The problem with the story of Jesus and any other Hero stories is that we start looking for them in real people today. We look at famous people and categorize them as either the Hero or the Villain because we're so used to integrating stories into our thinking and communication. The truth is that real people are almost never all good or all bad. Stories try to simplify morality in a way that is easy to understand for many ages. The simplest and most effective parables are directed at children. Stories create context without requiring real turmoil and so can teach lessons "the easier way".
Maybe the hero story is meant for children to have someone to look up to. Heroes exemplify the virtue of the culture and teach children the values of the culture. Whether that means to be brave, physically fit, intelligent or trustworthy, children can learn how to be useful adults and understand hierarchies with stories. While these stories are useful for children they can also create a heuristic that models the world in a far too simplistic way. As we mature we should be more and more critical of our tendency to simplify and gloss over important details. We should try to see the world as it is instead of as it might be imagined.
I am sure that those that have interacted with immediate danger will learn a valuable lesson but if you can prepare someone or help them avoid something bad then they are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those that listened to stories and comprehended them, as well as applied their lessons, would have had an advantage in our past which has led to a species that is prone to hold storytelling as a major virtue. The vast majority of humans can understand the lessons that come from stories and we value those that write and act out compelling stories. We are primed to seek out stories as they may help us to survive. This is why the entertainment world has amassed so much wealth, especially in the US.
The problem is that stories would be boring and confusing if they were too realistic. Real-life is oftentimes slow and most of the time nothing interesting happens, especially in the relatively safe 1st world countries around the world today. So, stories must be simplified and made interesting and an easy way to do this is to create a hero versus villain scenario. This creates drama, conflict and an opportunity for a lesson to emerge. Some clever writers play with this theme and will have the hero and villain roles swap or become ambiguous during the story. This is difficult to pull off but if done well can become even more compelling as it illustrates some of the actual vagueries of life. If it is done poorly it leaves the audience with nothing concrete to learn and just creates confusion as to who they should root for.
The reason this concept came to me was that I was watching a video about Jordan Peterson "wrecking" people with his words. It seems ridiculous to take a few excerpts from interviews and think of it as some intellectual victory. Even a long debate between two expert communicators may only result in a minor positive effect on the cultural landscape. Taking a few minute-long clips out of context that makes one person look smarter than another is misleading and disingenuous unless your goal is to attempt to idolize them.
Jordan Peterson could be more humble but if he is as qualified as I believe he is then he has every right to state his case as an expert in the fields of study that he speaks on. Also, he is probably in the minority of those with high IQs and so when interacting with most people on earth he will be the more intelligent and since he usually only talks about what he knows about he seems even more intelligent. He is confident and listens intently. He thinks about his responses more than most but he is not a hero or some kind of perfect human. He gives advise that many people need and they are benefiting from it and he has a great deal to say about humans but even he isn't completely aware of all the variables related to how humans behave. No one person can know everything about psychology or philosophy or any other complicated abstract pursuit.
The real key to our success in the modern world is not the efforts of individuals on their own but of individuals working together. We rely on specialization and the integration of a variety of disciplines to gain real insight into reality and in the pursuit to maximize prosperity. This does not mean that the efforts of individuals such as Elon Musk or Thomas Eddison did not have a major impact on the world but they were not alone in their projects and they were and are not devoid of failures.
Real people are fraught with inconsistent beliefs, personal flaws, and other unbecoming attributes. We often neglect these aspects in ourselves and those we deem heroic. We do the opposite with those with villainize. We focus on their flaws and inconsistencies and deem them unworthy. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
The judgment of others is a crucial skill in that we live in a world of both free and compulsory association with others. We must attempt to accurately judge the character of others in everyday life as well as in the more disconnected realms of politics and foreign relations. This article is not an attempt to deny the importance of assessing others' virtues and vices but the understand the gray and unsteady nature of such endeavors. Really, it is in the pursuit of personal understanding that we can see the nebulousness of others. If we can see ourselves more accurately we can see others as having many good and bad qualities and respect the vagueness of judgments.
