What Convinces Us: the corollary to ‘How We Argue’

March 14, 2008 — xanthippa

Often, I feel like an outsider looking in on how the rest of the world lives, bewildered by all these ‘unseen rules’ that guide human interactions.  The fact that I am heavily ‘Aspergers’ probably has a lot to do with it:  I compensate for my lack of intuitive understanding by obsessively observing and cataloging behaviour.

Noticing how people argue seemed relatively easy:  the evidence was ‘out there’.  But understanding what convinces people to change their minds….that I have found much tougher.  I can see the arguments ‘out there’, in the open, but the ‘convincing’ process itself is inside a person’s head – hidden from direct observation.  It was easy to see that some arguments were more effective than others, but it always puzzled me how come an argument could convince some people, but not others.  Do not all people undergo similar thought processes?

I’m still not sure I get it.  But, it seems to me that both how much of an ‘investment’, and of what type it is, is of importance. 

A few years ago, something unusual happened: I was wrong.  Yes, it does happen, occasionally….  :0) 

During a get-together, I got into a heated-yet-amicable discussion with someone on an inconsequential topic – and, not having proof for either side on hand, we came to an impasse.  Another person came in, who just could have had the answer, so we asked her.  As she began to speak, it became apparent that the information was not favourable to my position, but the general revelry of the get-together was beginning to drown out her voice.  So, I started to ‘shush’ everyone, so we could hear the rest of what she had to say.

My opponent, sparks of laughter in his eyes, commented that perhaps it was not in my interest to be getting her to speak, as she’ll only prove me wrong!  This puzzled me, and I said so:  I’d rather be proven wrong, than persist in an incorrect position.  It was my opponent’s turn to be puzzled – it seemed this approach, which I took to be the only plausible one, had never occurred to him.

This gave me a big clue:  some people cannot be convinced, because they value winning an argument (and not ‘loosing face’) higher than they value being right.  And if this could be true of an inconsequential thing, among friends – where laughter was the measure of the volume of the argument – how much more true this would be for ‘big things’!

One of the ‘big debates’ that is going on now centers on the veracity of the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ model.  I was one of the earliest proponents of ‘global warming’ – it sounded reasonable to me.  However, over more than a decade of  reading up on the underlying science, the IPCC reports, and after speaking with some of the scientists (and an economist)who were part of the whole UN shindig about it, I have concluded that it is much more of a political tool for behaviour modification than it is a scientific theory…

Not that long ago, I got into a discussion about ACC with an intelligent, educated young man – and an excellent debater – whose positions fall far left of the centre.  I made an observation that most of the ACC’s proponents were left of centre, and he accused me of politicizing the debate.  Yet, he was logical, and challenged me to convince him that ACC is a load of dingo’s kidneys, without ‘politicizing’ it. 

So, I explained a lot of the ideas that the ACC’s proponents are using, and explained the underlying science behind them…and why this model does not fit the scientific evidence.  I also explained the IPCC’s process in writing the report, and how the methodology was used to exclude science to play significant role in the report.  I even pointed out a few bits where frustrated scientists used wording that acted as ‘red flags’ to other scientists, indicating the unsoundness of the statement.

Nothing seemed to work.  I simply did not know how to convince this man.  Frustrated, I made an offhanded comment about how the whole pseudoscience of ACC was started when Margaret Thatcher commissioned a report that would show ‘fossil fuels should be abandoned in favour of nuclear power’, in order to use it as a weapon with which to end a pesky coal-miners strike….

I was quite floored when he retorted:  “You might have mentioned Thatchers involvment at the start and I would have instantaneously lost all of my credible thought procceses and immediately jumped on your wagon.”

Perhaps it is beyond me to figure out what convinces people…

Posted in Aspergers, debate, human nature, language, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Animal-speak: cats and dogs

March 12, 2008 — xanthippa

One of the most influential books I read in my teens was ‘On Aggression’  by Konrad Lorenz.  I had always been keenly interested in animals – if the pun were not so bad, I’d even say I can’t resist their ‘animal magnetism’. Yet, after reading his book, I began to notice more and more specifics of their communication.

My first ‘profoundly funny observation’ was to notice the ‘communications problems’ that cats and dogs were having. 

