethics of Caring, and Morality of Justice, is optimal, as long as there are appropriate and not overly harsh consequences for bad actions, but in the context of a caring and compassionate society.
Do we have such a society here in the U.S.? I would say not really, although we do have a hodgepodge of actions ranging from very harsh punishments such as three strikes laws, to very soft punishments (criminals receiving short sentences, then being released early from overcrowded jails), and attitudes toward our fellow human beings ranging from uncaring, sink or swim attitudes all the way to consummately loving and compassionate individuals. "Judging" from the fact that the United States has a greater percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other nation, mostly for drug-related infractions, however, and the virtual political necessity for politicians to espouse law-and-order attitudes, the United States' culture trends toward the punitive side. It is also likely true that we have a relatively high rate of criminal actions in this individualistic, violence-exposed, nationalistic and militaristic society. Once we have a more caring, compassionate society, crime rates should reduce and we will be able to deal more effectively with those who do violate the law.
April 8, 2008
A Well-Rounded Populace
After considering yesterday's post, I felt that the reasons for being more of a generalist than a specialist deserve more explication. First of all, I am not advocating obesity (ha ha). But seriously, people need a broad perspective in order to be good citizens. For example, those with narrow interests tend to vote for and support only their own "special interests." Where have I heard the term "special interests" before? How about those overpaid Washington lobbyists that everyone complains about but no one seems to be able to do anything about? That's what you get when you let the specialists and their money take over. What follows are some reasons encouraging people to have a variety of interests and educational experiences so that they can be "well-rounded persons:"
1. Voters with a variety of interests and educational experiences make better voters because they are more likely to consider issues from multiple perspectives and consider what is best for society as a whole;
2. People with a good knowledge base and diverse interests are likely to have more self-insight and better mental health;
3. Having varied interests encourages better communication and greater understanding among people;
4. Having varied interests leads to greater life satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment as a human being;
5. Having a better knowledge base makes people better practical problem solvers;
6. Education, and varied interests makes people exercise their minds, bolstering the brain's ability to ward off forms of senile dementia, such as Alzheimer's Disease, in old age;
7. Having varied interests forces people to be more honest with themselves, and recognize their weaknesses as well as strengths, allowing people to become less self-delusional.
Of course, as a society, we need specialists, and the growth of technology encourages further specialization. However, as individuals it is important not to let one's career or some other interest become an obsession and take over one's life. As a society, it is important to regulate empoyers, so that employment does not become the province of the obsessively dedicated worker; workers need to be limited to a reasonable number of hours and schedule, allowing adequate time for the pursuit ot outside interests (other than sleeping and eating).
The key to having a population of well-rounded citizens is education, provided publicly and cheaply if not free. Any attempt to "privatize" education is at its core an attempt by elitists to make education the domain of the rich and keep themselves in power, obfuscated as it may be by complaints about the quality of public education and the assertion that private schools can do better. Wealthy elitists probably would not mind if the great majority of the population, other than themselves, were given minimal education, since that would put a large population of potential workers with few alternative opportunities at their disposal. If you doubt this, take a look at the world history of employment and employers, or look at what is happening now with the exportation (outsourcing) of jobs by large corporations to places with cheap labor where workers often have little education and few alternatives. However, it is also incumbent on us as individuals to broaden our experiences and interests, and engage in lifelong self-education, as well as to promote educational opportunities for all.
There is a saying in Chinese that people without much education or experience with different ways of thinking are like "Jingdi Zhi Wa" which means "a frog living in a well -- a person with a very limited outlook." It is a very sad thing when a frog in a well croaks (pun intended).
April 5, 2008
The Vacuum Cleaner Effect
Earlier this morning I had to vacuum the rug. So said Eunice, who informs me that vacuum cleaning is man's work. I suspect that she is actually just afraid of the sound, the same way cats are. While I was vacuuming the rug, I reminded myself of a finding from Consumer Psychology. Noiseless vaccums were invented many years ago, but when they were tested on potential buyers, they proved unpopular. Why? The consumers felt that the noise made by the conventional, noisy vacuum cleaners meant that they were working -- that they were effective in cleaning up dirt. Thus, the noiseless vacuum cleaners, sadly, seemed ineffective to the consumers, even though they picked up as much dirt as the noisy ones, which are propably noisy enough to damage a housekeeper's hearing eventually, not to mention the unpleasant noise which drowns out all other noises. (Did you say something? I couldn't hear you.) Thus was born the vacuum cleaner effect to which I refer. By that I mean, consumers often prefer products which are not good products, and since the manufacturers and marketers only care, for the most part, about making money, ineffective, even counterproductive or destructive products continue to be sold with zeal, efficiently vacuuming the money from the wallets, purses, and savings of the public. (That whooshing sound you hear is the sound of the money being sucked from your wallet.)
That is one of the main reasons why I am not a big fan of capitalism, at least not unrestrained capitalism. Capitalism is a lot like money. it is something which is flawed and creates enormous problems, but it is hard to think of a viable alternative to it, if people are to have the freedom to pursue their own interests and earn a living. The best solution seems to be reasonable regulation of capitalism, although different people disagree about how much and what sort of regulation capitalism needs. I would suggest that capitalism needs more regulation rather than less. Sometimes I wish we lived in a "star trek" type of world. For those unfamiliar with star-trek, people no longer used money, and if a person wanted something, he or she would just go to a machine and verbally ask it, to which the machine would promptly respond with the requested item. Oh well, that sounds a bit la la land -- imaginative and appealing, but I would say a tad farfetched. However, we could do more realistically as human beings to ensure that people buy good products, products which it is in their interest to buy. This effort should begin with education, so that people have knowledge of the infomation concerning a product's effects. Examples where this is being done are tobacco and alcohol, however, I feel far too little is being done to inform people of all the effects of alcohol. There are also pharmaceutical drugs which are taken off the market from time to time, and the public is informed of the reasons, so certainly, efforts in this direction are being made in this direction. Far more needs to be done, though.
Not only products, but entire industries need to be crtically examined. Here in the U.S. we are seeing the effects of the subprime mortgage scandel on our economy. It seems to me, that there are far too many people who make a living by merely moving money around, and taking a share of it for themselves. These are essentially unproductive, but lucrative jobs, in my view. but as long as consumers ask for "money managers" and the like, and as long as they continue to draw large salaries, there will continue to be swarms of them. My mother has been managing my parents investments for many years, and probably doing better than they would had they depended on other people, so financial consultants are probably not usually necessary. Another area which employs far too many people in my opinion, is security. People have been scared into thinking we need security guards roaming every mall or large store in the U.S, especially since 9/11/2001. In fact, security guards rarely seem to be of use. A few well-placed security cameras, phones and alarm buttons, and a ready police force, are far more cost effective, along with of course, and honest and harmonious citezenry. And then there is the United States military, which spends more money (that our government does not have and therefore has to borrow) than all other nations combined on their militaries, but that is a topic for another day. These issues need to be topics of open and honest discussion, not the realm of "special interests" and efforts to brainwash the public.
Socrates said: "A life unexamined is not worth living." I would extend that to say: A nation or society unexamined is not worth living in.
April 3, 2008
What is a True Progressive?
I consider myself to be a progressive, but like so many words, that is a term which is bantied about without really examining what it means. A trip to the dictionary by myself yielded the following definition: advocating progress or reform, especially in political and social matters.
This definition says nothing about giving people absolute freedom. In fact, there is no such thing for us mere mortals as absolute freedom. It also says nothing about being so tolerant as to be permissive of or passive in the presence of potentially destructive behavior. In fact, being a good progressive means doing what one can to ensure that progress can take place. It means giving us as much freedom as possible short of allowing behavior which is destructive to self or others, or behavior which unjustly detracts from the freedom of others. It means tolerating others and respecting their rights as long as the behavior of others does not lead to intolerant or destructive behavior, and does not disrespect the rights of others. In other words, the granting of freedom, tolerance and human rights must be mutual. Also, a true progressive must promote harmony, happiness, healing, and knowledge in society. A true progressive must be cognizant of their own and each others' social responsibilities. Thus, a true progressive is not always what a naive conception of the term would indicate.
To summarize, a true progressive:
1. Values family as a source of well-being and nurturance;
2. Supports loving and monogamous relationships as raising the level of human bonding and the value of life, as opposed to promiscuous sexual laisons which reduce bonding and true love, and cheapen life;
3. Supports the bulk of our legal code which acts to promote freedom, self-expression, and social harmony and helps to create a safe environment in which to pursue progress, but opposes laws which fail to do so;
4. Is a free thinker who evaluates information for him/herself with an open mind;
5. Does not jump to conclusions and does not make up his/her mind prematurely regarding which course of action will lead to the greatest progress;
6. Values progress of all kinds, since all affect society -- scientific, spiritual, political, and so forth;
7. Does not condone destructive behavior such as taking mind-altering, addictive drugs, gambling, controlling and abusive behavior or unwarranted aggression, as such behaviors are incompatible with the promotion of social harmony, happiness, healing and knowledge;
8. Seeks to reduce destructive behaviors by promoting self-understanding and self-control in those who engender such problems, and indeed, by teaching all individuals from childhood about social responsibility, psychological self-insight, and self-control;
9. Believes in affordable education for all as an educated populace is the underpinning of a progressive society;
10. Supports putting all aspects of society which we all depend on such as energy, transportation, education, and any other aspects of society which the public depends on, in the hands of the government -- publicization instead of privatization;
11. Favors global cooperation, not global corporations, and global law, not global hegemony.
12. Favors openess and transparency in all aspects of public life such as government, and also strives to be open and honest with others in private life rather than living under a veil of secrecy.
