This book is not a book. It is an allegory. A parable. A quick philosophical pondering wrapped in narrative simplicity. The moral of the story is that when you seek safety and equality you give up on what makes life worth living. The movie Equilibrium is based on this same idea. Equilibrium is a very fun movie and stars Christian Bale. It is about a world where all emotions are repressed by a drug and all cultural items are outlawed. Books, art, and music are all banned and people live only for the work that the state provides. They live lives of colorless monotony but when Christian Bale is forced to kill his partner, who stopped taking his pills and begins to enjoy reading, he starts to question his assumptions. He stops taking his pills and starts to work for the resistance to stop the state's supply of pills to release people from the trance of emotionless slavery.
The Giver is a children's version of this cautionary tale. It is about Jonas who, in his twelfth year, is given the honorable job of Receiver. During his training, he learns that the world he has lived in has been devoid of real emotional content and also there is no color. His community is completely controlled by scientific and political means to make everyone the same in order to rid life of any risk or inequality. As Jonas begins to see colors and feel emotions such as love, and hate, he also learns about death and finds out that members of his community are murdered for not fitting in and that is the only way out of that way of life. After about a year of training he and The Giver, the old man that holds all the memories of emotions and the reality of life and gives the memories to Jonas, devise a plan to force the community to regain possession of the memories by having Jonas run away to Elsewhere, a mythical place where life is as it used to be.
The book was easy to read and not very long. I found it compelling for the majority of the story but I thought that the ending was lackluster. It takes a long time to create the world but ends somewhat abruptly and without much fanfare. The stakes of the decisions that Jonas makes are not quite fleshed out and so it doesn't seem as dramatic as it should be. There are sequels to the book that might go over the consequences of Jonas's actions. I suppose it does offer a good cliffhanger for what is to come but I'm not sure I care much about any of the other characters.
I enjoyed this book and I think it is perfect for younger readers. It would be a good way to bring up critical thinking discussions in a class or household. I recommend this book and I might take time to read the sequels.
The modern world is full of communication channels and with everyone expressing their opinions it seems that everyone knows best. Along with their criticisms comes their prescriptions for others. So much of the internet is just people telling other people how to think, how to live and how to vote and I find it to be overwhelming pretentious, self-righteous and annoying.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to control everyone else. Ok, that's not true. I get that everyone is power hungry but why are they so confident? They speak with such certainty and aggression it is as if they think that if everyone just did as they said the world would be perfect. This sounds like an overbearing parent to me. Maybe those who demand subjugation are reenacting their perception of moral nurturing. In demanding others adhere to their ethical framework they are telling others they care and want the world to be better but since their only model for teaching such methods is through demands they bark orders instead of negotiating toward a solution.
This applies more obviously to those that lobby the state to enact their brand of justice. Many hold the government as the ultimate in paternal enforcement and moral justice and it is reasonable to think this way as the government does have the power to take, punish and demand but for those that do not accept that these means are justified, the government is merely a group of control freaks trying to tell us what to do. What is curious is how everyone seems to think that they are in control of others and while many comply with the will of others it is not because the demander is in control.
I think we are only as free as our ability to choose but we are not infinitely free. Nor are we infinitely oppressed. We long for freedom and find those that impede it an enemy. It seems that given enough time humans tend to rebel and fight oppression. I suppose that those that wish to fight the power structure require the means to fight and the alternative has to be worse than fighting so some choose comfort and stability over revolt. This seems true in North Korea, although I am not sure if a significant proportion of their population actually believes they are being oppressed. They might be brainwashed into thinking they are free or at least protected, loved or otherwise part of a meaningful group.
But if the people of North Korea decided to band together and fight their "Great Leader", Kim Jong Un would find that he is not in control anymore. And if someone from inside his own party decided to assassinate him he would find that he is not in control. If he were to get cancer and die he would find that he is not in control. We are not in control of much it seems.
We humans can barely take credit for controlling ourselves but somehow so many think they deserve to control others. We should not be so quick to offer our cure for the world's troubles. Instead, we should focus on our immediate environment, make that better and then work outward. This does not mean we should not act to help others or create change but it does mean we should not be attempting to control others through megalomaniacal demands, force, or shame. We should be humble and honest about our lack of understanding about humanity and about what is best.
I would prefer to think of the Freedom From perspective. This means that I want to be free from others' oppression and impediments. Freedom of association and participation means not being forced to be on someone's team or contribute to someone else's notion of morality. Freedom from laws that force me to go against my beliefs about what is right and wrong. It also means taking responsibility to deal with the consequences of my associations and actions that affect others. I don't believe we should be seeking Freedoms To do whatever it is we want or make others act in a way we want.