When a dog approaches someone in a non-threatening way, he wags his tail from side to side to clearly show friendly intentions.  Cats also wag their tails from side to side – but only as the last warning before they attack! 

I kind of imagined this like two people meeting for the same time, neither speaking English well, and each working from a ‘Monty-Pythonesque dictionary’…. of the ‘Your hovercraft is full of eels’ type…  However, each would have completely different edition, with the phrases in it giving different translations.  Extrapolating to the ‘cat-dog’ situation, I imagine their conversation might go something like this:

Dog says:  “Hello, how do you do?  It is very nice to meet you!”

Cat hears:  “You there!  Yes, I’m talking to you, you mangy scum!  I’ll punch your lights out!”

Naturally, Cat is not going to take this lying down!

Cat answers:  “You son of a bitch!  This is your only warning:  if you don’t leave me alone, I’ll rip you to shreds!”

Dog hears:  “How do you do!  Very pleased to meet you!  Let’s sniff butts!”

Dog is happy, thinking the proper etiquette is being followed.  After all, they ARE getting along swimmingly…  Not only is Cat’s tail wagging faster than ever, Cat even lowered its head closer to the ground!  I’d better accept this ‘universal’ sign of submission and make the first move to butt-sniffing.

Cat, already on edge from being challenged by this rude stranger, now sees Dog make a move towards Cat…..so, defensively, Cat unsheathes the blades which are its claws and smacks the closest bit of Dog, the nose!

Well, you can just imagine how hurt the Dog is by this unprovoked attack!  OK, Dog’s nose may be smarting, but, the really hurt part are Dog’s feelings.  After all, how much more polite could Dog have been?  And Cat was just leading him on!  Answering nicely and politely, suckering him into coming closer by inviting him to butt-sniffing…and the whole time it was just a setup to claw him!  What a slap in the face!

Once bystanders separate the two combatants, they both go away with an uncomplimentary picture of each other.  Cat thinks Dog is a rude brute!  That’ll be the day, when Cat will ever bother with another dog ever again!  And Dog is left thinking that Cat is mean, crafty and treacherous, pretending to be polite only to get close enough to hurt someone.  Cats are just not to be trusted, ever!

Yet, cats and dogs CAN learn to live together, they ARE able to learn each other’s language!   Sort of like the people in the Monty Python sketch:  the people understand that when THIS person says something about one’s parentage, they really think they are asking to buy a pack of matches….

Of course, cats and dogs are not the only ones whose communication can get messed up by crossed signals.  I always like to see if ‘lessons learned’ in one area can be applied in another….  Perhaps next time I’ll write about such a ‘conversation’ between Dog and Rabbit!
 

Posted in language, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Politics of ‘TIME’

March 8, 2008 — xanthippa

Time, what is ‘time’? 

Objectively speaking, time is an aspect of the space-time continuum within which we exist… at least, to the best of our limited observations!!!  :0)

The neat thing about time is that we can only perceive it in one dimension…and even that, rather imperfectly.  This is reflected in the ages old saying (which my husband claims comes straight from Confucius….):  ‘A man with two watches never knows what time it is!’

We do measure the human experience in time, and nowadays, we have way better ways of measuring time than they had back in the wise sage’s days.  One could spend years ruminating on the causes:  were we created this way?  Had the natural alternation between light and dark periods caused us to evolve this way?  But I am going off on a tangent here…..forgive me.

The observed reality is that we, humans, have an ‘internal clock’ – our circadian rhythm.   And though it is not always perfect (yes, mine seems to be set onto a 100, rather than a 24 hour period – I’ve always been a ‘metric girl’), it does affect us in many ways that are not obvious at a first look. 

We are all aware it affects our sleep patterns, but it also affects our appetite, ability to reason and our ‘clumsiness’ (I don’t like to use the term ‘dexterity’, for obvious reasons), plus a few more.  Just remember the last time you were jet-lagged:  your head seemed to be in a haze and you bumped into things until you adjusted.

But, being humans, and living in a global village, we need to ‘normalize’ our experience in order to ‘fit it’ into the framework of our society.  That is OK, and much of this can indeed be good.  To help us co-ordinate our actions, since the earliest dawns of civilization, humans have created conventions for defining specific points in time. 

