Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Sunday, October 18, 2020

30 Days of Heroes: Day 2 The Gossip Hero


Annie's blond hair flailed all around her face as she struggled to hold her new blue dress against the strong wind as she walked down the dusty main road toward the shop with the wooden sign with a lady's shoe on it. She came to the town of Battle Mountain by train a few days ago but this was the first time she was able to come back to it from her uncle Pete's ranch. She had stepped off the train and immediately noticed the shop with the woman's shoe on it and she knew she would have to come back to see it. She only had a few minutes to greet her cousins and uncle before they would have to head back to the ranch. "Can't be away too long, there's work to get done," Uncle Pete said with a smile while he stacked Annie's luggage with the supplies, tools, and dried goods he had purchased earlier that day. 

"I'm very pleased to meet you cousin Annie," the little nine-year-old Delila said with a curtsey. 
"I'm even more pleased to meet you cousin Delila," Annie said. She smiled and curtseyed in return. 
"Are you married?" Delila asked without preamble. 
"Deli! Don't ask that. She just got here," Uncle Pete said with a half stern tone. 
"It's ok," Annie said with a look of acceptance toward Pete. "I'm not married Deli! If I was then I would be happy to have my own little girl just like you!" Annie poked Delila's nose and then turned around with a swish. When she turned back she held her hands to her belly where there was now a pregnancy bump. 
"I'm already pregnant!" Annie exclaimed and pretended to attack Delila, who screamed and they ran around the train station. 
"That's enough of that. We ought to be heading back now. It'll be getting dark soon," Uncle Pete said when the two cousins came back by the wagon.  

"When can we come back to the city, Uncle Pete? I want to shop a little," she had said to her uncle on their way out of town. "We can make a trip in a few days," he said and she smiled for the entire bumpy three-hour trip to the ranch. She was still smiling when she entered the store with the woman's shoe on it and as she entered the small yellow-tinted room the sound of the wind dissolved and her hair was again a slave to gravity. She brushed herself off and straightened her hair as the two women at the counter turned to see what had interrupted them. 

"Well, she is pretty." Annie heard one of the women say in an attempt at a whisper. 

The women had continued their conversation and Annie began to gaze at the delicate wares. She passed a rack of beautiful silk covered and feather laden hats and a counter with thin belts made of black, red, and brown leather.  

"Have you ever seen a panther?" Annie overheard one of the women ask.

"A Panther? You mean a lion, I think." The other one said, in a soft Scottish accent. 

"Maybe but I read in the paper that a white panther killed one of Old Henry's prized stallions. Read that the horse was lost for two days and when they finally found it there was white fur everywhere and claw marks the size of Bowie's knife."

"Cougar! That's what they're called here." The Scottish woman said, excited about her revelation.  

Annie continued to look at the pretty things but was having a hard time remembering to shop as the conversation about a dead stallion and white panther was very interesting. She looked at the long dresses with their diverse patterns but her mind was elsewhere. 

"Billy told me Henry's men asked the miners to volunteer to hunt it down. But my Billy said he could make more in the river then goin off to get killed by a cougar." The Scottish woman said. 

Annie admired the dark red hair of the woman speaking as she stood at the counter. Annie quickly looked away as the red-haired woman turned toward her. Annie looked down to see a large assortment of exquisite shoes. She sat down to try on a pair of blue short boots and when she looked back both of the women were looking at her intently. Their mouths were moving but Annie couldn't hear what they were saying but it was likely about her, she thought. 

She took the blue boots off, put on the shoes she came in with, and moved toward the counter. 

"See something you like, then?" The woman behind the counter asked as the red-haired woman stepped aside, still staring at Annie. Before Annie could answer she added, "What's your name, you're not from here."

"No, I'm just visiting from college. I just love your little shop. I'd like to buy these shoes." She said and put the shoes on the counter with a big smile that seemed overly confident to the woman studying her. 

"Yes, of course." The woman said and wrote something down on a piece of paper. "Those shoes will go well with your dress. They aren't cheap though, three dollars please." The woman said but didn't look up.

Annie took out her small purse and put three dollar bills on the counter without hesitation. "Thank you very much." 