13. Is a good listener;
14. Favors meritocracy and the rewardeing of merit in work, while maintaining a nurturing attitude and willingness to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves;
15. Takes personal responsibility for his/her decisions and voluntary actions, and encourages others to do the same, while practicing an empathetic attitude toward those who do not.
It is a great shame and detriment to our society that so many of these issues have been co-opted by social and political conservatives here in the United States. People in general say they value many of the same goals, but differing philosophies such as Democrats, Republicans, and other political parties have different ideas about how to reach these goals. In my view, the conservatives have let greed, personal ambition, and fear override their natural desire for progress, and use any message they can -- greed-based, fear-based, pride-based, individual freedom-based -- to help themselves win and stay in power. As a society, we must wake up and realize what is going on, and insist on true progress once again!
Oh, and belated congratulations to Taiwan's Presidential Electee Ma Ying-Jeoh, who my wife has met before at Forensic Psychiatry Conventions and is by by all accounts a wonderful and brilliant person. By the way, he is a Harvard educated attorney, and speaks English well in addition to Chinese.
April 2, 2008
Beware of Dogmatists
My Peruvian-born neighbors two houses away are really nice people. But when you look at the fence between their front yard and back yard, they have a sign that says "Beware of dogs." They have two dogs; one looks like a mongrel female with mottled coloring, around 50 pounds, while the other is a little terrrier type dog. One time, the mongrel came into our yard, and I was somewhat alarmed, especially since I knew that 2 of our cats, Kona and Gorjilina, were in the area, and we had suffered 2 of our cats being killed by dogs in recent years. As I rushed from the driveway into the front yard, I heard the neighbor's mongrel dog yelping in distress, then I saw her jump back over the little fence at the edge of our property. Nearby were Gorjilina and Kona, looking rather pleased with themselves. At that point, I realized that this particular dog was basically an oversized marshmallow that had been besieged by my cats, and that there was little to "Beware of."
In contrast to my neighbor's dogs, dogmatists represent something to truly beware of, in my view. Actually, I was already planning for this to be today's topic, when I turned on the radio to the Thom Hartmann show this morning, and he was interviewing a man named Sam Harris, a neurobiologist and ardent atheist who has written a book proposing that we rid soiceity of religion. Sam Harris makes many good points, but his ardent atheism is to the point of being dogmatic itself, a point which Hartmann made. (His show is actually more of a political show, but spiritual topics have a way of frequently making their way into his show.) Hartmann basically made the same point I was planning to make, but that is okay.I will make the point my own way. Dogmatists on any side of an issue are dangerous. People can be dogmatic about many things, really. Political dogmatism is something to beware of. Scientists can even be dogmatic. Sports fans can be dogmatic about their favorite teams. However, although most people who consider themselves to be religious are probably not particularly dogmatic, and may even question the veracity of many of their own religion's holy scriptures, it is religion which does the most to encourage dogmatic thinking, and it is among the religious where one finds most dogmatic individuals. (Hartmann today called himself a Christian Buddhist, somewhat jokingly, although he seems rather agnostic to me -- certainly not any sort of dogmatist. In fact, his open-mindedness is one of the things I like best about him.)
There are two basic problems with dogmatism:
1. Their belief systems are virtually never true and are woven of the cloth of self-delusion. Even Harrris, the athiest, who presumably believes that all mental processes, including consciousness and spirituality, can be explained through the mechanics of neurobiology -- neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters -- would be hard-pressed to find evidence for this assertion. In fact, I would argue that if anything, consciousness and spirituality theselves are evidence that something more than a mechanical process involving chemicals and electricity is responsible for our exsitence; consciousness and spirituality themselves ultimately have a spiritual explanation. There is an intelligence and consciousness to the universe itself. On the other hand, to believe that certain people have, or had, the special privilege of direct knowledge about the origin and nature of the universe, is ludicrous, but this is what religious dogmatists generally believe.
2. The practical problem created by dogmatism is that they tend to lead to conflict, even war. "Wars fought in the name of religion" generally are perpetrated by the evangelicals, the "fundamentalists," the dogmatists. Even when dogmatism does not lead to such drastic consequences, the tension created by the interface of conflicting dogmas is palpable and the source of much prejudice and discrimination. (I recognize that religion can be a force for good, but it has limits, as the dogmatism topic illustrates.)
In my view, the solution to this problem involves making a conscious decision to be open-minded toward others and the world at large, and honest with ourselves. We need to really try to divest ourselves of self-delusion, which is a difficult thing to do, but to the extent that people can do so, we can start to see the world more as it really is, and each other, more as we really are, promoting true understanding. Sometimes the best solution is to admit uncertainty. I realize that many people are uncomfortable with the notion of uncertainty and agnotiscism, but just because a person admits to not knowing something, that does not make the person a bad or stupid person. In fact, the smartest and best people learn to ask fundamental and relevant questions. We live in a wonderful world, in a marvelous and amazing universe, and it is our questions which ultimately lead to learning and answers.
Postscript: When I told my wife, who is Chinese, about this post, she told me that Confucius said: "Da zhi ruo yu," which is variously interpreted as "A man of great wisdom often appears slow-witted;" "A master looks like a fool;" "An intelligent man man looks dull;" "Apparent ignorance is in fact informed;" "A wise man looks stupid;" or, "The wisest man is often stupid-looking." My literal word-by-word translation using my Chinese dictionary turns out to be "Big wisdom seems foolish."
March 31, 2008
Ideas and Actions
I have been thinking about what really does shape history in my usual skeptical way. You see, I have taken History courses, and seen what our movies and media present as history, and it leaves me most unsatisfied, and skeptical of course. "History According to Hollywood" you can call it, or "History According to Big Business Owned News Outlets." Well, that second one isn't very catchy, but it is pretty much the truth. Here is another one "The History of 'Mankind' is the History of War." That is about what it amounts to, war and conflict, if you believe what you see on television or in the movies. I am not one to cuss, but you can go figure for yourself what kind of things I have to say about that. But mostly, I am extraordinarily sad to think that our most significant events as human beings are ones of conflict and homicide between men or or men indiscrimantly killing women and children. What does that say about humanity? Actually, to be more accurate, what does that say about those who think that way? Such a lack of faith in humanity could be our undoing. Fortuanately, and quite clearly, I am not one who thinks that way. I have made it clear in previous posts that the course of human history, and evidence concerning human nature, shows us as a whole to be more good than bad. But there is a place for the actions of individuals and groups, both good and bad, in influencing history. It is through our actions that history takes place -- either building or destroying, advancing or regressing. And the buiilding and advancing outweigh the destroying and regressing.
There are other histories, though, than the history of politics, conlict and war. There are histories of action which are peaceful -- the history of scientific endeavor, the history of education, the history of motherhood and childrearing, the history of love, and of course, the history of building new and better things through the sweat and labor of men, women, and occasionally children, throughout history. These are the histories of normal human action. The conflictual history is the abnormal one, the history of broken societies and misunderstandings. And there is yet another history which supercedes all of the above, in my opinion. That is the history of ideas. Ideas are why I believe in this blog. Ideas are ultimately what shape our beliefs, thoughts, feelings and behaviors. I gather that this idea has been gaining in popularity. There have been several books about "ideas which changed the world." Some of these books might disagree with my take on the way that ideas change the world, or which ones are the best ideas, but at least, the idea that ideas change the world is out there.
My basic propostion is concerning ideas is that there are a plethora of ideas generated by humans, good, bad, and in-between, and that through the actions of people, these ideas are implemented and tested, approximating sort of very imperfect, yet ultimately informative, informal research, albeit uncontrolled and somewhat unstystematic.Over time, perhaps with repeated trials of some ideas, information concerning the effectiveness and specific consequences of ideas filters in, sometimes in blaringly obvious terms which any person will be aware of and anyone of normal intellect should be able to understand -- other times, in ways more subtle, which may take a perspicacious mind to realize, but which, once perceived, is not really difficult to understand. Bad ideas which have obvious and catastrophic effects, such as slavery, tend to be "weeded out" so to speak, rather quickly. (Even at that, slavery did not go into the dustbin of history easily; ideas put into action tend to take on a life of their own and gather a sort of historical inertia which is difficult to overcome for psychological reasons.) Other bad ideas, whose effects are not so obvious, tend to go through many incarnations in different parts of the world, and become rather insidiously part of the human condition, yet gradually lose their strength and viability over time as people recognize their unfairness and do more and more to vanquish these ideas. Chavanistic male dominance comes to mind. It is still a big part of society, but definitely weakening over time.
Meanwhile, ideas which work, ideas which promote fairness, progress, human rights, harmony and the best of the human spirit, are kept and grow stronger over time; bad ideas are "weeded out," while the good ones are promulgated, perhaps to be ultimately replaced by even better ideas and forms of action. This idea itself gives me great cause for optimism.
It is ideas in combination with action which ultimately have the greatest effect on history, not ideas which fail to lead to actions, nor actions without principle. And in particular, it is good ideas in combination with good actions which win out in the long run, as bad ideas and bad actors are doomed to fall into the dustbin of history. It is true that bad actors (the real type, not the Hollywood type), may scare people and even be victorious for a time, but the dysfunctional societies they create will ultimately be their own downfall.
Be careful what you wish for! Those who wish for the wrong things may find that it is completely different than imagined. Meanwhile, those who wish for the good of humanity and the world at large, those who keep an open mind to the evidence, and have a willingness to change their minds if necessary, in order to implement the best possible ideas, can proceed with a clear conscience, confidence and perseverance, watching the fruits of their labor grow.