I realize that I am prescribing what people "should" do in this while criticising those who do the same but I think that what I want to do is highlight the difference between trying to influence thought and trying to control behavior. Those who try the quick route of influence via force and coercion are adding tyranny to the world while those that use words and ideas to influence are introducing alternatives that can be disregarded or adopted based on its value and accuracy.
America made a costly compromise in allowing slavery but I believe that they believed that it was the best way to compete with other large countries. When they decided to end slavery and rightly so they should have paid restitution to the aggrieved parties, both the slaves and slave owners. In my mind, the slave owners would not get nearly what the slaves would but just enough to recognize that the government is to blame for the hardship that will ensue*.
The problem is that the government didn't do enough to own their responsibility for slavery and to make it right when they could have. The problem is that with time restitution becomes impossible to calculate. When the aggrieved party is deceased who should the money go to? Their children? And in what amount? And what can people now do with random amounts of money thrown at them for no reason? This is what the government did with welfare and that isn't working out very well. The government should have treated freed slaves as citizens who are wrongfully imprisoned and paid as a lump sum or periodic payment but with terms and conditions. Such as the money ends with the individual. It would not be welfare for all but specific restitution for a specific person for a specific crime inflicted on them.
What should happen if you are taken out of your home and enslaved today? When you are freed it would be reasonable to allow you to sue for damages in restitution and the kidnapper would be held accountable. They would be jailed but the problem comes when your government is the kidnapper. You can try to sack members of the government or the government in whole but they are a loyal crew and not easily other thrown. It may be cost many lives to cause an effective coo and in the end, there have been no real solutions to the issue and measures taken to ensure it doesn't happen again.
So the peaceful way to hold the government accountable is to have them pay for their crimes in restitution. The downside to this is that the cost to the government due to this kind of grievance is really the cost of the people through taxes or debt.
If the government is to act as the countries ultimate leadership then it must take responsibility for everything that occurs within its scope of control. In the modern state, this means that when it unjustly imprisons people for crimes that should never have been crimes, such as marijuana possession, and if that crime is decriminalized, they should release those whose crimes were only that, and then pay restitution in an amount that is reasonable based on what an average person in that city would have made plus a penalty fee paid from the personal pockets of the tribe that caused it, the politicians. This might incentivize the government from taking laws more seriously or it might incentivize them to never change laws. I am not sure.
Here is the last problem I see in regards to restitution now for slavery back then in the form of racially based special programs. I don't think it can be done logically, financially or effectively and so the crimes of the past must remain in the past. There are plenty of new crimes that we should hold the government accountable for. If the government displays some Extreme Ownership (as described by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin's book by that name) as a foundational guiding standard then we might see real change and real leadership from the government.
To explain the previous paragraph:
It is not logical because it is too far removed from its original recipients and too complicated to make work. It is not financially possible due to the same reasons and due to inflation, current living conditions and the massive population that exists compared to those originally aggrieved. Either you would have to spread the money too thin or too thick on those that would have gained from it had it been distributed thoughtfully in the past. It wouldn't be effective for same reasons.
And of all the descendants on either side of the issue whom would be to blame and whom would be entitled to compensation? In mind, it is either all descendants, 1 descendant or none. This is all hypothetical and really just an exercise in thinking about restorative justice, I suppose. I do not think that anyone is actually promoting giving restitution now to descendants of people who were enslaved. Maybe someone is but I doubt it is more than a few people. This is not a debate against a real opponent. It is just a thought experiment about what can be done to ensure that African Americans feel that their government is on their side just as it is on the side of all its citizens.
The government has done what it will do about slavery and the Native American conquering (as another example of complicated political crimes), and it does seem that if it is too late for restitution for slavery so I am not sure what else the government can do to appease the descendants of the aggrieved. I certainly do not see the government succeeding in unifying the country as a citizenry that works together toward a common cause.
I also see many people blaming others for their problems and not taking it on themselves to be successful. I see people who want to use the government to enact their self-interested justice instead of holding the government accountable for its crimes. It also seems that people forget the difference between the private and governmental sectors as more wish to adopt a governmental control over all aspects of life. I do not see people working to come up with counters to power run amock and remembering to keep freedoms from being lost in the chaos.
*Revision on 6/29/2018: Slave owners that profited from slavery should not receive compensation for losing their slaves because they have already benefited so much. I suppose I just wanted a symbol of responsibility from the government. It is not the fault of the slave owner that they were able to own slaves, as the government allowed and facilitated it and I don't know how to justify taking the money from the slave owners to pay the restitution because they did nothing illegal at the time. They certainly benefited from something immoral but at the time was not seen as immoral by many.