The earliest of these were simple:  dawn and sunset, one sunset (or dawn) to another measured one day.  Then we got fancy….observed the solstices, equinoxes, lunar phases….and worked all these things into calendars.  Even today, we measure ‘years’ in terms of Earth’s path about the sun; our ‘months’ are solar bastardizations of the lunar cycle.  Both the ancient Egyptians and the Mayas had a neat calendar, which considered the solar and lunar cycles….defining an ‘era-year’ by their co-incidence.  Pretty sophisticated…..

And just as we define the year, the solstices and equinoxes in natural terms:  our planet’s motion within the solar cycle, so we define the period we call ‘day’.  Since, in our early history, we noticed that the light/dark periods were not identical in length, and thus only useful in a ‘rough’ definition of ‘day’, we have defined ‘noon’ as the point in time when the sun was most directly overhead’, as demonstrated by the ‘shortest shadow’.  Because this point was exactly half way between he dawn and the sunset (which are variable, unless one were directly on the equator), we have called it ‘mid-day’.  Half-a-revolution later, we call ‘mid-night’.  And, noon to noon or midnight to midnight is defined as ‘one day’; or, if you prefer, one day is 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or 86,400 seconds….  These seem like clear and logical definitions, firmly grounded in natural observations.

So, why is it that we are so ready to abandon these sound traditions?  Why are we turning our backs on nature?  Or, if you prefer, why are we turning our backs on our creator’s divine order?

This weekend, we are ready to ignore the natural/divine order, turn our backs on millennia of accurate definitions, and turn back the clock…..at the whims of a few political overlords!!! I speak of nothing less than the folly called ‘daylight savings time’!

Oh, the reasons given for the establishment of ‘daylight savings time’ are numerous….and bogus.  All of these aims could easily be achieved by establishing ‘summer business hours’ – while leaving the natural/divine order undisturbed. 

After many years of this misguided practice, there are hundreds of scientific studies that demonstrate that every ‘clock change’, the population undergoes a real and observable ‘jet lag’:  accidents (both industrial and automotive) occur more, with more fatalities as a result (sufficiently greater numbers so as to be statistically significant), there is a measurable decrease in productivity… and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

And what for?  Some imagined monetary savings?  Are human lives really that cheap?

Or is the motive for imposing ‘daylight stupid time’ quite different….is it a demonstration from our political masters of just how completely they control us?  After all, it was first imposed during a war histeria…..when people are most ammendable to political coersion – and we’ve never managed to rid ourselves of it.

So, is it a power trip, designed to demonstrate the politicians hold greater influence over our lives than nature, or a divine creator?  Because they can indeed impose an artificial system to override the reasonable, natural/divine one?  And make us believe they are doing us a favour? 

I certainly don’t know.  That is why I’m asking the questions….

Posted in philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »

Harry Potter and the ‘Secret Sub-culture’

February 29, 2008 — xanthippa

During a debate, someone raised the topic of ‘Harry Potter’ and how ‘unfinished’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ the last book really was.  One person said that during the series, J. K. Rowling seemed to change the fundamental roles of some of the characters.  It started me thinking…perhaps it may not have started out as such, but, by the end, WHAT was the ‘Harry Potter’ story really about?

Let’s look at it.

We have a young boy, living in an average British suburb, average British house, yet still disenfranchised from all about him.  Without knowing why, he feels different, he does not fit in.  As he grows, he learns he is a part of this very special group of people who live within the British culture, but are different, separate from the mainstream population in so many ways!

This ‘special’ group of people could, at first look, pass for Brits – but were decidedly different.  They believed in different things, behaved differently, dressed differently, yet kept their ‘differentness’ secret from the mainstream.  With their own rules (though their ‘Minister’ did have a ‘quazi-legal’ status with the ‘Muggle’ Prime Minister) and laws, their own separate legal system administered justice among them.

Most of the Brits are not even aware of their separate existence:  and many of the members of this ‘special sub-culture’ live integrated, among regular people.  Yet others live isolated, in whole communities devoted to ‘their kind’ – and it is only in these isolated communities that members of this special ‘sub-culture’ openly practiced their ‘differentness’.