At some point, we do need to act on these judgments and sometimes it comes down to deeming someone slightly more good or slightly more bad but we should be careful of our confidence in our judgments. We should seek wisdom in our understanding of our own frailties in an effort to understand the frailties of others and we should be wary of our desire to deify and hold others up above the rest. The inclination to idolize others can blind us to reality and create obedience when the moral act would be defiance. The opposite is true of course.
On May 18th the organization known as Munk Debates held a debate with the premise: be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress. On the pro side were Michelle Goldberg and Michael Dyson and on the con side were Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry. Unfortunately, the premise was a bit vague and neither side gave great definitions or examples of how political correctness is either a force for good or bad in the world or how people call progress political correctness in an effort to limit progress.
On the pro side, Michelle Goldberg was the only participant to attempt to argue for progress as she explained that it is important for marginalized groups to voice their concerns and that while it may be uncomfortable for others it is an important aspect of progressing rights to those who may not have had them in the past. Michael Dyson made little to no effort to talk about censorship, free speech or political correctness and instead hijacked the debate to talk about historical racial oppression as if he were giving a sermon to inner city black kids in an attempt to incite hatred and blame toward all white people in America. He personally attacked Jordan Peterson as being a "mean mad white man" which seemed to come from his insistence to make the conversation about white supremacy, targetting Peterson, who at no point was particularly mean, mad or white.
On the con side, Jordan Peterson lectured about the negative consequences to collectivist theories and identity politics. He discussed the potential for hierarchies to become corrupt and the how treating each other as individuals is the best way to organize social interactions and society. Stephen Fry eloquently talked about the failure of the left to accomplish the goal of championing progressive values and that the left's insistence on political correctness has led to a resurgence of the right. He called for fighting for rights using civility and decency as opposed to attempting to control words and shaming those who think differently. My favorite quote from Fry was, on the left, "they are somehow undiverse in their call for diversity, you can be diverse but not in your opinions, language, and your behavior".
I think that the con side would have been better off introducing examples of how the left has gone too far with political correctness such as Antifa at Berkely rioting, along with other riots, and how staff members were taken hostage at Evergreen College. Or examples of people being shamed or compelled speech in Canada. The pro side could have brought up examples of how the certain words or phrases should be made taboo or how speech can incite violence. Michael Dyson could have brought up examples of modern racism and how language allows for a lack of consequence for those who perpetrate racist behavior.
Ultimately the debate was a success but not in addressing political correctness. I think it was a good example of how conversations about controversial things can go wrong and how hard it is for two opposing sides the get on the same page and actually discuss solutions. By the end, the two who were supposed to be pro political correctness essentially denied that political correctness is a force for good which is a failure of the organizers of the debate to come up with a good premise and to find people who can argue each side of that premise.
This is a short synopsis but if you want to hear more about my thoughts I posted a three-part podcast where I listen to and commentate on the entire debate. Check that out here:
I don't fully understand what the goal of this article is. I was watching a lot of online personalities talking about all the societal conflicts that exist in America and in other countries and I kept thinking that while we often talk about the benefits of diversity we do not always talk about the negative side when it comes to a specific type of diversity; diversity of ideology and moral philosophy. There are belief systems that we adopt in an effort to succeed in communities and families and as individuals and when these beliefs are directly threatened by others we feel the need to defend our "side" of the argument. It's important that others know where our moral boundaries are because they represent our strategies for living and thriving so it is no wonder that they are fought for so dearly.
So what can I do to understand the circumstances and perspectives that lead to so much conflict? What can be done when so many hold so many others as the "enemy" of their way of life? This article is an investigation into my own thinking about the social conflicts I see represented mainly by the media I consume. I insert videos and articles in sections to give readers an additional source of information as well as to make the article more entertaining. I hope you enjoy this haphazard romp through my mind under the influence of online media.