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.
Some causes are worth fighting and dying for, but some causes are merely justifications for assholes to group together to enact their hatred on others. They resent humanity, life and their own lack of worth so they project their insecurities and malice outward to those their cause deems evil. And in the name of slaying the "evil" they become evil. Their misguided morality leads them to cause chaos and harm to the innocent and guilty alike. They're not guided by reasonable moral principles but instead they lash out at their enemies whom they have labeled their enemy based on superficial reasons. They hate those that do not share their race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation and boil all of ethics into an use vs them race to the grave.
As the violence escalates and ideologies clash it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be an asshole today. What's an asshole you ask?
Assholes wear masks because they do not want to be responsible for their actions. Assholes go to pick a fight when the other person clearly doesn't want one. Assholes blow up civilians because they know that if they were to enact their irrational war on their true enemy they would lose in a second. Assholes shoot drive cars into crowds hoping to hurt and kill people with signs. Assholes go around hating on people instead of building them up or ignoring them. Assholes don't negotiate. Assholes sign away lives in wars for selfish and psychotic reasons. Assholes sign laws into place for the sake of votes alone, neglecting philosophical principles and decency.
Assholes steal your stereo face plate but leave the stereo. You stupid mother fuckers!
Ideologies that include justifications for violence based on superficial features are problematic for anyone interested in peace.
What if all the sentences for criminals were voted on by large numbers of people online? After a trial takes place and someone is found guilty, the public is given a set of choices for sentencing and the outcome is determined by a mix of public vote and judge consensus. Certified judges would get paid to listen in on the trials and determine whether or not the public came to an acceptable decision. If the public were to write-in a sentence that was outrageous then the judges would reject the decision and it would go up again or be put to a smaller judgement pool of deciders. I think the American public would eat this idea up in a second.
That last paragraph aside I wonder how I would instill my value system in others if I could. How would I justify my moral presuppositions? How would I convince someone that they are wrong when they believe so passionately that what they are doing is right. So much so that they are willing to kill and/or die to prove it? I do know that it is impossible to have the kinds of conversations that lead humans toward more peace when you are being bombed, poisoned, bashed, stabbed, gassed or otherwise threatened by someone else's ideological battle ax.
Maybe I just haven't seen enough strife or misery in my life to feel the need for the hopeful embrace of ideological warfare but I think that part of what has lead to more and more people living lives free from violence comes from sticking to universal moral principles such as respect for property rights which includes bodily rights. It's not that you punish someone for breaking laws but that you protect those worth protecting from those that would take their property, life or general freedom.
If Postmodernism can be characterized as a philosophy predicated on the denial of logic, science and reason, then by what standard do they substantiate their claims?
Without a standard measurement tool to judge the validity of a claim all claims are valid, therefore, in order to decide which claim should be followed one must rely on some form of scheme or model that becomes a mechanism to reach an ideal outcome.
There have been no better tools for exacting change in the world than those of the logical and scientific kind.
Why should I believe that logic, debate, math, science and capitalism are only tools of "the oppressor" without appealing to some attempt at a logical argument?
You can't just say that it is true because you say it's true. Then anything anyone said could be true. "That's a rock," one could say. "That's a tree," another might say. But if they are both pointing at the same thing and have distinct definitions of the words rock and tree, then both cannot be true. If there is any kind of truth it would be one that helped people navigate the differences between a rock and a tree.
The degree to which two people can communicate honesty and accurately is related to the degree to which they agree on the definitions of the words they use. In other words, the less agreement in definitions the more communication breaks down, and without rational discourse the only options left are fight, flight or submit.
If one person defines freedom as freedom to forcing others to act and another person defines freedom as the freedom from other people's actions and another defines freedom as freedom to act then a discussion on freedom between these people will most likely become contentious. Especially because they all prescribe their own boundaries of the others' precious freedoms.
In order to persuade others, in a world where the value of intelligence is increasing, you would be advised to utilize the tools of the intelligent.
A reason that Postmodern believers are achieving so much at certain Universities, in that they are achieving violence, suppression, destruction, etc., is because that type of behavior is strictly prohibited in the normal world outside certain Universities. The Universities that allow for mayhem to occur on their campuses are not setting a good example to their students about how the real world works.
In the real, working world, you don't get to foist your opinions on others by way of force. In order to succeed in a free market economy you have to get along and cooperate with others. If you want to use force then you will be met with force and if you break the law you will be met with an unbalanced return of force in order to swiftly punish those that cause violence.