March 29, 2008
History's Big Lesson: Evolution
A widely held axiom is that we need to study history in order to learn from it. In particular, we need to learn from our mistakes so that they will not be repeated. The course of history is not just a jumble of events, but rather, something with patterns, in which actions have somewhat predictable consequences that can act as lessons. I would go beyond that by stating that history has very strong and definite trends, although they may not always be visible from the perspective of day-to-day life. The overall trend of history is one of evolution, not only in the biological sense, but in a social sense as well.
Life evolves, and when species die out, new and usually improved species take their place. Occasional planet-wide catastrophes occur, as when the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, most likely due to the devastation and temporary alteration of the climate which occurred because of a meteorite striking the earth. But that opened the way for mammals to evolve toward biological dominance, leading to us. Life is resilient and ultimately moves forward, despite setbacks. Similarly, species evolve, as long as they do not die out, improving and refining their characteristics and sometimes evolving into new species or even diverging into a variety of new species. That is how we have such a brilliant diversity of life on this planet.
On the social level, cultures evolve as well. In fact, a relatively new concept in sociology is the idea of a "meme," which is the cultural equivalent of a gene. Cultures use memes to determine their characteristics. Sometimes, a meme mutates, in a way which may be good, bad, or neutral, just as a gene may do. Good memes tend to become more prevalent over time, and bad memes tend to disappear, since they lead to maladaptive behaviors by members of a culture. This process leads to cultural evolution. Over the course of history, we can see the effects of cultural evolution in positive cultural trends. Furthermore, cultures, like individuals, interact, and in a sense, interbreed, which adds further impetus to cultural evolution. As a result of these processes, we see a trend from brutality toward gentleness, from being at the mercy of our environment to shaping our environment, from governance by force, to governance by choice, from dehumanizing those of other races, toward equal treatment of all human beings, from slavery to freedom, from male domination, to gender equality and egalitarianism, from intolerance to tolerance, from ignorance to understanding, and so on and so forth. I assert that there is an unmistakable positive trend to history, one which is inalterable as long as we survive as a species, and as long as we do not forget the lessons of history. The present is better than the past, and the future will be better than the present as long as we heed our inherent drive toward progress.
March 28, 2008
Balancing of Rights (Or Why I am an Environmentalist at Heart)
There are four entities whose rights must be balanced by government: business owners, workers, consumers and the environment. However, government appears to favor some of these entities over others.. Business comes first, then workers, then consumers, then the environment. Such is the power of money. Furthermore, business owners, workers and consumers all have a voice of their own.. The environment, however, depends on advocates of the human kind. For that matter, so do animals, which could be considered to be part of the environment. That is why it particularly bothers me when people criticize environmentalists. Of course, it also bothers me when individuals or groups of individuals display disregard for the environment. (I refer to people like these as "bitter lugs," my way of saying litter bugs.) However, the damage done by careless campers and frivolous fisherman is minor compared to that which is done by big business – and also by big government in the form of military operations.
We must remember that, no matter how much talk there is about the economy, the stock market, and jobs, the rights of workers, consumers and the environment are equally important, if not more so. We must be diligent in protecting people from abuse, whether they be business owners, workers, or consumers (or perhaps all 3). But one fact of life outweighs all of these human considerations. Without a livable environment, there would be no people. I doubt anyone would deny that, yet the environment seems to be given little consideration by the average voter, with some notable exceptions, such as members of the Green Party, who are often the object of scorn on the part of conservatives, particularly. I guess people tend to take the environment for granted. Regardless, the future of our species, and the planet, depends on having a healthy environment. If we as a species are to succeed and progress, the health of our environment will also be dependent on technology. Technology must become an integral part of the solution, not the problem. This may strike many people as being ironic, but it really is not, if we view the conscientious and appropriate use of technology as a tool for our stewardship of planet Earth. Of course, there are already many examples of technology in service of the environment.
March 27, 2008
The Meaning of Equality
"All men are created equal" wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Yet Jefferson owned slaves, having grown up in a slave-owning family, and he did not include women in his declaration. (In Jefferson's defense, his writings and legislative record indicate that he wished to abolish slavery, although that did not happen during his lifetime.) Considering society in Jefferson's time, makes me think that humanity's understanding of equality has broadened over time. Jefferson should have written "All human beings are created equal," but, like all people, he was a product of his times. All races are created equal. Men and women are created equal. How about, "All lifeforms are created equal?" I don't think I would go that far. Anyway, that would contradict point number 3 from the previous post. I do admit that as a child, I often wondered why I was born human, rather that some other type of animal, or even plant. The answer I eventually settled upon is that if I were another type of animal (or a plant), I would not have the capacity to ask such a question, or engage in such cognition as it took to answer this question. It is as if a great deal of life energy, spirit, or whatever one wishes to call it, is concentrated in the mind of a human being, and once there, invites self-recognition and self-awareness, which is not found to the same degree in less intelligent lifeforms. Thus, I cannot say all lifeforms are equal, but I must acknowledge the bond and connection we humans have with animals, and recognize that they are part of this world that I love; therefore, they are worthy of my love and respect.
What then, is equality? Does it mean that all humans are equivalent "in the eyes of God." Once again, the answer is no. All of us are different; and some have led better lives than others -- made better choices, made better use of the time and resources they had available, been less selfish. In my opinion, equality is an ideal which has its roots in the concept of fairness. Fairness is a key virtue in life, and without giving equal consideration to all individuals, or all ideas for that matter, fairness becomes impossible.
One aspect of equality which I have heard mentioned is equality of opportunity. This is also necessary if we are to have a fair society. It is one of the social memes of the United States, at least. However, equality of opportunity is only part of the answer. In the last post, I mentioned positive historical trends in support of my assertion that our nature is essentially good. To further explicate these trends, there is a trend away from hierarchical, male-dominated autocracies to more democratic, egalitarian societies, and the same trend exists within marriages and families in most parts of the world. However, equality of opportunity does not necessarily contribute to this trend. Every person could have the same chance to be king, or queen, but only one person can actually acheive that status. Every person could have an equal opportunity to become exceedingly rich, but very few can achieve that, and when a person does, and most assuredly rests upon the labor and contributions of many others.
Thus, equality of opportunity is only part of the answer. The other part of the answer rests in the concept of fairness. People of equal worth should be equally valued. They should be equally paid and equally respected. People who provide half the benefit to society should be paid half as much, and so on. Of course, fairness is a rather abstract concept, and the question of determining a person's worth is a loaded question. Who dares to say one person is worth half as much as another? But essentially, we do a very poor job of the same thing by letting people's economic worth be determined by the marketplace. One gets paid whatever one can get away with. And that brings us back to an economic autocracy, a society which is more or less run by a small group of rediculously wealthy people. Everybody knows that no-one deserves to be as wealthy as these tycoons are, nor as poor as those who cannot afford a place to live. Yet we allow it to happen, with excuses ranging from the self-delusional excuses of the rich: "The poor deserve to be poor and the rich deserve to be rich;" to the helpless refrain of the poor "there is nothing we can do about it." We throw common sense out the window when it comes to economic fairness. When it comes to social fairness, in terms of esteem, we have an equally unfair system -- the Celebrity System. Any person who is a celebrity is treated as special, basically, like a member of a royal family. We are sympathetic to celebrities when they have difficulties, even when ordinary people in the same circumstance are basically ignored, we are loath to put a celebrity in jail, and we treat celebrities as heroes when they do good, even though their behavior would not be noteworthy otherwise.
As a society, the answer to this unfairness is to consider fairness of outcomes. Capitalism needs to be heavily regulated in order to make it more fair. Minimum wages need to increase. The amount of money business owners can siphon off from their employees, and the public, needs to be limited. Prices and wages need to be regulated in order to make them more fair. Unfortunately, here in the United States, the trend started by Ronald Reagan and his administration and continuing to the present, has been the opposite. Regulations have been deregulated, and corporations have been given free reign to engage in free trade, unfettered capitalism and political influence. We need to reverse this trend as a society. We will never have a totally fair world, or society, but we can and must make it as fair as we can. A society of equality is an equitable society, one without bias or prejudice toward a race, a gender, a socioeconomic class, or a profession, one without celebrity or peons, but one in which everyone is a star in his or her own right.
March 25, 2008
The History of Goodness
Perhaps the most fundamental issue -- and certainly the most revealing -- regarding human nature is whether humans are essentially good, bad, or neutral. Albert Einstein once stated that the most important decision a person has to make is whether one lives in a friendly, as Einstein believed, or unfriendly universe. As I had stated in a previous post, it is my contention that the evidence shows our nature to be more good than bad (and the universe more friendly than unfriendly). This is where I wlll outline the evidence and my reasoning to support the belief that we are essentially good:
1. The thrust of human history shows progress not only in terms of ethically neutral matters such as technology, but also in terms of ethics. Compared to the present, life in previous centuries was nasty, brutish, and short. Statistics show that war has actually steadily become less common over time, and people are less likely to become victims of war. Also, legalized slavery has been abolished, and, although slavery like conditions still exist for some, it is far less widespread than in the past. Mentally ill persons(especially schizophrenics) used to be treated as possessed by demons, imprisoned, or executed as witches or warlocks. Democracy has spread, giving people greater say in their own lives. Tolerance of our differences has generally increased. Marriages are more likely to be love-based rather than based on convenience or ties between families. Greater understanding over time has led to better ethics.
2. At the level of the individual, our developmental patterns indicate a progression. Personality is modified as people age to become more versatile, more "androgynous" to use the terminology of Sandra Bem, meaning people show more positive traits associated with both masculine behavior and feminine behavior as they age. People become more comfortable with their gender identity, rather than feeling they have to be stereotypically masculine or feminine. Also, wisdom, which is considered to be the highest form of human cognition, increases with age. With increased wisdom, people become more knowledgeable and better at making ethical judgments. The ethical improvement of people as a whole with age makes a strong case that our nature is good; if good, we should improve, as Humanistic Theory predicts.