1. Inside America
A. Protests Do modern protests work? In my mind, it doesn't seem that anyone is changing their minds based on what is said or done at protests. There are countless YouTube channels dedicated to showing off how stupid and uninformed protestors are from all sides. Protestors don't seem to want to debate or persuade the other side. Their message is one of self-righteous bullying with screaming, destruction, violence and provocation. No one in power seems to care what these people want and nothing productive comes from them.
So, why do people form large groups, stand around public areas and accomplish nothing? I think it is partly due to the idolization of prior public figures who, in the past, gained prominence through protests. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are touted as historical heroes for their roles in generating awareness around an issue on a large scale through their use of protests which garnered public solidarity. It is also partly due to the massive entitled immaturity and megalomaniacal personalities of many of the protestors.
Modern protestors do not have the same kind of morally salient principles that famous advocates such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi had. These prior protestors based their grievances on rational moral arguments such as legal equality, taxation, and freedom. Today's protestors already benefit from a radically more equal and free society so when they fight for values such as endless immigration, radical socialism, and identity politics it doesn't have the same moral weight as in the past. Modern protestors do not make the kinds of persuasive arguments required for their causes to have an impact on the general public especially when the outrage seems out of proportion with what they fight for.
Protestors who demand that others bend to their will via government policy are immature because they don't understand that others do not want to subjugate themselves to the will of others and they are megalomaniacal because they imagine themselves as so morally righteous that they are willing to use force to enact their desires. They would rather demand the government cow-tow to their desires to enforce their rules and their whims without oversight or justification. Instead of appealing to individual freedom and moral reasoning they appeal to authority to solve the issues they claim without fully thinking about the consequences of enacting such regulations. Also, the government doesn't work on behalf of screaming groups. The checks and balances of the government, while often times slow to change and corrupted by power, at least offer a process for analyzing proposed policies on behalf of all the people instead of just enacting dictatorial mandates from small groups.
The only protests that seem to work come from a peaceful demonstration founded on moral reasoning that gives voice to groups of people who were previously unorganized. Government policies should not be determined based on the emotional outcries of entitled college students and irrational maniacs. If people use screaming, force and violence to accomplish their goals they will only get resistance from those that value civil discourse. Only through moral reasoning will the masses be convinced that a cultural change is necessary and it is only when it is in the government's best interest that it will respond to changing cultural expectations.
An example of this is the recent federal change in marriage laws for gay people. It took years of people discussing the moral underpinnings and practical implications of gay rights before enough people agreed and for the federal government to make a major change in the laws. This is how democracies work. They take time, argumentation and general agreement for change to occur which requires patience and reasoning on behalf of those who care to make America a better place.
B. Political Conflicts (Left Vs. Right) I have been watching a lot of YouTube videos of Jonathan Haidt explaining the differences between the left and the right. What I have gathered is that they both offer important perspectives regarding how societies should organize policies. One issue, I see, is the lack of balance in each approach. Too much collectivism, as pursued on the left, leads toward the subjugation of the individual, excesses in wealth distribution, authoritarianism and denial of the corruptible nature of humans in power. Leftists believe that if only the societal environment were more perfect then so would be the people be within it. Unfortunately, the only way to control the societal environment is through engineering and control. Hence, they see the government's role as being the force for that control.
Alternatively, the conservation of status quo policies and purity, as pursued on the right leads to another form of authoritarianism which doesn't allow for changing ethical considerations, global cooperation, and secular values. In their pursuit of order and tradition, the right has a hard time adapting to new information, especially when it has religious or cultural implications. This thinking leads toward policies that discriminate against those who do not fit into the tradition or those who pursue more hedonistic endeavors. The right wants to use the government to confirm dissidents to their frame of reference and maintain the purity of a system that they see as moral and effective. Gay rights, drug laws, and foreign policy come to mind as things the right hasn't dealt with well in the past.