If a Postmodernist were to propose laws that infringe on other's freedoms then they will be making the claim that their laws are just and lead to some ideal outcome. Luckily there is a mechanism for determining how strong this statement is. Unluckily though, the mechanism is logic, reason, science, debate and all the things Postmodernists believe are only tools of the oppressors.
Isn't someone who is currently oppressing others' freedoms, such as the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from violence, a tool of the oppressor?
If you want to fight oppression then at least fight the real oppressor, the government, not fellow citizens trying to pay their rent and shit. Taxes, unjust acts, wrongful imprisonment, corruption, etc., all all products of the governments around the world. What mechanism is in place to squelch these indiscretions in the government? At least in capitalism one can opt out of supporting a business regime they find destructive and immoral.
If words can oppress then any words a Postmodernist says can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.
Wealth inequality is not a problem. Poverty, violence, force, coercion, child abuse. Those are problems but the fact that Bill Gates has a billion dollars in his bank account and I have a thousand dollars in my bank account isn't a problem. We are both doing fine. The only way for anyone, other Bill Gates or myself, to even out those two statistics is to use force.
So what are you willing to do to force equality? After you create this universal policy of wealth distribution will you feel the same when they come to take your earnings and property to enact your "just" prescription? Or are you only happy to take from other's?
What makes people think that they are capable or qualified to solve other people's problems? How is it that twenty year olds, who have never had a job, think that they have solved anything in the way of social prosperity? Why do people think that their way should be forced onto others and if only they were in charge it would all get better? Why is everyone so interested in forcing others to do and think their way?
Freedom depends on people not using force to solve their problems. Freedom from coercion, violence, theft and fraud allow people to thrive. Free trade and capitalism, in spite of corruption by the government, has led the western world to a level of prosperity like none other in history and yet so many demean it's values and deny it's by-products.
We don't worry as much about Christian violence because it isn't a major factor in the international violence in the world and to Americans right now. Sam says in the beginning that he could see a circumstance where he would shift his attention away from Islam is a different ideology such as Christianity was causing more harm in the world.
Sam Harris does not talk about the reformation processes in the western world and how it undermined violent religious factors in the past. Moral progress has come from some of the western ideals such as free speech, gender equality, democracy and the separation of church and state. These moral reformations needs to happen in the Muslim world in order for this particular type of violence to cease. Sam seems pessimistic about this prospect.
Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur are both pro government but I think Sam looks at belief as a bedrock of psychology and Cenk looks at political and economic motivation as the bedrock of psychology.
Cenk thinks about government a lot and ascribes that thinking to others which blinds him to the real motivational power of pedestrian beliefs such as jihad. Cenk acknowledges that religious ideas play a role in violent acts but that Sam should "tone it down"? I don't fully understand the debate or where Cenk disagrees with Sam about religion.
If you can admit that religion is part of the problem just like politics then why can't religion be a major factor in some cases? Especially cases where the perpetrator tells us explicitly that their motives are religious.
If it is a simple matter of the weight of the influence religion accounts for behavior then you have to admit that at some point religion could be 100% responsible just like any other case where variable motivations exist. If it possible for the motivation to consist of 25% religion, 25% nationalism, 25% economics and 25% politics then any combination of the variables could be possible in an individual. And getting to the exact amount may be impossible. But if reason is the best method then we must take into account the testimony of the person committing those acts.
What are the proportions of psychopathology in the general population compared to Muslim suicide bombers? If the proportion of suicide bombers is higher then you can't explain it away that way.
Neither Sam nor Cenk are politicians, dictators, policy makers or in any other position of power other than as speakers and writers. A war of ideas is important but real wars make them difficult to enact. When people are really being murdered for their ideas it is hard to get the word out.
Conversations, investigations and thinking about right and wrong are the best ways to learn and grow both as individuals and as societies. Reformation comes from the peaceful exploration of ideas and if an ideology meets free speech with violence then reformation can not occur within that ideology.
Cenk admits that Christianity plays a role in the psychology of human behavior yet struggles to downplay the role Islam plays in what Muslims do. Is it so controversial to talk about bad ideas and their role in human behavior?
Sam has written, studied, debated and talked so much about the things that he takes seriously and explains the nuances of the topics with such eloquence and logical consistency that anyone that disagrees with him faces a formidable challenge. Sam's rigor and discipline for discovering the truth about the world is daunting and I think Cenk was not up to the task or at least I was not compelled by his position which is unclear to me still.
I will give Cenk credit for sticking with the conversation and being very cordial and professional. I don't think Cenk defends the charge that he is propagating bad journalism and allowing people to lie about Sam's positions very well, if at all.