The woman behind the counter looked up and smiled dryly. "Thank you, miss..." She waited for a response. 

"Can I have a receipt please," Annie said, ignoring the pregnant pause. 

The woman handed her the piece of paper she was writing on. Annie took it and started toward the door when the Scottish woman asked, "What did you say your name was again dear?"

Without turning around Annie said, "I didn't," and walked out into the windy streets. 

With her new boots in hand, she made her way to the general store to meet her uncle and cousin. When she arrived she could see that her uncle was talking with the store clerk so she slowly made her way closer to listen in on what they were saying. Her uncle saw her and gave her a nod. Little Delila was too mesmerized as she was examining the sweets near the counter to notice Annie.

"The paper said that savages took Jim Ness's youngest boy, I forget his name now. Took him while the sun was high and no one saw a thing. Just disappeared while they were playing out back of the schoolhouse." The older man at the counter said to Uncle Pete. 

"I read a different paper that said it was that group of Mormons that come into town every so often to trade. That they took him to ransom off the Jim. Those Mormons are always up to something." Uncle Pete said back. 

"Well, Paul got a posse together to go look for him but it's been nearly three days since. Jim couldn't go on account of his leg being broke from a donkey."

"A donkey?" Uncle Pete asked. 

"Heard he was trying to shoe the donkey, for some reason, and got kicked." The man said. 
 
"Well, he deserves it, trying to shoe a donkey," Pete said. 

Delila turned around to see Annie rummaging through some serials and ran to her. "Annie! Annie! Did you see? They have licorice again! The black kind too. Do they have licorice in Boston?" 

"I assume so," Annie said as Delila took her hand to show her the glass jar full of black licorice. 

"Can I have some Papa?" Delila asked her father.

"It's not in the budget this time darling, sorry," He answered. He was always a frugal person and if he didn't plan on buying something he simply didn't. Delila frowned and looked down trying her hardest to look put out. 

The man behind the counter walked over and pulled one piece of black licorice out of the jar. Delila's mouth opened like a puppy waiting for a treat. "Can she have one piece, Pete? It's my treat."

"Yes, That's fine, John." 

The shop keeper gave the piece to Delila and she savored it in small bites. 

"Say thank you Deli. Remember your manners," Pete said. 
 
"Thank you, Mister Tompkins," Delila said.

They all left the store together and on their way out of town Annie surprised Delila with a small paper sack full of black licorice. Delila hugged her and they all made their way back to the ranch with the dust and wind swirling behind them. 

When Annie returned to town with Pete a week later the town was bustling with activity. Uncle Pete stopped the two-horse wagon in front of the telegram and post office and got out. 

"I'm going to check the post." He said to Annie who just smiled and nodded to him. 

She was focused on all the commotion going on outside the saloon. There were two groups of men facing each other yelling and most of them had their hands on their hips. One set of men had on black coats and trousers along with tall black hats. They all had beards and white undershirts. The men that faced them looked dirty and unorganized. They had no coats and just brown or blue trousers. They spat at each and kicked up dirt. The wind wasn't as harsh on this day and Annie couldn't help herself. She got out of the wagon and made her way closer to the men. 

"Mormon bastards!" She heard someone yell.

"Your man started the fight!" She heard one of the men with the black coat say. 

"Sherrif Paul was a good man!" Another said. 

"They killed that boy!" She heard a woman who was watching yell.

A crowd had gathered around the street outside the saloon but not too close as it seemed guns might start going off. While everyone was interested they didn't want to find a stray bullet in them. 

"Just leave us be! We didn't have nothin to do with that boy goin missin," Another man with a tall black hat said. 

Then, as Annie stood in her new blue short boots one of the men pulled their pistol and in a moment a flurry of blasts erupted from each man's revolver. Flashes of light and smoke emanated from the circle of men while onlookers ran for cover. Annie was too shocked to move. She had never seen such rapid and explosive violence. 

After a few seconds of fevered trigger pulling it was over and three of the five men in black suits were still standing. They stopped to check their environment and saw an entire town full of angry people. They were obviously not the favored group and the townspeople started to boo them. As the Mormon men gathered up their wounded and dying friends the townspeople started throwing rocks at them, from a safe distance of course as none of them really hit their mark. The men were not wanted there and they knew it now more than ever. 