Those who spent their whole lives in these communities often fail to understand even the basic principles or social customs of the greater British society surrounding them.  Not only do they think, act, and dress differently…they can not even be bothered to learn about the rest of the society that surrounded them, even as they consider them as ‘less evolved’ or ‘less special’ than themselves.  They euphemistically refer to ‘regular people’ by the patronizing term ‘muggles’, or by the downright derisive ‘dirty mud people’….

And though they may be self-isolated from the cultural mainstream – having their own beliefs and their own schools where they sent their children – they do keep in close contact with other people of their own kind, who live scattered in secret or isolated communities in other parts of the world….all of them taking care to go unnoticed by their host society.

Hmmm, any thoughts yet?

It gets better.

Within this secretive sub-culture, there was a struggle:  those who were kindly pre-disposed towards the lowly ‘muggles’, those who wanted to ‘get along while being allowed to keep their separate sub-culture’, were battling against a militant group from within.  Led by a mythical, powerful, but hard-to-define and often absent leader, this ‘evil’ sub-sect was downright hostile toward the host culture, killing ‘muggles’ without regard, just to prove their superiority, and murdering any member of their sub-culture who opposed them too loudly….

But that was not all….not only was this sub-sect hostile and militant, it sought to gain total and complete control over the whole of the ‘magical world’ sub-culture.  Nobody knew any longer whom to trust, who was on whose side, who was secretly controlled….and the subtle blackmail and mind-control by the ‘evil side’ could escalate to open intimidation!  The ‘moderates’ kept trying to identify and battle the ‘militants’, only to be infiltrated and betrayed, time after time….

Is this still sounding like the story of a boy who wakes up and realizes he is ‘magical’?

Or does the change of attitudes Ms. Rowling’s book take as the story progresses pass comment on a completely different matter altogether?  A matter we all need to pay attention to, before Voldemort (who, by the way, changes his name from the one he’s born with, when he enters this special ‘sub-culture’) gains complete control over ‘the special community’ and subjugates ‘muggles’ in all the world?

Hmmmm, change a few of the labels, and you might not be looking at a fairy-tale at all!

Posted in human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 14 Comments »

Epicurean, Epidurean…paradoxes everywhere!

February 24, 2008 — xanthippa

As far as Greek philosophers go, Epicurus was pretty O.K. 

Contrary to the customs of his era, he allowed women as students in his school.  Though there is absolutely no historical fact to justify this, I would love to think that the legendary Xanthippe (of whom he most certainly knew) and her famous debates versus Socrates, may have influenced him in this.  After all, his philosophy was not really all that far removed from hers (at least, the few little bits of her philosophy that have survived).

But, unlike Socrates, who was busy gazing at the navel of his immortal soul, Epicurus saw humans as having physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs:  the ideal, then, was to strike a harmonious balance in one’s life.  Frankly, this seems almost too reasonable an opinion to be held by a ‘philosopher’! 

After all, where is the brooding, the derisive scowl at the cares of the world – isn’t that the image the word ‘philosopher’ is supposed to evoke?  I bet his ‘reasonableness’ cost him a lot of ‘pretentiousness points’ among the lofty circles…

 

He would likely have been written off and forgotten, had he not also voiced some very provocative ideas.  Most (though certainly not all) of his contemporaries aspired to the creed of monotheism, describing God in a way modern day Christians would recognize:  omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards mankind, his creation. In the still predominantly polytheistic environment, this idea – coupled with the notion Socrates had taught of the immortality of one’s soul – seemed very deep and mystical.  Yet, Epicurus directed some very pointed questions at this creed…and none of them have been satisfactorily answered as yet!

 

            Is God willing to prevent evil, and not able?

                        Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is He able, but not willing?

                        Then he is malevolent.

            Is God both able and willing?

                        Then whence cometh evil?

            Is He neither able, nor willing?

                        Then why call him God?

                                                –     Epicurus, 341-271 BCE

This is perhaps the most famous group of his questions and has been handed down to us under the name the ‘Epicurean riddle’, or the ‘Epicurean paradox’.  It has been much paraphrased over the millennia, but the above is one of my favourite renditions.