All in all a really good conversation. Not the most efficient or effective one but very thought provoking.
What would happen if we just elected both of them?
If 40% of Americans support each candidate then electing both would satisfy 80% of Americans, right? Probably not because people are insane but if the American people believe these two are qualified then wouldn't the best outcome be to elect both and force them to work together for the people?
If they can't work together then they aren't working for the American people, they are working for themselves. The people shouldn't care about the specific person anyway, but in the job they will do. It's not as if the president is a dictator and can simply do whatever they want so a dual presidency would add a level of balance both of power and of opinion. Shouldn't these people be paragons of cooperation and negotiation anyway? If they are then their work would be the outcome of balanced problem solving and they could hold each other accountable to what the other side of the aisle wants.
We should get rid of the GOP and DNC and have the American people vote on their top three choices for president. The top two become co-presidents and the third candidate would become the vice-president. It would be a triangle of decision making.
If nothing else this kind of experiment in governance would be entertaining, which seems like what the American people really want. The mainstream media is already a freak show so why not put the two freaks together and film the process?
I am not sure if this has been tried in other countries or if it would tear the universe apart but I think change is important.
Or just not hire either and move their responsibilities to the people or to the other branches of the government. Shouldn't the general public be part of the checks and balances in a more defined and effective way? Governmental experimentation, with the goal of creating more accountability and effectiveness, should be valued to those who want change.
When it comes to the upcoming 2016 presidential election I can say that I am not planning on voting. I could argue that Hilary is a liar or that Trump is a joke but anyone who thinks these two are the best choice for the leader of anything are kidding themselves. These people are horrible and not worth the attention they are given. I wouldn't hire them if they were the only candidates and it seems that they are. Instead of going into tedious detail outlining the hypocrisy and corruption of two idiots, I will expound upon some common arguments against my position.
One inane argument I hear is that if someone doesn't vote they can't complain which is ridiculous. A person is born into a political system and if that system is corrupt, incompetent, or otherwise undesirable then that person has every right to both criticize that system and abstain from participating in elements of that system that they find morally reprehensible. If freedom is important then the freedom to abstain must be an option. When force is involved freedom is diminished and at the extremes, abolished altogether. Those who stifle free speech are purveyors of oppression.
“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.” -George Carlin
Another argument is the "lesser of two evils" argument. This has some logic to it because if someone is inevitably going to become president then it makes sense to acquiesce to the system and make a small contribution to whom you think will cause the least amount of harm. This is a consequentialist position and might be the right way to go assuming the assessment of evil is correct. I do not believe that this position is morally superior to abstaining, especially if the system and candidates are so corrupt that voting for either candidate is siding with an evil. Just because someone says it is a lesser evil isn't much consolation. When it comes to putting my name behind a person that has power over others, I will not back someone whom I deem corrupt no matter the outcome. Sometimes doing the right thing means not doing anything at all.
I am not apathetic but I am pessimistic about the ability of politicians to do the right thing. While I care about the policies and power systems that affect the lives of the people I care about including myself I don't think that the government that I was born into is in any way rational, moral or effective. I think it is what it is made of; many self serving monsters.
So, why not vote for a third party? To this I would say,"what's the point?" While it might be a way to skirt the social stigma of not voting at all, it is still adding credibility to the system as a whole. It says,"I want a president." And I don't want a president, especially one that says one thing before an election and then is woefully inept at enacting positive change due to the structure they would be in if they won, which they won't. No third party candidate will win so it is out of sheer optimism and self righteousness that one votes for a third party.
Another thing. I reserve the right to change my mind. With more information, evidence and convincing arguments I may choose to alter my opinion on this matter and any other. Too many hold fast to bad ideas because of ignorance, corruption or cowardliness. We should all have the wisdom and humility to admit that we may not know or may be wrong and I may be wrong. But so might you. For me, the most important thing is freedom and the freedom to choose whom and what I put my name on defines my moral character.
If you think it is moral to vote then you should vote but maybe your outrage should match the weight and consequence of your actual influence. One vote when filtered through the electoral college is diluted of nearly all it's power. The government is a massive power hungry machine and the president is only one part of the puzzle. If no one voted this year do you think there wouldn't be a president? I bet it would be business as usual at the White House.
Thanks for reading!
P.S.
Great leadership doesn't need to force itself on you because it attracts those willing to follow. Great leaders seeks wisdom from those around them and admits fault when it is due. A great leader inspires respect because they give it to those that deserve it. The standard for those we put above ourselves should be high and our outrage should be at those that would impinge on our freedoms.
When was the last time a third part candidate won?