Uncle Pete came running to Annie and pulled her to him, shaking her out of her daze.  

"Are you alright? I heard shooting and you were just standing there in the street," he asked, clearly shaken. 

"I don't know," Annie said in a monotone voice that showed how confused and stunned she was. "They were gathered around each other yelling. One said something about Mormons and a killed boy. Then they just died." 

"Are you alright? You could've been killed, standing there in the street!" Uncle Pete said sternly. 

"I'm sorry. I didn't know!" Annie said and then the relief and stress all hit her at once and she started to cry a little. 

Uncle Pete hugged her and said, "It's ok. It's ok." 

The townspeople were still booing and throwing rocks at the Mormons as they road out of town. A small group of scraggly young boys rushed over to the dead men in the street and started to pilfer items off of them but before they could do too much damage a man came out of the saloon with an apron on a started to hit them with a stick. He hit one hard enough that Annie could hear the thud against his skull and the boys ran off. 

Uncle Pete took Annie away from the saloon to a small cafe and they both sat at a table. An older woman in an apron with her dirty blond hair tucked up in a bun came over to them. 

"Howdy Pete. Such a ruckus out there," She said looking out the window in the direction of the previous ruckus. "Those Mormons aren't to be taken lightly, that's for sure. They killed Sheriff Paul and the whole posse a few days ago. They were out looking for Jim's boy, that was taken. One paper said it was the Mormons but one paper said it was definitely Indians. Lotta death either way. Anyways, what can I do for ya?"

"Yeah, none of my business really. Just needed to get off the street. But I'll take a coffee and a biscuit if you got a hot one ready," Uncle Pete said. 

"I got hot coffee and hot biscuits for ya Pete," the woman said and then turned to look at Annie. "I'm Lucy, by the way. Your uncle isn't good at introducing people I guess. Maybe he just forgot my name. Seeing as he only comes in here after men are dead in the streets." She smiled and winked at Annie. 

"This is Annie, Lucy. I know your name and not cause you just said it either. Annie is visiting from Boston, she's a freshman studying math, of all things." Uncle Pete said, very proud to introduce his niece. 

"Well, pleased to meet you, Annie. What can I get ya?" Lucy said. 

"Please to meet you as well, Lucy. My Uncle is just shook up from all the gunslinging. He isn't much of a shooter," Annie said with a wry smile. 

"I can shoot when I need to," Pete said softly, now reading the paper he got from the table next to them.

"Do you have tea?" Annie asked.

"In fact, I just got in a supply just yesterday of something called black tea. Anything else darlin?" Lucy asked. 

"Can I have a scone?" Annie asked. 

"I don't know what that is but I've got biscuits," Lucy replied. 

"I'll take one of those!" Annie said with a big smile. 

"Coming right up!" Lucy said and then turned around to fetch them their order. 

Annie's smile faded as she read the headline that faced her coming from the newspaper in Uncle Pete's hands. It read, "Unknown Blond Gets Back Alley Abortion!" 

"Can I see that when you're finished Uncle?" Annie asked, trying to sound nonchalant.

"I'm pretty well done with this now anyway. Here," he said and handed her the paper. 

Lucy came over with their drinks and set them on the counter. 

Annie turned the paper over to the story about the blond. She read that some "out of town whore" with blond hair came into town pregnant and was seen a few days later without her belly. They were now questioning the town's doctors, veterinarians, and anyone else who might be capable or know someone capable of administering such a criminal and abominable procedure. Also, there was a twelve dollar bounty for any information about who the mysterious blond was. There was even a sketch of the blond and it looked uncannily like Annie. 

Annie's heart was pounding in her chest. She remembered pretending to be pregnant as a joke with Delila when she arrived on the train but didn't presume that anyone had been watching. And to think that there was a manhunt involved now. Just because of some unfounded rumor. She was furious but also embarrassed. Such a scandalous accusation wouldn't stand. Her uncle knew the truth but Annie wasn't sure if he could help and he might be mad about it anyway. She wanted to go to wherever the paper was produced and tell them the truth and to print a retraction but she didn't know where that was. 