3. There is a beautiful and pleasing order to the universe. The same power which gives order to the universe must be a good force, and so are we. Whatever power made it possible for us to be here must approve of us, nurture life, want us to be here, and love us as children of this universe. We are of this good universe, so we must be good as well (again, the idea of the friendly universe). There is a progression of the universe itself toward producing higher lifeforms.
4. Few, if any people, want to be bad. This is also in agreement with the Humanistic Perspective. At our core, we want in general to be good and do good. Only those who are thoroughly discouraged with life and themselves give up on trying to be a force for good. If people were evil by nature, or even neutral, people would not care so much about being or doing good.
It is not my intention to downplay the evil that humans have done and continue to do, nor our potential for doing harm. But I consider it my felicitous duty to present this evidence (points 1 and 2) and reasoning (points 3 and 4) to show that, all-in-all, we humans, and life in general, contains far more good than bad at its core.
March 24, 2008
The Perspective Test
I have come to realize that few things in life are more important than perspective. One's perspective on things shapes one's entire world view and perceptions of events. Consequently, the key to fair thought, meaning objectivity, is being able to take different perspectives, not only one's own subjective perspective. Research on cognitive development, beginning with the work of Piaget and continuing to the present, shows us that young children generally have difficulty taking the perspective of others. When people are limited to their own subjective perspective, this is called egocentric thought. Furthermore, some children show more egocentric thinking than others. Other research shows that although adults are supposed to be able to think abstractly – and there is no reason to doubt that any reasonably intelligent adult is capable of doing so – many adults seem to be stuck in a concrete mode of thought. It seems to me, further, that taking various perspectives is conducive to abstract thought, and that many adults become stuck in a mental modality which is purely subjective, even though capable of much more objective thinking. That is, people become "caught up" in their own subjective, personal lives, and objectivity suffers. Even worse, people have a tendency to let others do their thinking. Wives let their husbands think for them; husbands let their bosses think for them; bosses let their governments think for them, and we wind up with a "tyranny of the elite," rather than a tyranny of the majority. Thus, most people lose their objectivity, as well as cognitive independence, in life.
The perspective test is that if one is to accept something as true, it must be valid from all perspectives. I am sure many people, including many social scientists and philosophers who are proponents of subjective truth, will disagree with this. But I stipulate that there is an objective reality; otherwise, we would not be able to truly communicate at all. Each of us would be living in a subjectively independent world, with no chance of agreement. Ultimately, such an idea would lead to disaster, if everyone considered only there own biased viewpoint to be valid. A consequence of the perspective test is that it is quite difficult to verify truths in general, but realistically, that is the way life is. Another consequence of the perspective test is that, if one wishes to critique another person, one must first take the viewpoint of that other person. A third consequence of the perspective test is that if properly applied, emotions should be rational. That is, the emotions we experience should be appropriate not only from one's own perspective, but also from the perspective of others. If others agree that one's emotions are appropriate to the situation, then it is hard to say that the person is emotionally disturbed. More importantly, appropriate emotions lead to appropriate thoughts and actions.
Thus, people should be encouraged – and encourage themselves
– to train themselves to view their thoughts, feelings, and actions, and
those of others, as broadly as possible, and from various perspectives. Ultimately,
this will lead to greater understanding among individuals and among peoples
of the world about our shared reality, which in turn will lead to a happier
and more harmonious world.
March 23, 2008
Born to Learn
Brain researchers in recents years have begun to use the term "plastic" to describe the brain and "neuroplasticity" to describe brain processes, which make it sound as though our brains are made of plastic. Don't worry; our brains are not made of plastic, and no one is going to be having any brain transplants.
Actually, the term neuroplasiticity refers to our brain's ability to change and adapt while we learn. The term means that our brains are flexible. Now, people can even buy a brain exercise program which is geared toward elderly people, to prevent brain deterrioration with aging such as Alzheimer's disease, for instance. Our brains change throughout life, however, as we learn. Changes take place among the neurons, the nerve cells which communicate with each other are responsible for carrying out our mental processes:
1. New dendrites form -- conduits which carry messages from other neurons to the cell body of a neuron
2. New synapses form -- the connections between neurons
3. New neurons form
4. Healthy brain tissue takes over lost functions in place of nearby, damaged brain tissue
Each act of learning causes changes at the neuronal level, and each new experience, each new memory, is an act of learning. Therefore, our brains are constantly changing. The human barin is the most complex, dynamic organ we know of, although the brains of animals are also complex and dynamic. Different parts of the human brain are specialized more or less for different processes. The higher mental functions take place in the upper, large part of our brains called the cerebral cortex, and most higher thought processes take place toward the front of the cerebral cortex, in the frontal lobe, but higher thought processes can take place in other parts of the cerebral cortex, as well, as long as they are not reserved for sensory processing or motor (movement) commands. Research in recent years has shown that the more people think -- for instance, the more mentally demanding that person's job is, or the more the person likes mental challenges such as crossword puzzles -- the less likely the person is to develop Alzheimer's disease. This is a cumulative, lifelong effect, not something which only applies to "oldsters." We need to challenge our brains throughout life, to make our brains stronger and smarter. The old adage "use it or lose it" certainly applies to the brain. The way the process works seems to be mainly through the formation of new synapses, although new neurons themselves would also seem to be involved.
There is much we still don't know about the brain, probably more than what we do know, despite copious research on the topic, so complex is the brain. But one thing that is clear from research in recent years is that older conceptions of the brain as static at best, and more likely experiencing "brain rot" throughout adulthood, were uttlerly false. Just as we may reinvent ourselves from time to time, in a manner of speaking, so our brains are reinventing themselves, because we were born to learn.
March 22, 2008
Reinventing Humanity
Psychologist Erik Erikson is famous for his theory of psychosocial development, which according to his theory, proceeds in 8 stages. In each stage, the person undergoes a crisis. Perhaps his best known stage is the Identity versus Role Confusion stage which occurs during adolescence. The successful resolution of this stage results in a stable, permanent and positive sense of identity. When researchers studied identity formation, however, they found that a funny thing happened on the way to old age. Most people's identities underwent a transformation every so often, say, every 20-30 years. In fact, some research indicates that most women spend their adulthoods stuck in this stage (while most men remain stuck in the earlier, competition-driven, Industry versus Inferiority stage). We are still the same persons, and our personalities remain somewhat intact, but there is a change in perpective and a "tweaking " of personality that occurs as identity reforms itself.
A historical look at humanity shows that our conceptions of humanity itself evolve and are transformed over time. One instance of change is the advent of childhood. During feudal times, and times in which slavery was the norm, there was no recognition of childhood. There was also a hierarchical, autocrratic world view during those times which for the most part, has been dispensed with. Some classes or races of people were widely considered to be naturally superior to others. The large majority of humanity was left to consider itself inferior, and doomed to a life of hard work with little compensation and no childhood to speak of. The Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the development of an upwardly mobile middle class changed all of that, and for the better. But there comes a time when humanity needs to re-evaluate itself and in some manner reinvent itself. I say there is no better time than the present. In fact, many changes in the way we think of ourselves and our place in the world may be out of necessity.
What do I see for our new and improved identity? By the way, these changes may be considered paradigm shifts as well as identity shifts. Here are some ideas (or ideals)::
1. We will see ourselves as stewards of the environment. Humanity will take the long view, realizing we may have another 5 billion years or so of life on this planet if we don't extinguish humanity before that can happen. We will face great challenges such as mass extinctions and global warming, but humanity will be inventive enough, and the environment. resilient enough, to meet these challenges.
2. I know this seems trite, but a kinder and gentler humanity can be ours; we will view ourselves as each-others caretakers, as well, striving to care for the least among us.
3. We will view reproduction issues more broadly and pragmatically out of necessity, but without being coercive. We will have to learn how to control our birth rate without resorting to coercive tactics such as China's One Child Policy, giving us a stable, sustainable population. Considering that some nations already have a birth rate below replacement rates (for instance Japan and Italy) without coercion, this goal seems plausible, but we still have far to go in this regard.
4. We will enjoy a less biased, nationalitic sense of identity, creating a world with less nationalism, fewer or no wars, and more oversight by international bodies such as the United Nations, freeing us to explore our human potential and live together in greater harmony. There will be more of a one-world identity, although there will still be different nations and nationalities. The European Union is an example of this trend.
5. We will become more spiritually and philosophically eclectic and progressive in the way we view ourselves and the world; people will be more tolerant of each other's beliefs, and people will use more science to illuminate and inform us on all topics including spritiuality, religion and philosophy.
6. People will be more psychologically sophisticated, with more insight into their own and other's behavior, and greater understanding and appreciation of psychology's role. Other scientific disiplines will play a role in shaping our future identities as well, but less predictably and less directly.
7. We should see life as a continuum, not as a dichotomy between human life and all other lifeforms. We are part of the animal world, one whose intelligence gives the ability to manipulate the environment including other lifeforms. However, we share a common bond with all other animals, and come from the animal world.
8. We will see the world not as static in nature, nor as short-term, but a long term, dynamic entity, which undergoes constant change, as does life itself. We cannot foresee just what changes humanity will undergo, but as long as we survive, we will continue to evolve both physically, and perhaps more importantly, socially. May those changes be for the better!