People say that pain can, at times, bring ‘things’ into a sharp focus.  This was true for me, as I deeply questioned every single one of my life’s decisions, whiling away the endless hours of late-stage labour.  Truly, I came to question everything!

And then, it occurred to me:  in order to make people (especially female people) truly comprehend the meaning of the Epicurean paradox, perhaps I could re-phrase it into terms that had more immediate impact on our lives.  It’s almost as if the words came to me of their own volition:

Is God is truly omniscient?  Then He must know the pain of childbirth! 

And if He is also omnipotent, and he did not invent ‘the epidural’ waaaay before inventing this whole childbirth thing, then he is most certainly not benevolent!

I like to think of this as the Epidurean paradox!

I would go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point….

Posted in atheism, human nature, ignosticism, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

How we argue

February 23, 2008 — xanthippa

One of the best teachers ever (I’ve had more than my fair share) was my grade 10 English teacher. Yet, he had this one fault that was totally destroying his reputation with the students. Whenever he returned marked tests or materials to us, a long queue would form by his desk and he’d let people bully him into raising their marks! After weeks of working up my courage, I finally waited for him after class and poured my heart out…

His smile totally stunned me! When he saw the look of incomprehension on my face, he explained: “I’m not letting them bully me into anything. I’m teaching them how to use English to prove their point! While they stand in line, they prepare their argument. If they do it well, they earn marks for their oral presentation. English is a living language: it needs to be spoken, with passion. So, I reward a well presented oral argument. But ‘the system’ does not allow me to give marks for this….so I just tack them on to the tests!”

A teacher who actually valued a ‘good argument’! This put things into a brand new light, in one of those ‘paradigm shifts’…

Yet, he forbade me from telling anyone what he’s doing. This really struck me: if they knew they were being tested, the kids would argue differently (if at all) then when they thought they were just arguing!

Ever since then, I paid closer attention to HOW people argue.

Yes, of course, much depends on the person: but even considering the same guy or gal, there is a big difference in how people argue…depending on what is at stake.

And I use the ‘at stake’ to apply in a myriad of ways. Let me break out a few (yes, many overlap, and this list is by no means exhaustive) of these:

The Positioning Argument
The outcome will affect some position (even just a little one) of their life….from a test mark to getting that refund to not getting cheated out of a deal….

The Personal Competition Argument
This could start out as any other type or argument, but grow an edge: now it’s personal! The original issue becomes secondary to beating the other ‘guy’.

The Professional Argument
There is a definite stake in the outcome argument. Yet, it is not personal and the topic does not necessarily represent a deep personal investment.

The Detached Argument
This could be a purely ‘fun’ or ‘no personal stake’ argument, where neither side cares about winning or loosing…the argument is perhaps more closely related to common brainstorming. In other words, neither side has put an emotional stake onto any of the positions discussed, even if the outcome may have an impact. So the many points presented can be examined and debated without the fear of ‘loosing’.

The Scientific Argument
Perhaps it is a special case of the ‘detached argument’, because in a scientific argument, the outcome is not something one has a personal investment in. Yet I think it deserves a separation because it is more rigid, uses words in a more technical way than common speech, and requires very specific type of proof…only objective, scientific proof, to be specific.

The Philosophical Argument
This is another such special case of the ‘Detached Argument’, or at least, can be, because the language may be used in very different ways from common speech. However, the ‘Philosophical Argument’ can easily stray from its ideals and escalate into a ‘Faith Argument’.

The Faith Argument
A very personal argument, which involves one’s beliefs or faith or some deeply-adhered to dogma: very high stakes, deep personal and emotional investment…. These arguments can start very philosophically, and may also end very amicably. However, if the ‘Faith Argument’ escalates, it can become very unpleasant….people are not usually comfortable having their faith/beliefs/dogma challenged. And, if the argument is so structured that loosing it will be perceived as an invalidation of these deeply held beliefs, faiths or dogmas, it might get bitter indeed.