Steam floated above the biscuits as Lucy brought them to the table. Lucy was about to leave when she noticed a small hole in Annie's dress. "Annie. Can I show you these new teacups I got the other day?" Lucy asked. 

"Sounds good. Need to let these cool down anyway." Annie said, putting the paper down with the article about the blond face down. Pete took the paper with one hand and his biscuit in the other. 

When they were away from the table Lucy pulled a teacup from a shelf and started to look at it. "I didn't really want to show you these old teacups. I noticed that there is a bullet hole in your dress and I thought I would tell you before Pete notices and freaks out." Lucy said and then handed Annie a small pin. "Use this to hide the hole." 

"Oh my," Annie said in a whisper, as she looked down at the quarter-sized hole in her dress. She folded the dress a little and put the pin in it. She looked back to see her uncle reading the article about the abortion and her eyes opened wide. 

"I assume you didn't actually have an abortion," Lucy said in a hushed tone. 

Annie's mouth opened to match her wide eyes. "Of course not!" She said a little louder than she wanted. 

"I didn't think so. Someone that has had an abortion wouldn't be so spritely and happy as you are today. Half the stories in that paper are complete hogwash. The problem is people in town tend to believe the malarky. I would recommend getting out of town until the people around here move onto something new to sink their teeth into." Lucy smiled and took Annie's hand which took some of the shock away from the recent events. Annie took a deep breath and nodded at Lucy in thanks and for her understanding. 

Uncle Pete slammed the paper down on the table as Annie walked over to him. 

"This is unacceptable!" He yelled. "These pig-faced lying deadbeat wastrels!"

"I'm so sorry Uncle. I was just playing with Deli. I was pretending." Annie pleaded with him. 

"I know that! You think I wouldn't have noticed if you were pregnant and had an... abortion?" He said but whispered the word "abortion" and looked around. There were no other people in the room other than Lucy. 

"We should just go back home, Uncle. I don't want anyone to cause a fuss over nothing," Annie said and took her uncle's arm. Uncle Pete nodded and grabbed the other biscuit and stood up. 

"Thanks, Lucy," Annie said. "Thanks for the tea." 

"No problem Annie. So nice to meet you. Be careful out there. Never know when then boys will stir up the dust again. Don't be a stranger Pete." Lucy said. 

"The biscuits were great Lucy. Don't believe everything you read, Aye?" He said, put some money on the table, and turned to leave. 

"I don't believe most of what I hear, let alone read Pete!" Lucy said as they left.  

Annie and her uncle made their way down the dusty street toward their wagon. Annie felt like everyone she saw was looking at her and judging her. They passed a group of three women who all turned to look as Annie and Pete walked by. Annie tried to ignore their glares by looking down. They arrived at the wagon and Pete helped Annie step up into the seat. 

"There's just one thing I need to get before we leave. I'll be quick. Do you need anything?" Uncle Pete asked. 

"Please don't leave me here, Uncle. These people are animals!" Annie said with disdain. 

"You'll be alright. Just stay in the wagon. I have to get what I need or this whole trip will be a waste." Uncle Pete said while holding Annie's hand reassuringly. "Here." He said and pulled a small Deringer pistol from his pocket. "I always bring this, just in case. It's got two shots. Just like we practiced before. Pull the hammer, then pull the trigger. Just don't shoot someone that ain't trying to kill you first." 

Annie took the small silver gun and put it in her lap as Pete walked toward the stables. For a few minutes, she sat in the wagon in the hot sun hoping no one would see her but before long a small group of men was standing outside the saloon noticeably looking in her direction. A small boy walked up to the group of men and then someone leaned over and whispered something in his ear. The boy ran down the road and into the store with the woman's shoe on the sign. A few minutes later Annie saw the two women she had seen before when she overheard the story about the cougar killing the horse. The women walked down toward the group of men, stopped, and then turned toward where Annie was watching. She saw the woman nodding and pointing in her direction. That's when her heart sank and she felt an incredible urge to drive the wagon out of town. She sunk down in the seat but not low enough to disappear. 

When Annie looked again she saw a few of the men were walking down the middle of the street toward her. She moved into the driving seat and grabbed the reigns. With a smack and a whip, she hit the two horses' backs and they attempted to move forward but their efforts were thwarted by the hand brake that forced the wagon forward in a lurch and then stopped abruptly. Annie frantically looked for the handbrake but before she could manipulate it the group of men were there, grabbing at her. She reached for the Deringer but dropped it as one of the men pulled her out of the wagon. Dust flew up around her in a cloud of yellow and orange. 

One of the men grabbed her by the arm and dragged her away from the wagon. 

"Whore!" She heard someone yell. 

"Sinner!" She heard another yell. 

Then she heard the crack of a whip and felt a stinging pain on her back. Then another. 

"Fornicator!" 

"Murderer!"

A crowd of about twenty formed in a circle around her as she was whipped, spat on, and rocks were thrown at her. Annie curled into a ball as she shielded her face from the onslaught. It seemed to last forever until she heard a gunshot ring out somewhere nearby. The crowd stopped and looked to see who had shot the gun off. 

Uncle Pete was standing in the street with a newly purchased rifle in his hand, a small amount of smoke emanating from its barrel. He pointed the barrel upward and shot again. 

"The next one is going into someone you hear me?" He yelled at the crowd that was now slowing backing away from Annie. 

The men who had initiated the vigilantism stood their ground and now had their hands on their pistol hilts. Uncle Pete walked slowly toward them with the sights directly on the one with the whip. 

"This is God's justice mister!" The man at the front of the group said. 

"She ain't done nothing to warrant any of this, you dimwitted miscreants!" Uncle Pete yelled back. 

"The paper said she murdered her unborn child and we got witnesses!" The frontman said. 

"Liars and gossips! My niece arrived unspoiled and she will be leaving in the same way! Now you men back down and we'll be on our way!" Uncle Pete said, now only a few yards away from the frontman. 

"You're just coverin' for your kin!" A different man yelled and pulled his pistol. Before he could raise it high Pete's rifle rang out and the man's face had an extra hole. The back of his head had an even bigger one. Pete racked the lever, ready for another but the frontman held back, along with the rest. 

"Hold!" The frontman said to the other men. "This ain't worth dying over!" He slowly pulled his pistol out and dropped it on the ground. The other two living men did the same and the man with the whip dropped it and stepped away. 

"Annie, I need you to get up and go to the wagon now." Uncle Pete said, with his rifle still at the ready. 

Annie struggled to get up but did so and then brushed herself off. She glared at the one with the whip and then walked with her head held high to the wagon. Uncle Pete walked to the wagon with his eyes on the men but there were no more incidents. Uncle Pete looked at Annie's dirty and bloodied face. Anger filled his heart. Without a word, the two rode out of town. A few minutes into the bumpy ride Annie began to weep. 

Early in the morning Uncle Pete and Annie road into town just in time to catch the first train back to Boston. Uncle Pete had his rifle again and the few people who were there certainly had heard the story of his incredible display of marksmanship. Whispers and frowns accompanied their farewell. 

"I'm so sorry," Uncle Pete said as he hugged his niece. 

"It's not your fault, Uncle," Annie said, trying not to cry. 

After the hug, Pete handed her the small Deringer pistol. "Take this, and don't drop it next time." He said with a smile. 

Annie took the pistol and put it in her pocket and smiled back. Annie watched her uncle wave to her through a window as the train made its way out of Battle Mountain, Nevada. She felt the bruise on her back as she struggled to get comfortable in her seat and as the train made its way she looked down at her new blue short boots. A few miles down the road an elderly man in a tall black hat turned to her and from across the aisle said, "I'm done with this, you wanna read the newest gossip, young lady?" He handed her a newspaper.  

"Hell no, mister," she said with a smile.


Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Pretend I'm Your Friend

 

On Relationships


Most people have two or more "personas". They adapt to their environments by filtering their speech. At work, I have one filter and when I'm at home I have another. Sometimes I omit certain words because they are crass in one environment but perfectly acceptable in another.

My friends and I play a game sometimes. The goal is to shock the other person or people in the group by saying the most offensive, gruesome, or blasphemous thing possible. The more heinous the better. But it also has to be clever and in an attempt at humor. If someone says something stupid they are ridiculed by the others so the horrible things uttered have to be something the others will understand and appreciate as purposely horrible. The idea is to make fun of the easily offended, ourselves, and to challenge and understand each other's perspectives.

I would say that the quality of a friendship is marked by the level of freedom you have to communicate and be honest. The lower the filter the better the friend. This is why some siblings are not friends. Why some husbands and wives are not each other's best friends. People play roles in relationships and being honest can break the role and challenge their place. If someone does challenge their role in the relationship and the relationship can not adapt to this change then it will suffer.

Your best friend is oftentimes the person you can talk about you're family and spouse about in a way you might not be able to with anyone else. This is why high-quality friendships are so valuable. It gives a person a refuge to experiment with their thoughts as we don't always know what we think about something until we verbalize it and doing this with someone who can listen and offer constructive analysis will allow someone to understand their thinking better than just blurting out something in a moment of emotional distress toward someone they usually use a filter for.

Honest communication is about trust because our secrets are only secrets because of the perceived judgment of others. We hold back and filter our thoughts to hedge our bets about how others will respond. We don't use taboo language around people we don't know very well because we know that words can start fights. So we slowly test the "waters" using language. We throw in a lesser curse word like "ass" or "butthole" in an effort to gauge the other's reaction. If we are safe we might throw out a "shit" or "fuck" or a somewhat controversial idea to see what happens. Good communication is a dance with each person reading the others' moves and attempting to engage in a harmonious way. A bad conversation is the opposite, where both try to lead or one isn't paying attention or one is trying to antagonize the other.

As the dance continues the two will start to feel freer as they have created boundaries around what language works. The content of the conversation is only part of the equation of communication. Each person is doing at least two things. One is attempting to understand what the other person is saying. This can take focus and conscious effort. Listening is a skill. Although at times it can take less focus and comprehension can be effortless if the words are familiar and the topics mundane.

The second thing that a speaker is doing, other than listening is watching and reading the other person's body language and tone. Facial expressions, eye gaze, stance, and other factors are all being subconsciously attended to and studied in an effort to discern friend from foe. To see a potential attack coming or to find signs that make it safe to loosen up the filters and become more friendly. Although this instinctual process is far from perfect and we are often lead astray evolution has honed these instincts in the direction of survival so they are more often accurate.

When a person pushes the bounds of common etiquette with harsher words than would normally come out of a stranger people can often be perturbed. The normal behavior of strangers is to tread lightly until rapport is established. By being polite and respectful with their words and physical space they are saying to others that they know how to play the game. When someone treads too hard against these social mores they are testing the boundaries of others. If someone pushes too hard they can be met with any amount of disdain. From a look of contempt to a shot to the head, people don't take kindly to being tested or perceived disrespect.

Friends, on the other hand, can look past the words used and look for the spirit in which they were said. People infer meaning and intent when communicating. Sometimes people do this so much that they try to finish each other's sentences. This is rude in that it breaks up the flow of the speaker's thoughts and can derail a thread of thought. The person who is being interrupted has not established boundaries with the person who keeps interrupting them. This can often be because the speaker is also prone to interrupting and so allows it in others. Hypocritical people who interrupt others often don't like it when you interrupt them. This is due to a lack of self-awareness or some kind of narcissism where rules apply to others and not to the self.

Friends will typically give the benefit of the doubt when someone says something that is either uncharacteristically or surprisingly rude, harsh or offensive. 

People also know how to pretend to be friends. This is oftentimes what is happening between two new coworkers. They have the pressure of filtering themselves correctly in the workplace environment, which is actually at least three environments. The first environment is the one that involves clients. The second is the one that involves peers. The third is the one that involves hierarchies and bosses. And there are more I'm sure. The new coworkers also have the added pressure of trying to get to know their coworkers. They have to be able to pretend to be a stranger's friend. This is usually awkward as real friendship is gained over time and with experience and so the awkwardness that is felt is due to the inauthenticity.

A stranger is not a friend and so pretending someone is a friend in the workplace is a kind of guise. A ruse that if played wrong can be disastrous. Navigating this type of scenario is probably best done by not caring about making friends but instead caring about being a good team member. By volunteering to do jobs and help others one creates the best kind of coworker relationship, one that takes the job seriously. If one never tried to be besties with others they remain neutral and honest. They should have a plan in mind as to why they are working there and part of that plan should be to cooperate with others.

A friend applies their morality to their friends and a friend should be honest about their moral philosophies and stand by them enough to disavow a friend that strikes too hard at the values they uphold. This does not mean that a friend shouldn't be open to new ideas or be challenged but it does mean that there is a certain point at which a person should make a stand. A moral pushover or weakling can not be respected by people being honest.

Pretend I'm Your Friend


When looking at the intellectual work of others it is nearly impossible to not immediately judge the words through a filter of judgment based on current biases. This is an impediment to understanding the content from the perspective of the person communicating it. This means that the meaning and purpose of the content will probably be misinterpreted. In order to learn from others, we must lower our subjective judgemental filter and attempt to ingest the content from a more objective perspective. A great way to do this is to pretend that the other person is already your friend.

This means that you take the stance that the other person most likely thinks of themself as smart enough to have an opinion and morally righteous enough to offer advice. If it were a friend you would at least start from a place of respect and attempt to hear the spirit in which the content is being communicated. Is the person trying to help? Is the person uniquely qualified to know something about the subject? Is the person just hungry or upset or drunk? Suppressing your own instinct to react immediately, especially in a defensive way, can allow the person to express their idea fully. If you allow someone to express their idea fully then you can expect to express your rebuttal or thoughts fully as well. If you interrupt them then you can expect to be interrupted back. Or in reading something contentious or from someone you disagree with, you can better see where the person is coming from by pretending the person is not an evil person but instead just a type of friend. Maybe not your best friend but at least someone you can listen to.

When I hear something or read something that seems on its face to be completely ridiculous and wrong I try to remind myself to pretend that the other person is a friend and see what happens. Sometimes this doesn't change the outcome of the experience but it at least allows me to not immediately create a villain in which to fight. This helps with controlling the emotions that I experience that get in the way of understanding. Many times the result is as dismissive as it would have been but it doesn't take over my mind and allows me to move onto something else without so much energy wasted. Sometimes doing this actually allows me to understand the other person in a way that gives me a glimpse of their perspective, leading me to empathize or relate to them in a way that leads toward a paradigm shift. Even if just a small one. The best-case scenario is you make a new friend. I worst-case scenario is that you understand your enemy better.  




Friday, May 29, 2020

Marketing...




Look at this!
Get in on what I'm doing!
Press this button to get in. 
Go here to get in on this. 
Do this to get in on that. 
Check me out here and there and everywhere. 

Look at this wonderful thing.
Look at these wonderful people. 
Get in on this!

What about this little thing?
What about this solution to your problem?
What about inspiration?
You can do it!
We can do it!
Don't forget me.

Get in on this deal right here.
You know you already want this deal over here. 
Get in on this!
Be part of something!
Look at these beautiful people. 
Do it!
Get it!
Buy it! 


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

That Which Divides Us

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.

2. Biological Factors

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. 

Personality and Political Behavior
Matthew Cawvey, Matthew Hayes, Damarys Canache, and Jeffery J. Mondak
http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-221

Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809096/

B. Evolution

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.



C. Masculine vs. Feminine tendencies

Political ideologies in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_ideological_groups

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 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Costa3/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings/links/00b7d52db42cda259e000000/Gender-Differences-in-Personality-Traits-Across-Cultures-Robust-and-Surprising-Findings.pdf

Here are a couple of resources regarding male and female differences in society.

Political ideologies in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_ideological_groups

Most Common Occupations for Women https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/most_common_occupations_for_women.htm

3. Changing Minds



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.


The Ideological Conflict Project: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
CIGI Papers No. 74
Series: CIGI Papers Series
PUBLISHED: JULY 9, 2015
AUTHORS:
STEVEN MOCK
THOMAS HOMER-DIXON