March 20, 2008
True Happiness
The greatest manifestation of mental health involves seeing things as they really are. In psychological terms, this is part of the self-actualization process in the Humanistic Perspective. It also could be what Maslow termed a transcendent experience. In terms of Eastern Religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, seeing things as they really are is necessary for enlightenment and is also called a transcendent experience. In the Monotheistic Religions, seeing things as they really are would be termed something like a experiencing God. Howver it is viewed, it means dispensing with our delusions. When one does so, it allows a person to see a larger reality, transcending his or her own personal reality. Buddhism, in particular among the religions, is very explicit about our human penchant for self-delusion and the need to overcome it. The conclusion I reluctantly have to make on this topic from my experience as a Social Psychologist is that the Buddhists are correct. Humans have a great tendency to delude themselves.
Actually, delusions can give people many feelings of happiness, but this is not true happiness. If a person really wanted to enjoy happy sensations in body and mind, the thing to do would be to give in to total hedonism -- do whatever feels good. False happiness is about pleasurable sensations, delusionally high self-esteem, and ego-elevation. If you want to be a hedonist, you should consider doing the following. Snort some cocaine, then have wild sex with the closest available attractive sex partner, all the while watching reruns of your favorite sitcom for laughs. Meanwhile, tell yourself that you deserve all this and more; you deserve all the happiness in the world, because you are special -- you are the greatest. (Perhaps this reminds you of someone you know.) Allow yourself to have narcissistic personality disorder. Doing the preceding might make for an extremely happy person, while it lasts. But my advice is to never be a hedonist. That is a road to false, short-term happiness, followed by troubles and misery. I saw a show by Deepak Chopra on PBS recently about happiness, and I was quite impressed. I believe he was talking about the same type of happiness that I am advocating -- the delusion-free, self-disciplined, transcendent, spiritual type of happiness. True happiness is not so much about how much happiness a person enjoys, but the type of happiness a person enjoys. If a person can see things clearly, as they really are, that person may not be the "happiest" person in the world, but at least what happiness the person knows will be true happiness. True happiness gives a person a lasting sense of satisfaction, a sense of well-being, validation as a person, a sense of doing good for others, and a sense of one's place in the grand scheme of the universe. This is the happiness that follows from the greatest form of mental health.
March 19, 2008
Some People Have a Dirtier Filter Than Others
Our own experience is the filter through which we understand the world and universe around us. That is a statement which bears repeating. Not everyone has an equivalent filter, however. Some people have a dirty, or even a clogged, filter. These are people with mental disturbances. People with neuroses such as an anxiety disorder or depression essentially have a dirty filter. They get some reality through, but it comes into their minds dirty, distorting their understanding of reality in a most unpleasant way. People with psychoses, such as schizophrenia, have clogged filters. What little reality does get through to the person is thoroughly contaminated, to the point that they cannot distinguish external reality from the internally produced rantings which clog their minds. The mentally healthy, in contrast, have a relatively clean reality filter. It lets reality through relatively undistorted, albeit selectively. It is a filter, after all, so we chose what to pay attention to, how to pay attention to it, and how to interpret it. But at least the mentally well have a more or less accurate representation of reality to work with.
That being the case, the next question concerns how a person can keep the reality filter clean to maximize mental health. What follows are some of my suggestions, but certainly not an exhaustive list. I know that these are broad and general guidelines, but they really are helpful:
1. Do not jump to conclusions; try to evaluate information objectively
2. Practice cognitive therapy on yourself; avoid irrational, negative thoughts, and try to change them to more tolerant thoughts when they occur
3. Remain optimistic and progressive minded but in a realistic mode
4. Practice person-centered therapy techniques on yourself; allow yourself the freedom to confidence to seek your own productive and socially responsible path in life
5. Allow yourself to take a broad perspective; see things from multiple points of view, not only your own
6. Practice empathy, compassion and love; these provide what psychiatrist Erich Fromm called "reality checks" which validate us and keep us mentally well
7. Keep your focus primarily on the present; learn to live in the moment and not obsess about past hurts
8. Get over the past; use the power of forgiveness if needed
9. Use you sense of humor combined with a sense of humility; learn to laugh at yourself
10. Develop your sense of empathy and perspective by truly caring for others -- children, pets, friends, spouse, etc. Relationships, even with pets, have been demonstrated to have marked positive effects on both physical and mental health.
11. Get psychological help from a mental health professional if you have a mental health problem which for which self-help does not work
Note: I realize that the filter idea is an analogy, so it may not be completely accurate. However, I feel that as an analogy, it is useful.
March 18, 2008
Trust Your Experience, the Facts are Friendly
One of Carl Rogers' tenets was the phrase "trust your experience." Another one was "the facts are friendly." There is also a long philosophical tradition of objectivity and empiricism, dating back at least to the days of the Enlightenment (or Renaissance) in Europe. Basically, objectivity means "trust your experience," while empiricism means "the facts are friendly." If my child were to go to school, for example, and be taought tne new math, in which 2+2=5, 3+3=7, and so forth, I would know there is something haywire about the so-called "new math," because my own observations could be used to confirm that 2+2=4, and 3+3=6. These observations have been empirically verified to the point of in fact being facts. We use our powers of observation, and our experiences in part to form a basis for rational thought. Even more importantly, we also use the collective observations of others, and most importantly, the collective observations of scientists during the course of scientific research as a basis for rational thought.
When one experiences something which does not fit experience or fact, one is compelled to make a close examination, and either find an alternative expanation for it, which does not alter one's world view, or admit that what one thought one knew may not have been accurate, and alter one's world view in some way to accomodate the new information. The alternative explantation is much like cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget's concept of assimiliation, while the altered world view is similar to Piaget's concept of accomodation, in which a schema (cognitive framework) is created of altered. When others report experiences which do not make sense to us, we are rightfully prone to skepticism and suspiciousness, but we may find them intriguing and ultimately plausible or even believable When scientists report some findings which contradict previous science, there is also bound to be skepticism, but if the science was done properly, we are compelled to take the results seriously. In fact, it is such "mind altering" (in a literal sense) information which ultimately leads to breakthroughs when it turns out to be true. This is what leads to paradigm shifts in thinking. Yet, the rantings of a lucidly hallucinating paranoid schizophrenic also are full of experiences which perhaps only a few schizophrenics have had. Their minds are full of interesting thoughts, but they are not based on reality It takes our collective experience, and our refinement of collective experience into scientific knowledge, to differentiate fact from fiction. We must have faith in this knowledge gathering process. We must believe in our collective knowledge, our scientific base. Yet we must remember that our own experience is the filter through which we understand the world and universe aound us.
March 16, 2008
Universal Economic Rationality
I saw an interesting article in Time magazine last night. Actually, I saw several interesting articles in Time magazine last night; they were about paradigm shifts, which are vast changes in the way people think, as when new findings from science make people think differently. One particular article relates well to yesterday's topic of the rationality of connectedness. Since my wife hid the magazine I do not have it available..(I could hear her using her electronic dictionary to define and sound out the words for quite some time.) But the article was about how we need to recognize our economic dependence on each other in order to solve many of the world's problems. I think this is the right approach, as I have long felt that we have too much corporate multinationalism, and not enough governmental or social multinationalism. The United Nations needs to be given a greater role in regulating activities of the world's nations. Unfortunately, my nation, the United States, is in large part to blame for the meager role the United Nations plays. Nationalism throughout the world also plays an important role in diminishing the effectiveness of the United Nations or other multinational organizations.
What we are left with is global corporatism, which is driven solely by the profit motive; jobs are outsourced consistently to where ever labor is the cheapest. The more advantage management can take of the employees, the better it is for the management's bottom line. This approach is really doing little to help people anywhere; in fact, it probably hurts more than it helps, by retarding the growth of better standards of living in various countries, and minimizing the size of the middle class. What the article in Time magazine seems to be promoting is a broader view of the economy, one in which the long term welfare of citizens worldwide, and thus their purchasing power, is considered more important than short term profits. This is the same dichotomy as that between rationality in the service of pesonal short-term gain (selfish rationality) versus that in service of the greater good of society (universal rationality). It is gratifying to see the thinking of others moving in same direction as mine, but more importantly, the direction is one that should ultimately benefit all of us.
March 15, 2008
Born to Think
Human beings are essentially rational beings. We are biologically blessed with the capacity to think rationally, use resources effectively, and solve problems, which is basically the most well-known definition of intelligence, by David Wechsler. That does not mean that people are not capable of irrationality. We see examples of human irrationality everyday, in our lives and on the news. But it is incumbent upon us to use our powers of reason to the best of our ability. The fact that some people fail to do so does not change that. It is our rationality, our intelligence, which has resulted in humans being able to dominate our planet, and what separates us from other species.
To state that humans are rational may seem obvious, but it is not as simple a proposition as it might seem. For example, the Psychodynamic Perspective in Psychology essentially views people as irrational, driven by unrealistic instincts. Advocates of the Biological Perspective also tend to view people as instinct driven, although it should not, and in fact, our biology makes us rational thinkers. Fortunately, the other psycholgoical perspectives view us more rationally.
Rationality may also be considered to have different types. For example, there is a big difference beween a person being "rational" in terms of promoting one's own short-term gain, and a person being rational in promoting society's long-term gain. Also, although there is a long philosophical tradition of promoting the view that humans are rational, some philosophers argue that even the slightest bit of irrationality which creeps into a person's thought processes makes it irrational. (I don't agree with that one.) Regardlesss of such disagreements over the rationality issue, it is hard to overstate the importance of rationality. I assert that the truest form of rationality concerns both one's own welfare and that of larger concerns such as society and our environment and ecosystem; it is not selfish, but it does include the self. We are all connected, all passengers on spaceship earth. If eventually we make contact with lifeforms from other planets (if some people haven't already), we need to concern ourselves with their welfare, as well, and they with ours. In other words, the ultimate rationality is a form of universal morality.