The ‘Look at me’ Argument
Designed not to argue, or win, simply to demonstrate one’s cleverness and/or superiority…

The Dismissive Argument
This is the ‘your argument is so pathetic/unreasonable/unworthy/stupid, I’m not even going to acknowledge it’ argument…. May appear arrogant, but then again, when done well, it can be very effective. By preventing the opposing side from being heard (either by shouting them down before debate starts, or by prejudicing the audience against them), it wins the argument by default. This would be the type of thing debunked by the child’s cry of ‘the Emperor has no clothes’…. if you’re the type of person who’d take an uneducated child’s word for things, that is….

The ‘Smarter than you and I’ Argument
This is a combination of ‘Faith’ and ‘Dismissive’ arguments and something all of its own. In essence, it states that neither person doing the arguing is qualified to evaluate the points presented, but that someone who is qualified (some higher power or intelligence) had made a determination, so that is the only acceptable position. This one is hard to argue against, because one is dismissed on faith…

Perhaps these are somewhat artificial divisions, but they make sense to me. But what is more, I use them as a tool: when I am observing an argument or a debate (like, say, on ConvinceMe.net), seeing HOW the different people argue will tell me a lot… Not only will it say a lot about how the arguing parties relate to the topic under discussion, it also provides an insight into the way the debate is likely to evolve…and how to calm it down (if that would be called for).

Of course, I would never advocate using these observations to heat up the debate….unless it really needed ‘livening up’!

Posted in debate, human nature, language, philosophy. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Am I black or am I white?

February 21, 2008 — xanthippa

OK, sounds pretentious, but…what if, one day, you realized that people with whom you identified ethnically thought you an outsider?  A few years back, my (then) neighbour told me she had had to come to terms with exactly that…

 

At that time, my son was still a toddler, and her daughters (only a few years his seniors) thought him a doll.  They would play with him endlessly, and he ate it up:  big girls like me, Mom!  And as is neighbourly, we would often chat as we watched them play.

This lady had many interesting stories.  She was ‘black and proud of it’!  Her origins were Caribbean, but she grew up in North America and derived a lot of her strength and self-identity from the achievements of great leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  She used to get mad when people would use endless euphemisms to avoid saying the word ‘black’ or ‘negro’, demanding that those are beautiful words, and nobody should shame them.  You get the picture.

Her husband was also an immigrant, who came here from Western Africa.  One day, she told me that when they first got married, they decided to visit his family in Africa so that he could introduce her to his parents.  Wonderful, his parents loved her, she loved them, all went better than they had hoped for.  My friend told me she felt newly alive, reconnecting with her (generations removed) African heritage.

Yet, it was there, in that small African village, that she had to face this existential crisis.

One day, she was walking to the market, and the usual crowd of kids were running after her, calling out happily.  After all, they were not used to many visitors from so far away – and they were happy and friendly.  But, by this point, my friend had learned enough of the local language to understand what they were calling out:

“There goes the white lady!” and “The white lady smiled at me!” and so on…

At first she looked around, thinking there must be another visitor:  but no.  In their eyes, she was ‘the white lady’!

My neighbour laughed as she told me this story.  But she added seriously, until that day, she never realized that the lighter shade of her skin would make her appear ‘white’ to black African kids.  And that she kept thinking about this, for years….

Oh, don’t get me wrong:  having re-examined who she was, she came out strong and laughing.  But, next time you look into the mirror, ask yourself: if people suddenly saw you as the opposite of who you think you are, would you be able to come through it laughing?

All of us humans came from Africa at some point…   

Posted in human nature, immigrants, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 3: HOW we ought to tolerate

February 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Everyone is calling for ‘tolerance’ these days.  But, really deep down, what do we mean?

It seems to me that there are several different types of ‘tolerance’, and they don’t all mean the same thing.  There is a whole spectrum of ‘tolerance’!  Let me highlight the ‘good extreme’ and the ‘bad extreme’, with the understanding that most of the time ‘tolerance’ – as practiced in our society –  falls somewhere in between the two.  I just hope we’ll try to aim towards the ‘good’ end of the spectrum…  

 

 

The ‘GOOD tolerance’ 

I suspect that is what most of us mean when we say ‘tolerance’.  This form is the ‘respectful tolerance’, and it requires that both sides ‘acknowledge the differences’ and then CHOOSE to respect the choices the others make.