While traditionally conservatives have supported smaller government intervention and liberals have supported freedom the current political expectation seems to be in how each party can spend more of the public's money in the way they see fit. Even the designations I am using, right and left, exemplifies the divide between the principles each party grounds their policy strategies. They are opposites, mutually exclusive and therefore zero-sum. If one wins the other loses and since both believe so strongly in their positions they are willing to fight (hopefully not to the death) for their ideas. How can a government move forward for the people if the people running it have opposing goals?
There are three solutions to this division that I think might help. One is to give each side less power over the other. Lessen the role of government as the libertarian's desire and force people to deal with each other on a more individualistic basis. The second way is to help those of one political bent or the other see the similarities that exist between the two groups. Focus on shared goals and common threats in order to bind America together. The third idea is to promote compromise and humility. Both groups need to recognize the limitations of their philosophies and work toward balancing the conversation using evidence and morality as a guide.
Here is a Ted Talk Jonathan Haidt gave about the division between the Left and Right.
C. Ideological Conflicts (Communism Vs. Capitalism) Ideology is the underlying system of beliefs that inform a person or group's perspective on fundamental values. Where morals describe specific dispositions toward right and wrong, ideology describes the matrix in which morals intermingle and influence each other and inform broader decisions and behavior. Just like the divide between the political left and right, opposing ideological principles cause many of the conflicts that we see growing inside of America today. It is in the fundamental philosophical dispositions that we judge actions and make decisions. When two groups have opposing solutions to big problems it is our shared ideologies that, as Jonathan Haidt says, "Binds and blinds" us together and keeps us compromising with the "other".
Take, for instance, the concepts of capitalism and communism. These are opposing value systems that inform political policies and social interactions. They impose rules for behavior and dictate levels of state power and allocation of resources. Capitalism relies on principles such as respect for property rights, individual ownership of resources, trade (with varying degrees of regulation), prices are generally determined by markets, voluntary association, and individuality. These principles inherently produce financial inequality but distribute financial power among more people (groups) allowing for more fluctuations in both failure and success.
Communism explicitly opposes the principles of capitalism in that communism relies on central power and decision making based on the assumption that decisions about resource allocation can be done perfectly if only it were under a singular control. Communism requires that property and thus resources be controlled by a small group of decision-makers, trade is replaced with rations, prices are determined via committee, no freedom of association and focuses on the forest (group), neglecting the needs of the trees (individuals).
So, how can people within a country that hold such fundamentally opposing ideologies ever get along? If they can't then what can be done? During the Cold War, the negative effects of the communist philosophy were actively resisted and persecuted, potentially to the detriment of individual freedom but for reasons of maintaining the system that has produced massive increases in wealth and standards of living that all classes have benefited from. It is ironic that those that hold the group above the individual (communism) would accept a philosophy that requires everything to be controlled by a central agency. (Communism requires distribution of resources based on needs and therefore some agent must calculate those needs.)
Where do ideologies come from? I think the first place to look is in childhood, where people are first introduced to moral concepts. There is a reason that most religious people adhere to the religion of their parents. Parents play a major role in determining the kinds of environments, conversations, and interactions that shape how children develop their moral philosophies. If parents promote collectivism over individuality they are priming their child for a worldview conducive to communism. This isn't to say that understanding the benefits of community and compassion for others is not a virtue but when it takes precedence over the individual it can lead to a top-down approach to society as opposed to the bottom up ideation of focusing on the individual first.
Schools are also responsible for shaping the minds of children but there is so much to say about the systematic problems with the American public school system that I do not know where to start. Teachers tend to be women, women tend to lean left, which leans communistic, for one (I know this is a huge generalization). K-12 schools do not focus on philosophy, logic, argumentation or morality and if they did it would probably produce outcomes as mediocre as the current system produces in terms of performance, life skills, and promoting individual potential. It seems that post-high school academia is the biggest culprit of promoting anti-capitalistic ideologies. Colleges are primarily run by those on the left and those that see the government as the answer to society's problems and thus many college students begin to learn about how communism, in its "ideal form", would produce a utopia that we would all benefit from.
I think as time goes by and people see the disadvantages of traditional school systems a more diverse and practical system will emerge, primarily online. People will be less indoctrinated by public schools and colleges, leading toward a more balanced and practical acceptance of moral philosophies that do not require massive government control. At least that is my hope. Again, it comes down to balance. A system that has no room for individual freedom of choice skews the world toward slavery and a system that is void of order leaves no room for stability. Without the rule of law trade can not thrive but with too many restrictions there can be no peace.
Here is an article about moral conflicts and how difficult they are to resolve.
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
A. Personality Personality plays a major role in how we interact with the world and it has a high genetic component. Where personality describes a person's character and interactions with the world in general, which takes into consideration all possible interactions, political attitudes describe a person's attitudes toward a more narrow set of situations; those that are social and hierarchical. Political attitudes dictate one's orientation toward how people should behave in a society and how the government should influence and regulate those behaviors.
Going into this section I assumed that it was a simple task to bridge the gap between personality and politics. I assumed that those that were more conservative would be more orderly, conscientious, and stable. I assumed that those that identified as liberal would be more open to experience, compassionate, and agreeable but after reading a couple of scholarly articles (listed below) I found that the correlation between personality traits and political behavior may be due to an underlying genetic variable that influences both. This does not change the relevance of the correlation but indicates a stronger and more primitive genetic influence in individual dispositions.
Taking into consideration that, based on the paper "Correlation no Causation"(linked below) , the genetic component accounts for roughly 50% for both personality traits and political attitudes we can better understand how people come to their beliefs and how they might be changed. This understanding should allow us to not be so angry with others knowing that they are not in complete control of their genetic predispositions or the environment they were born into. This does not mean that people aren't accountable and adults who have had exposure to moral arguments have an opportunity to go against the grain and align themselves with better ideologies. If people can better understand the influences on their ideologies they can better resist those that are not morally justifiable and hopefully be open to alternative ideas.
Here is a YouTube clip of Jordan Peterson discussing personality and political leanings.
Here are a couple of interesting articles that discuss personality and politics. This is a huge topic so I might write more about it in the future. For now, I offer some things to ponder.
Recently, in my investigation into ideology and politics, I have come across someone that seems to have a great understanding of human behavior and how it relates to both psychology and evolution. The following YouTube video is by Jonathan Haidt and describes how the individual evolved a reliance on the social world for meaning. Check it out and see what you think.
I think the only reason I bring up male and female differences here is to give a little context to why the two sexes differ on average in certain areas of life but I don't think that women and men differ on fundamental goals. In societies that are wealthy enough to concentrate on more abstract concepts we can argue about how to better things but when it comes down to it men and women need each other and our species cannot continue to thrive without cooperation between the sexes. We should celebrate the evolutionary advantages that the two sexes have been specialized to excel at and we should not pretend that all men and women are the same just like we shouldn't pretend that all people are the same. Also, keep in mind that statistical averages and tendencies do not dictate behavior, they only generalize observations about behavior. Statistics describe the past and individuals dictate the future. It is up to everyone to determine what they think is the right behavior in each moment and with better understanding people might be able to make better decisions that benefit themselves and others.
One statistical difference between men and women is their differing orientations toward people and things. Women tend to focus on endeavors that involve the nurturing, facilitation and the maintenance of people. This explains why they are over-represented in medical and social services, education and administrative assistance and why women are more likely to adopt political attitudes that have to do with helping people such as social programs, equal rights, and other liberal policies. Men tend to focus on things, so they lean toward endeavors that involve technology, transportation, and management. This last one seems like it would be a female endeavor because management often entails people but I think men end up in management because they treat the team as a system or machine. They can take the emotional aspect out of the equation and look at each person as a part of a system that's goal is effectiveness and efficiency, not as individual personal successes. This tendency is good for assessing the allocation of labor but not in maintaining morale. That is why good HR policies help facilitate work relationships and good managers do not neglect the human side of the business.