Rationality is not merely limited to ur thought processes, actually. As mentioned in a previous post, emotions should ultimately be rational as well as thoughts. In fact, the definition of emotion includes the fact that it has a cognitive component. Appropriate emotions should be in the service of rationality. This is not always the case, and when it is not, is the cause of many common psychological disorders. But people should be aware that emotions should work in concert with thoughts. Rationality is not only a property of our thoughts and feelings, it also guides our philosophy, morality, and even spirituality. That is, our sense of connectedness and meaning in this life, in this universe, are subjected to the same processes of reasoning and scientific scrutiny ultimately as are any other topics of inquiry.
March 13, 2008
Seekers of the Light
There is another reason for my fondness of the Humanistic Perspective. When I was in high school, I took a class in Personal Growth for two years, as I recall. I read various Psychology books for the class and did book reports on them. The most influential book I read, perhaps in my entire life, was a book I read for that class called "On Becoming a Person" by Carl Rogers. Even though it would be several years and twists of fate before I eventually majored in Psychology, Carl Rogers' book helped to turn me into a budding psychologist and Rogers himself remained an inspiration to me. Rogers grew up in the early 1900's in an extremely religious, Christian family, one of six children, I believe, and was expected to become a Pastor when he grew up. However, before that could happen, events and his own perspicacious mind conspired to squelch any such decidedly non-humanistic efforts on his part. Rogers was always a spiritual person, I believe, but he came to reject his family's heavy-handed imposition of strict Christianity. He was not allowed to date or go to dances, for example. His family even moved to a farm in the countryside to get away from the evil influences of his birthtown, Oak Park, Illinois. One event Rogers recalled from his adolescent days occurred on the farm. The family had a cellar where they stored crops such as potatoes over the winter. As it runed out, the cellar had a small hole in one corner of the roof, and so, in the early spring one year, a potato in the otherwise dark cellar grew a long tendril to reach the small hole which was its only source of light. Rogers wrote that he originally got the idea of self-actualization from that potato; self-actualization applies to all life, not only humans. Another event which affected Rogers occurred when he was about 18 years old, and went on what was supposed to be a missionary trip. On that trip, Rogers came to have great liking and admiration for many of the Chinese that he met, including Buddhists, Taoists, Animists, etc. He came to realize that the goodness of a person did not depend on his or her religion, and furthermore, that the nature of people as a whole are more good than bad, contradicting his parents' teachings. So basically, Rogers' introduction to missionary work really backfired from the perspective of his parents and church, but actually, from Rogers perspective. resulted in something better, helping to lead Rogers and Psychology toward the Humanistic Perspective.
After going to China, Rogers quit doing missionary work and went to college, eventually becoming a Clinical Psychologist and opening a practice in Chicago where he treated clients for their psychological problems. He also went on to become a Professor, doing research, teaching and writing, while he worked out the details of his theory, with some help from Abraham Maslow, as well as his graduate students. "On Becoming a Person" was actually one of the earlier books that Rogers wrote, and I think, perhaps the most autobiographical one. I admit I have not read any of his other books, even though he wrote quite a few of them, but I think I gleaned what I needed to from the one that I dd read. Personally, I saw much of Rogers' journey in my own parents -- their rejection of their parents' religion, their confidence in human nature, and their belief that what a person does is what is important, not what a person believes, and also, the role of education in their thinking. My father is a recently retired medical doctor, my mother, a well educated homemaker with a Batchelor's Degree in Biology. To me, Humanistic Psychology clearly represents a force for good, as does Psychology as a whole, part of the social evolution of the human spirit. Contrary to what evangelical Christians, or perhaps evenagelicals of other religions may say, Humanistic Psychology does not reject spirituality, but rather enhances and embraces it. What it does reject is the dogma and superstition of traditional religions, which is why followers of traditional religions, unfortunately, often feel threatened by it. But there have always been certain groups of people throughout history who have been threatened by and resisted new and improved ideas and progress. Perhaps that is a personality trait that many people share, perhaps even are born with, whether one calls it autocratic, traditional or conservative. (In fact, an ongoing study by Tellegen et al at the University of Minnesota, of identical twins separated at birth and raised in different homes, shows that the two most heritable traits found were the need to influence others, and traditionalism; both of these traits are about 60 percent attributable to genetics, according to their results.) But the humanistic and other free thinkers among us do not share that trait, and I think that is a good thing. Like Carl Rogers' potato, we are seekers of the light.
March 12, 2008
It's Only Human Nature
In psychology, there are five perspectives which are essentially major theories of human nature. They all differ philosophically on important themes which relate to the nature of humanity. Thus, the idea that people agree on about the nature of human nature is an illusion. The Biological Perspective attributes our nature to genetics and other biological factors such as illness. The Psychodynamic Perspective is the perspective of Freud, and is also somewhat biological, but it focuses on unconscious sex and aggression instincts as causes of human behavior, as well as predictable events (such as potty training) from early childhood. The Behavioral Perspective says that we have no intrinsic nature, that we are merely products of our environment, learning to cope with its demands and accept its rewards throughout our lives. Clearly, the behavioral approach is in direct opposition to both the Biological and Psychodynamic Perspectives. In fact, John Watson originated the Behavioral Perspective as a protest to and alternative to the Psychodynamic Perspective. The fourth perspective is the Cognitive Perspective, which says our behavior and personality result from the characteristic ways we have of thinking and feeling about events, not so much the actual events themselves. Where our characteristic ways of thinking and feeling about life come from is a combination of our environment and or hereditary constitution. It is an interaction between events in our lives, genetic predisposition and our own self-determinative will power which results in how we turn out. The final perspective is the Humanistic Perspective. This is the perspective of enhancing our growth as human beings and helping people reach their potential, known as self-actualization. This perspective was founded by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, once again in direct opposition to the pessimistic view of the Psychodynamic Perspective. The Humanistic Perspective sees human behavior as self-directed and human nature as essentially good, certainly more good than bad. Thus, basically, budding psychologists pick and choose between these views of human nature or perhaps a combination of these views. There is no widespread agreement, even between psychologists, regarding human nature. In fact, a general principle is that you can never get everyone to agree on anything which is a matter of opinion. Psychology and human nature are no different in that regard.
One way of looking at what makes us who we are is nature, nurture and self. Nature is the biological component, which is undeniably adn always present, but never the sole determning factor behind our psycholgical characteristics. Nurture refers to environment, which constantly interacts with our biological nature. The self refers to our own willpower, the self-determinative ability to shape our lives, which also interacts with the biological and environmental factors. The only two perspectives which allow for all three of these factors, and their interplay, are the Cognitive and Humanistic Perspectives. For that reason alone, I would consider these two perspectives to be the most adequate ones, although no perspective may tell the whole story of how we become the way we are. (The Biological Perspective only considers biology, the Beharioral Perspective only considers the environment, and the Psychodynamic Perspective, at most, considers biology and environmental factors such as parenting practices. In contrast, both the Cognitive and Humanistic Perspectives consider our unique genetic composition as setting our potential, which interacts with our envionment and willful desire to learn and grow as a person.) Then there is the issue of the view of human nature as essentially good, neutral, or bad. The Cognitive Perspective takes a neutral view of human nature; it is sort of an analytical, technical, but powerful and useful nuts-and-bolts approach to psychology, as I see it. The Humanistic Perspective is unique in having a positive view of human nature. Well, guess what? I agree with that, and for reasons which I will present on another day. Thus, I identify more with the Humanistic Perspective than with any of the others, along with a major dose of the Cognitive Perspective. However, remember that there is always room for improvement in our understanding of human nature. Actually, that is a Humanistic Perspective statement itself. It's all about learning and improvement. Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow would tell you as much.
March 11, 2008
Love Makes Sense
Until around the 1970's, the United States Congress was unwilling to fund research on love. A senator whose name was William Proxmire, I believe, pronounced that it was no use to fund research about love, since love was an irrational, utterly unpredictable emotion which could never be understood. Fortunately, Congress finally gave in to reason, relented, and began to fund love research. Since then, love research has come a long ways. We now know that, as love researchers suspected, love is neither irrational nor particularly unpredictable. We know that the reasons why people love each other or do not love each other can indeed be understood. For example, attractiveness, social status (or income), personality, similarities, complementary needs, and even convenience all play roles in choosing a mate. We know that men place more importance on attractiveness, while women place more importance on social status or income, while other factors are more equally employed by both men and women. We also know that something usually referred to as "chemistry" is important, but harder to define. Interpersonal "chemistry" (which is probably more like physics actually) refers to a tendency for two people to generate positive interactions.
The big question, however, is what is the importance of love? Research, as well as theory, indicate that love is extremely important. On a theoretical level, Erich Fromm postulated that love is literally what keeps people sane, and "validates" us. Carl Rogers postulated that healthy progression toward self-actualization required unconditional positive regard, which roughly translates to unconditional love or at least confidence in another person. Research on health and marriage consistently shows that married people, especially men, tend to be healthier than their unmarried counterparts. Furthermore, marriage itself seems to be a factor enhancing people's health, rather than healthier people being more likely to get married. (Of course, health can also be an important factor in choosing a mate, whether people admit it or not.) Married people also tend to be happier and mentally more well-adjusted. Social support from friends and relatives also has similar effects, especially for women. A good network of friends or relatives enhances both psychological and physical health, so it appears that Fromm was correct. Rogers was probably correct as well, but I am not aware of any research about this particular topic. Taking this topic to its beginning, early childhood, research shows that a loving attachment with a caregiver or caregivers is crucial to normal development. In fact, children who begin life without a particular caregiver (parent), as in an orphanage, are prone to a condition called "failure to thrive" and are even much more likely to die of childhood illness. Moreover, loving is as important as being loved.
I may have taken the romance and mystique out of this topic, and research findings may be more or less common sense, but research shows how important love has been demonstrated to be. I am sure that the topic of love will be a frequent one in my blog, and is at the core of my other website, "Dolly-Verse." But I felt it was important to establish that love is amenable to the scientific method and can be understood. Here are another three important words: love makes sense. Loving is a rational response, as well as an emotional one, to the caring behavior of others. Both loving and being loved validate us and make our lives worthwhile. Intuitively, people know that, I believe, which is why the words "I love you" are so important.
March 10, 2008
And Another Three Very Important Words
You didn't guess what they were. I forgive you. That should be a major hint. Yes, I don't know, I wuz wrong, and now, I forgive you. Seriously, forgiveness means recognizing that having imperfections and faults is part of being human. It means letting go of the past, and not perseverating over that which cannot be changed. In a way, it means a thorough analysis of past transgressions may not be worth the trouble, and may itself be a greater fault than any minor transgressions which may have occurred. But forgiveness is also a fundamental emotional experience, and forgiveness may be granted for severe transgressions, not only mild ones. It means having empathy for another human being, even if that human being, in some cases, has caused you egregious harm. Mohatma Gandhi's famous forgiving of his slayer as he was dying may be extreme, but forgiveness, empathy, and letting go of the past have all been found to serve positive psychological functions. Forgiveness has its limits; when feasible, justice should be served, but that is something for the justice system to deal with. However, morality is not always about justice. According to psychologist Carol Gilligan, men tend to view morality as being about justice, while women tend to view morality as being about caring. The justice/forgiveness dichotomy is an excellent example of these two ways of thinking about morality, although men and women do not always see this issue differently. Justice is about fairness, appropriate punishments for the bad and appropriate rewards for the good, while forgiveness is about caring for others despite their imperfect or even bad actions.. Actually, there is a balance of justice and caring. We need as much of both as we can find.
Recent research such as that by Daniel Goleman shows us that empathy is an important component of emotional intelligence. People who are emotionally intelligent tend to thrive, being successful and popular, whereas those lacking in emotional intelligence, even if blessed with abundant intellectual intelligence, tend to have trouble filled lives. Research also shows that children need to learn empathy early in life. The examples of parents and siblings, appropriate forms of noncorporal discipline, taking responsibility for pets, and many other positive experiences help a child to develop empathy, and empathetic people have the capacity forgive, and to love deeply. Empathetic people, as a rule, do not become criminals; they do not do bad things to others, because hurting another person would also hurt oneself. I guess that means that forgiveness for a person's criminal actions amounts to wishing or praying that perpetrator will find the capacity for empathy and forgiveness.
Forgiveness itself offers psychological benefits. Those who are willing to forgive, and find themselves able to let go of past grievances, generally lead happier lives, research shows. Forgiveness makes it easier for a person to move forward, focusing on the future optimistically instead of the past pessimistically. Forgiveness also allows people to focus on the present better, living existentially in the moment, where we can do the most good.
March 9, 2008
Three More Very Important Words
Here is a brief addition to my blog since I do not have much time today for writing. By the way, I see this blog is starting to get visitors, Thanks! What puzzles me is that I started Dolly-Verse first and put much more effort into both making it, and making it known to the search engines, but it is not getting visitors. I guess more people like blogs. Anyway, my blog is a sort of cognitive adventure, so I can see why people like blogs.
The next three very important words which go well with yesterday's topic, are "I was wrong." When a person is confronted with information which contradicts what he/she believes to be true, it is incumbent upon that person to admit the mistake. That sounds simple enough, but once again, there are powerful forces, both cognitive and social which make admitting a mistake difficult. On the cognitive level, admitting to making a mistake creates cognitive dissonance, an uncomfortable feeling which one needs to eliminate. If one can eliminate it without admitting fault, all the better. For instance, a smoker may discount information about the health risks of smoking, or an alcoholic may discount research about the health risks of drinking liquor, deciding that the research was flawed. Also, a person may tell a lie, then somehow convince him/her self it was not really a lie. We do not like the feeling of being wrong. But furthermore, admitting fault may actually hurt a person's reputation, as unfair as that is. For example, we often hear talk of political candidates as "wishy washy" or "flippers" when they change their minds about some issue. Some of this criticism may be justified, since politicians' stances on political issues may reflect a desire to please the public or some other ulterior motive. However, realizing that one was wrong and changing one's position is something to be lauded, although the public seems to have been conditioned to frame changes of mind as signs of weakness or ulterior motives. I wish to caution people against such thinking. There is always room for improvement. It seems I've heard that somewhere before. Learning and improving often means admitting one was wrong, and it can also mean learning not to make judgments or draw conclusions too quickly. Remember that. Somewhere as a society, most people seem to have forgotten that, although I could be wrong about that.
March 8, 2008
The Three Most Underrated Words
What are the three most underrated words? I don't know. Yes, that's right -- I don't know. No, I am not writing an essay on something which I know nothing about and have no opinion of. This is actually a serious essay, and that is my answer. I would have to say that the words "I don't know" are the most underrated -- and honest -- words in any language. Actually, "I don't know" that was sort of my nickname in high school. Of course it turned out that they knew as little as I did. Obviously, humans have learned quite a lot over the course of history. We certainly have learned how to more or less master nature to make lives of safety, convenience, interest, and abundance. However, there is much in the nature of things which still elude us.
People have a strong cognitive need to feel that they know things -- to feel that they can predict and understand events, and make the correct attributions (reasons) for events which have occurred already. This feeling makes our world, and our futures, seem safe, secure and under control. Furthermore, people have a need to predict a favorable future. However, these needs blind many people to the realities of their lives. It is all too easy for people to indulge in lives of overcertainty and self-delusion, when in fact, most of what they think they know is wrong. In my opinion, one of the most important and best things that a person can do to become a true force for good is to divest him/her self of self-delusions as much as possible. This is easier said than done, but it begins with an appreciation of how little we really know, about the true nature of things, as well as in comparison to what we do know.
I was teaching about how our senses work this past week, for example. When speaking of vision, I was reminded of the preposterousness of saying we understand how vision works, because we know that photopigments absorb photons in or retinas. So a molecule absorbs one of these marvelous packets of energy which travel at the speed of light, then the molecule gets "excited" and vibrates -- and somehow the vibration of photopigment molecules is converted into vision. In some ways, the process still seems as mysterious as it did to the ancients. The same thought process holds for hearing. The wiggling of cilia on hair cells is somehow translated into sound. Thom Hartmann on his radio show recently mentioned the same conclusion regarding electricity -- we really do not understand how the movement of electrons through a wire can result in so many wonderful applications. We know how to make electricity work for us, but we still do not fully understand how it works. Drugs are a medical example of how researchers know how to find solutions that work, often without really understanding very much about how they work.
An honest and truly progressive individual should be willing to admit uncertainty, or even downright puzzlement. We also need to learn to ask good questions, fundamental questions which will guide our search for solutions. We can only find the answers that we need when we begin from a perspective of uncertainty and curiosity. I am refering not just to practical solutions to narrow topics, but even more so, to the big topics, such as the big 6 mentioned in "What's the Big Idea?" I mean we must have a humble, uncertain and curious disposition to really make progress in the understanding of not only science but philosophical, spiritual and religious matters, and at times it behooves us to be skeptics, not only of external sources of information, but in fact, so skeptical that we are even skeptical of the skeptics, and of ourselves, as well.
March 6, 2008
The previous two days I have been preoccupied with "schoolwork" (test scoring), shopping, and setting up this site as a separate website and starting to present it to some search engines. I am sure it will be difficult to add something to this site everyday, but I would like to. An important fact about me is that once I begin something, I generally stick to it. I am definitely not an easy come, easy go type of person.
Here is today's topic.
Does Science Have Limits?
The Scientific Method is a means of systematically acquiring knowledge. It is not only about experimentation. In fact, there are various forms of the scientific method being used, especially in social sciences such as Psychology. Any form of research advances our knowledgein some way. That much is not in dispute. I get tired of hearing people, some in the business of religion, others in the business of science, talk about the limits of science. The fact is, we truly do not know the limits of science. The general consensus, or social meme (the social equivalent of a gene), is that science and religion are separate and there are some things which science cannot inform us about, but religion or at least spirituality, can. This idea is offered with absolutely no evidence. As usual, the social meme misinforms us. Many preeminent scientists such as Albert Einstein, as mentioned previously, have seen connections everywhere between God (or whatever label one uses for the concept of universal consciousness) and Science. Are you aware that research on prayer consistently shows that it works even when the persons being prayed for are not aware of it? Did you know that some research, although still controversial, seems to demonstrate the existence of psychic phenomena by ordinary people? Did you know that there is research on some psychics which shows that they come up with unlikely facts about people's departed loved ones at rates which far exceed chance? Aside from this, there are the occasional startling instances of psychic phenomena which occur under unusual circumstances which would not be reproduciable in a laboratory situation -- for example, the English reporter who wrote the story of the collapse of the Krakatoa volcano from a dream he had as it happened, and before the news was known in England. I remember reading about that as a child -- my first exposure to information about psychic phenomena. I do not have references for all of this information at the tip of my tongue, but the studies of psychic phenomena in ordinary people was mentioned in the Intorductory Psychology textbook that I teach from (Feldman, 2008). Thus, it seems to me, scientific evidence has been accumulating over time which has relevance to our understanding of the existence or nonexistence of spiritual and psychic phenomena. Furthermore, most of this research seems to support the existence of such phenomena. Ultimately, it is conceivable that we will be able to understand everything about the universe that we live in, including its spiritual aspects. The limits of science are still unknown to us. Perhaps they always will be.
Therefore, I join the outstanding talk show host and author Thom Hartmann in his optimism that questions of spirituality and religion will eventually be answered to us the living through the application of science and observation. I have personally observed phenomena with an apparent spiritual explanation several times. No, I have never seen a ghost, or an alien from another planet for that matter, but for example, I have seen: a ceiling fan turn on by itself; a speedometer go haywire then fix itself (a good friend of mine also observed this); a fuel gage suddenly go empty; then fix itself (my wife also obseverved this); a car horn stop working then fix itself (my wife also was there); and have a dream about my recently departed 6 1/2 year old niece which was so vivid that it seemed real. It involved flying, and for years afterward, I continued to have dreams in which I literally felt like I was flying, and kept wondering why the people down below did not notice me.
I know that experiences such as these, and even more impressive ones, are not unusual, although people who do not have them tend to derogate them and those who mention them. To the contrary, I assert that phenomena such as these should be looked at as clues to understanding the greater reality which are not part of our everyday experience. As human beings, we should take any experience seriously and as evidence contributing to our knowledge in one way or another. However, we need to evaluate the evidence critically, use the best available evidence, and remain undecided in the absence of conclusive, compelling evidence.
March 3, 2008
Science isn't just about Science
In my opiniion, probably the single most important, transformative event in recorded history is the development of the scientific method. Unfortunately, historians generally are not scientists, and leave us with a history primarily of wars and conflicts. Perhaps it is human nature to focus on the dramatic and traumatic, but what a sad legacy if that is to be our fate. However, I do not believe that for one second. I will write more about historical trends in the near future. Now, however, it is time to briefly examine the role of science in transforming society. The development of science directly led to the industrial revolution, which has transformed out lives by supplying us with many tools and allowing us to more or less master our environment. That much is fairly obvious. However, science has many, more subtle effects on human existence, and the environment itself. Scientists are currently beginning to comprehend the magnititude of the effects of industry on the environment, not only in terms of pollution, but even more insidously, global warming. Personally, I am glad I don't live anywhere near sea level, and if I did, I would be thinking about moving. We are looking at probably the worlds largest migration ever, away from swamped coastlines, albeit over a period of centuries of more. There will be plenty of the blame game going on, and lots of calls for financial compensation for lost property, I predict. But hey, let's look at the bright side of global warming. Many people's houses will make great fishing grounds or oversized aquariums, and meanwhile, the populations of Greenland and Antarctica are likely to skyrocket. Another envrionmental disaster on our hands is the destruction of habitat and the mass extinction of vulnerable species. Once again on the optimistic side of things, evolutionary biologists tell us that times of environmental stress and extinctions directly lead to the evolution of new, better adapted species, species which may be evolving before our very eyes if we know where to look -- domestically bred amimals and plants, for instance.
Global warming, pollution, and extinctions are all great downsides to the industrial revolution and the science which led to the industrial revolution. Despite its downsides, I would assert that the potential benefits of science far outweigh the problems it generates. The second major effect of the sceintific method is "the enlightenment," which refers to the development of enlightened, optimistic, progressive thinking in Europe around the same time as the industrial revolution (as opposed to personal enlightenment of the Buddhistic sort). I am not an expert on "the enlightenment," but it seems to me that this type of thinking to some degree has pretty much spread worldwide to some degree, although there all cultures have their less enlightened as well as more enlightened thinkers. The bottom line concerning "the enlightenment" is that it directly led to the development of modern democracy and beneficial ideas and actions concerning government's role in promoting the welfare of society. Thirdly, in addition to environmental changes (which science should ultimately be able to help us deal with) and 'the enlightenment," the scientific method has led to a proliferation of scientific disciplines, each of which has greatly impacted society in a positive way. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Anthropology, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and probably other disciplines which did not occur to me at the moment or have yet to be developed have and continue to greatly contribute to our understanding of ourselves, the world in which we live, and even the universe in which we live. In fact, all of these disciplines exist within the context of culture, and all of them overlap in varying ways. It is not unusual these days to see or read about famous Biologists, Chemists, or Physicists (disciplines which unfortunately are taken more seriously by the average person than are the social sciences), wandering into the realm of the social sciences (Economics, Psychology, Sociology) or the humanities (Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality), and making important links. One example is biologist E.O. Wilson, who suggests that many of humanities problems will require psychological solutions and that a synthesis of Biology and Psychology is called for. I agree wholeheartedly with him -- such ideas are long overdue.Wilson has even devised a theory of Spirituality and Religion. Similarly, Physicists and Chemists have much to say about the origin and nature of the universe in which we live. The most famous Physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, was himself famous for saying that his entire career was spent trying to look into and understand the mind of God.
By the way, another effect of the industrial revolution is the so-called "secular effect." This is the finding that people are growing larger, and reaching puberty earlier, than in past times. For example, 200 years ago, men averaged 5 feet, 4 inches tall as opposed to 5 feet, 9 inches now, while women had an average height of 5 feet exactly, whereas now, they average 5 feet, 4 inches (an average man's height 200 years ago). The decrease in pupertal age makes self control of our impulses all the more important, at least in the sexual realm, but also, with our larger sizes, I guess we have somewhat larger brains to work with, so let's use the brains we are blessed with to the fullest advantage!
March 2, 2008
What's the Big Idea?
There are 6 general topics which deal with our roles and identity as human beings. These are the topics I will primarily deal with in my essays, at least the more conceptual ones. The first topic is Psychology, the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. Mental processes can be further broken down into cognitions (thought processes) and affect (emotions). I know that because I am a psychologist. Psychology is about the individual and his/her interactions with other individuals. Because I am a psychologist, because psychology studies our identities, and because psychology is scientific, I tend to take a psychological point of view (but not necessarily always). I do not have "Textbook" diefinitions of the other topics at hand, but I can say what they mean to me. The second topic is Sociology, whch is about how society (or culture) and subgroups within scciety operate, and how individuals are affected by society. The third topic is Philosophy, which is about the nature of and the proper conduct of life, known as ethics, and our place as human beings in the universe, which is the more spiritual aspect of philosophy. The fourth topic is Politics, which concerns the proper organization of society and the proper distribution of resources, wealth and power. The fifth topic is Religion, which consists of belief systems about the nature of humanity, its role in the universe, the nature of divinity, and how we relate to such divinity, as well as the disposition of our essence (i.e., soul) after dying. The final topic is Spirituality, which concerns the sensing of our essence (soul) and our understanding of and quest to further understand the nature of humanity, our place in humanity, the world, and the universe, the nature of divinity, and the disposition of our essence after dying. In other words, Sprituality concerns much the same issues as Religion, but does not necessarily include a belief system, and comes from within, while Religion is imparted to, or imposed upon people, people from an external source.
It is easy to realize that all of these topics overlap considerably, These areas of interlap are some of the most important, interesting, and least examined areas within the realm of human conceptualization. This is probably because the way that society works, people generally specialize in one topic or another. However, I have given a great deal of thought to all of these topics and there interrelations. Fortunately, in the context of this blog, I feel free to explore all of these topics, and how they interrelate. In fact, I feel compelled to do so. as a rational, concerned human being. I plan to explore how we view ourselves as human beings, and how we can redefine our humanity in a better way.
March 1, 2008
Boxes and Ladders
I have always been a "big picture" type of person. The bigger the perspective, the less likely we are to be lead, or to lead ourselves, astray, and the more we can learn about the way things really are. That is why I decided to call this commentary my box-free blog.
When I thought about what to call this part of my website,
I had an idea. Our mental constraints, such as culture, belief systems, or personal
biases, are what create our "boxes" and make it difficult to "think outside
the box." Some boxes are smaller (i.e., more limiting) than others, however.
Our attempts, then, to "think outside the box" refer to thinking which transcends
our normal mental constraints. When one breaks out of a box, it is as though
one climbed a ladder, found a latch in the top of the box, opened it, and climbed
out of the box. But what is there but a new and larger box that awaits us when
we climb out of the first box? For example, the first and most constraining
box might represent one's personal biases and self-centered concerns. Once outside
of this box, one finds a far wider panorama than before. However, one is now
within the broader confines of the realm of the personal belief system, with
all of its faults and even self-delusional thinking, such as may be found in
conventional religion, politics, or even science. Ultimately, with much cognitive
effort, one climbs one's way via an even higher ladder, beyond this box, and
into the realm of cultural constraints. But even culture boxes us in, so again
we free thinkers climb with much brain strain beyond the cognitive vessel of
culture, perhaps to find a one-world view of our planet floating through space
like a little spaceship in the immensity of the universe, only to find what
to us is I suppose the ultimate box, the universe itself.
Modern physicists, with the growth of the big bang theory, have indeed come
to view the universe that we live in as some sort of humongous box. But is that
the ultimate box? Physicists and others have quickly come to suspect that there
are other universes outside of the one we inhabit. It is as though we are encased
in a gigantic bubble, juxtaposed against other gigantic bubbles. Perhaps someday
we can even break this mold, so that finally, there will be no mental boxes
left to hold us in. In fact, for me, this blog is a way of "breaking the mold"to
find a fresh new view of the universe. There are no limits to the human imagination,
nor to our will toward progress, nor to the infiniteness which makes such imagination
possible.
With all this talk of boxes and ladders, by now, you are probably tempted to
get a ladder and go check out the contents of all those boxes in your attic.
Just remember not to fall in.