 

That is by no means easy.  All sides (this is never as easy as just two or three sides) have to take the time and effort to actually educate themselves on other peoples’ views and beliefs, then consider each others’ positions objectively, then judge ‘the other sides’ to be worthy of respect….and that is not always possible.  For, how can one truly respect a view or belief which may be contrary to one’s core values?

 

The answer, of course, is with an utmost exercise of self-control and intellectual detachment…but remember, this is one of the extremes, an ideal we ought to aspire to live up to.

 

 

The ‘BAD tolerance’ 

This tolerance is not nice tolerance at all.  It is the dismissive kind:  ‘oh, let them do their thing, we could never hope to civilize them’ kind of tolerance…  ‘Oh, why would we want to bring democracy there, these people are just too backward – they could never understand equality.’  ‘Their women don’t know any different, so why give them ideas of what we live like – they’re just too tribal to change.’  You know, this is the ‘they could NEVER be equal to US’ tolerance….which permeates the separatist and racist underbellies of every society.

 

Not only does it dismiss the side ‘to be tolerated’, it treats people as unworthy of the expectations that one has of the members of a civilized society….  It inevitably leads to the alienation and isolation of the ‘tolerated’ side, socially and eventually economically, forcing them to become second class citizens.  It is dispicable!

This position is difficult to eradicate for two major reasons:  one, it is often deeply held, because it makes the person holding such views feel somehow ‘superior’ and way more ‘special’;  it is also often really hard to recognize, because it is so adept at masking itself…as real, proper, respectful tolerance!

What is even worse is that among those who practice this ‘patronizing tolerance’, there are often despicable busybodies who consider their actions to be noble, a showcase of how tolerant we all ‘ought to’ be, wrapping themselves in ‘the cloak of righteousness’.  These busybodies wreak havoc in many ways. 

One of the most destructive is by appointing themselves the ‘guardians’ of those ‘to be tolerated’.  In this role, they look for ways in which the ‘mainstream culture’ differs from the original culture of the unfortunates whom they’ve decided to ‘shield’, and demands exemptions for them.  This may be from sport-team rules and other minor things to cultural practices, or even to exempt them from some actual laws of the land.  Of course, this may please some of the newest arrivals (or those within the immigrant community who wish to control them), but overall, it denies the newly arrived immigrants the right and the very ABILITY to integrate, bullying them into perpetuating the very cultural practices they are trying to escape from by coming here….

Another extremely destructive thing these ‘busybodies’ do is to bully the mainstream culture into tolerating all kind of excesses perpetrated by some people in the ‘target minority’, into tolerating behaviours unacceptable by our laws and our cultural standards.  This, of course, is done in the name of ‘educating us all’ to the ‘sensitivities’ we must be mindful of when we tolerate these excesses and illegal behaviours….

How could this unwelcome and obstructive meddling do anything but breed resentment on all sides?  How could we all be blind to it?  How could we allow ourselves to be duped and bullied by these busybodies?

It would be naïve to think that we can ever fully get rid of the ‘bad tolerance’…it’s part of our human nature.  But, could we not try to minimize it?  Could we not try to aspire to actually respect each other?  Could we not hope to reach higher on the ‘kind of tolerance’ spectrum?

Gosh, I hope I’m not too naïve for hoping we can!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 2: What we ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ tolerate

February 19, 2008 — xanthippa

In order to have a functioning society, we need to agree on a common set of rules according to which we interact with each other.  (I ranted on a bit about this in my ‘Dogged by Dogma’ post.)  Some of these rules are codified into laws, others govern what we consider to be polite day-to-day behaviour.  Though the rules change from country to country, the basic principle remains the same:  without a common set of rules, there is no ‘society’.

We all, as humans, have the innate right to freedom of speech and thought.  So, let’s start by agreeing to tolerate that.  This means not denying it to anyone, even people we disagree with…or people who hold unpopular views.

From the freedoms of speech and thought flows the freedom of religious belief.  That, too, needs to be respected.  Most ‘western’ cultures are pretty good at protecting this one – usually, it is entrenched in the constitution.  But while we may be free to hold every belief we want, and are free to worship every deity (or absence thereof) we choose to, it is essential that we all understand that only those actions and behaviours that are legal under the laws of the land may actually be performed, whether based on religious conviction or not.