The feminine and masculine are the two sides of life. The yin and yang. The order and the chaos. The emotional and the rational. Just like everything else, balance requires the acceptance and understanding of other's feminine and masculine tendencies as well as your own feminine and masculine tendencies. Also, understanding how men and women differ in their communication styles can help forgo needless arguments and misunderstandings. There are many resources for understanding how men and women differ with respect to communication styles, expectations and goals so I recommend looking into to these differences to better understand how other's think and behave to understand what goes wrong in relationships whether at work, at home or in society. Anything that can help 50% of the population get along with the other 50% of the population seems helpful, although, I admit, it's probably not the biggest problem in America.
This YouTube clip discusses some of the differences that men and women have regarding social expectations and communication.
In the following Youtube clip, Jordan Peterson talks about how the sexes diverge when given the freedom to choose their occupation.
*The following article is not necessarily the one being referenced in the YouTube clip above. It is just one study I found that backs up the claim that Jordan Peterson is talking about.
Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings Paul T. Costa Jr., Antonio Terracciano, and Robert R. McCrae National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
A. Narratives and Persuasion The first step to peace is the denial of force as a means to enact change. If we accept this axiom then we are left with the difficult task of persuading others through words. This is where argumentation and debate become valuable and essential to society. This rests on the right to freedom of speech which should not be taken for granted. The following podcast discusses moral argumentation in an informed way and talks about the power of narrative to help persuade others. If one can frame an issue in a way that is both relevant and relatable by using real-world examples, appealing to strongly held beliefs and not using insults one can persuade others without alienating them or attacking their identity.
B. Jonathan Haidt: How common threats can make common (political) ground
4. Closing Thoughts
A. Ascetic Preferences Vs. Justifiable Force (Morals and Laws)
On important factor to think about is the difference between what we would prefer people do and what we are willing to force people to do. We should not take lightly the application of force, especially through the rule of law. Nearly any law, if it is enforced, means the potential for violent outcomes and therefore we should take seriously those laws we promote. Also, keeping in mind that once a law is created it is nearly impossible to retract.
B. Religion?
I'm not mentioning religious differences much here because it is such a big topic that it deserves its own article and because others have discussed it thoroughly. Just google religious conflicts and you will get your fill. Obviously, people are passionate about religion and religious ideas are a large cause for conflict but the purpose of this article was to investigate things that I have not spent as much time on and to understand something new.
C. This last section contains the thoughts that sparked this blog article as well as additional media to ponder.
When you look at a population in terms of diversity of ethnicity, color or culture you will notice degrees of integration. Integration and harmony only come from shared value systems. Ethical boundaries have to be respected for individuals to get along so when people hold compatible belief systems they can collaborate and work productively.
Instead of focusing on the diversity of race, ethnicity, and culture we should be focusing on what we all have in common. What are our goals as individuals and as groups? Differences among us can be characterized as either superficial and insignificant or deep and important, and the distinction is important. In order to get along, we must be honest about what we care about and think hard about what we have in common. If it is nothing then we will fight and if it is everything then we are the same.
In a society whose population is less integrated, it can be presumed that there are conflicting value systems guiding individuals in each group. Individuals look out for the group and have to make moral judgments on behalf of the community. It is only individuals that can act.
People do not want diversity. A diversity of value systems causes conflict. What we really want is a shared value system that binds us in peace. We are all displaying our value systems and groups take on the value systems of their followers.
Why focus on differences? Shouldn't we focus on similarities? Like shared values and ethics. What happens when two groups hold opposing values? For example, if one values freedom and another values slavery. How can they ever work together? Why should one be a slave to the other?
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