It is essential that we recognize that being tolerant of a belief is not the same as tolerating each and every behaviour that stems from it!

If it were, we would all need to tolerate human sacrifice.  And frankly, if we do tolerate illegal behaviour which stems from religious belief, in a very real sense, we WILL indeed be making a ‘human’ sacrifice! 

Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has on many occasions reported that she has seen over and over situations where minority groups within a society demand special rights onto themselves, in name of religious freedoms – only to use these special rights to then oppress its own internal minority.  This kind of abuse of special rights is more common than we would like to think:  Ezra Levan’t has actually posted photos of Robina Butt, a woman who was assaulted by intruders into her own home after she and two other women complained of the financial improprieties at her own Mosque.  It is horrid!

So, let’s be clear.  We must tolerate each other’s beliefs.  

At the same time, we absolutely must not tolerate illegal behaviour, however motivated.  This is as much for the protection of the greater society as for the protection of the individuals within any specific minority.  If someone chooses to self-limit certain behaviours, good on them (provided they do not impact the society as a whole or diminish the rights of other individuals).  If they choose to self-impose rules which preclude them from enjoying certain privileges (such as people who refuse to have their photograph taken must be prepared to give up privileges for which a photo-i.d. is required – say, a driving license), they MUST be also prepared to give up such privileges.  Forcing them to comply with the conditions would be just as wrong as granting these privileges without compliance.

What is more:  not respecting these rules, granting special privileges to some but not others, will mean that the most basic rule of society is broken.  I may be repeating myself, but…without common rules, there is no ‘society’.  Doing so would breed resentment and hostility among various segments of the population…and how could unequal treatment by law not result in just that? 

We all need to keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to exempt one group or another from the laws which must apply equally to all of our citizens.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Dogged by Dogma

February 10, 2008 — xanthippa

One thing that we humans do is ‘form communities’.  Extended families, neighbourhoods, professional associations, sports leagues, interest groups, church socials, nations, virtual debating site memberships – these are all communities formed by people through sharing common experiences.  It validates our sense of ourselves to be connected to other individuals and we feel most connected to those who have similar experiences and opinions as we do.  We even define our ‘self’ by the communities to which we belong.

 Each of these communities is unique in space, time and experience.  The ways their people interpret these common experiences affect the ‘facts’ of their ‘reality’:  the general assumptions about the world.  This is reflected in the way they use language, imbuing it with nuances and shades of meaning. 

 For example, the phrase ‘Three Kings’ may evoke a different image  in a Christian Bible study group than it might during a friendly card game.  Over time, some phrases which reflect certain key ‘common experiences’ turn into ‘presumptions’ which become more and more entrenched as they are repeated. 

 On and on, these become ‘unspoken truths’.  All new experiences are seen through this ‘truth’s’ perceptual prism.  And since the brain’s input has been filtered through this prism, the brain processes it that way – and concludes that the ‘truth’ is confirmed as ‘real’.  It is a circular cycle, a self-reinforcing process:  presumed ‘truth’ affects the way we perceive things, and our perceptions confirm this ‘truth’. 

 The ‘truths’ become so ‘common sense’, they are never questioned:  eventually, they become unquestionable.  Not because one would not dare to question them, at least, not at first.  Rather, it simply does not occur to anyone to question them. 

 They have now become dogma.

 And some people are happy to live in this way.  They are satisfied to be a member of their community, they are secure in their opinions and experiences, validated by their peers.  No problem there.

 What happens when, as is the nature of some of us, there comes along an individual who questions?  Who does not find anything to be ‘self-evident’?  Who is not able to believe – and more and more people today are daring to admit that they simply lack the ability to believe – and who dares to question the dogma and arrives at different conclusions?  Or even worse, what if this community encounters another community, one whose dogma is at odds with their own? 

 Human reactions have, in this regard, been very consistent.  We usually:
 
1. Silence the individual. 

2. Ridicule/denigrate or destroy the other community’s dogma. 

3. Find self definition and ‘specialness’ in our own community’s dogma. 

I plan to ‘jump around’ in my blog topics a little – having the attention span of a 2-year-old, I get distracted a little.  Yet, over the next little while, I will examine each of these very human reactions and post my musings on them.

Posted in human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 10 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »