The grass was green in the battering wind, the clouds raced 'cross the sky. The world was alive to anyone's eye in the place that I called home.
The owl gave his cry in the deepening gloom, the stars were as sharp as a knife. The smell of the woodsmoke moved over the frost in the place that I called home.
I walked by myself down the footpaths and byways, never feeling alone. For thousands of years they've walked there beside me, in the place that I called home.
A pint of real cider and a great, roaring fire always takes me away. Back to the place that there's no real leaving, the place that I called home.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Visions of Motivations
I often hear people surprised and disappointed at the manner in which groups of people behave, that these groups of people should behave differently. It is very rare that I disagree with the sentiment, at any level you want to look at humanity, from individual to species, there's a whole bunch of stuff we should be doing differently. However, I do feel that I am less surprised about much of the behavior.
What do I actually mean? A few examples are business executives putting profit above the welfare of their employees, or police harassment/racism/brutality, or politicians putting being elected above anything else. A moral person by almost any measure should put the well being of other people above the difference between being rich and being very rich. The job of the police should be protecting people rather than harming people. Politicians are there to actually get things done rather than to be able to stay there.
None of these problems surprise me, not so much because I am so jaded by their recurrence, but because of how I think about motivations. When deciding what to do for a career a young person creates a picture for themselves of various jobs and then imagines themselves in that role and determines how that would feel.
When thinking of being a businessman it would be usual to think of a rich man in a suit who is looked up to for their power, who have people rushing to attend to their needs, and someone who wins competitions. The sort of people who derive pleasure from that image will try to become business executives. People motivated by wealth, power, being served by others, and competition are essentially by definition not motivated by the distribution of wealth and power for a more egalitarian existence.
When thinking of a policeman most people would think of him chasing down and capturing a bad guy, someone breaking the rules. A policeman is someone imbued with the power from authority to physically restrain and intimidate certain people. If you are motivated by being the physical symbol of official power then you will try to find ways to express that power against those who are not a part of that official power. In these imaginings I think we can all agree that the bad guys are rarely well off white women.
When thinking of politicians what image comes to mind? Is it something other than the applause and adulation of a crowd towards a person delivering an impassioned speech? Does the actual content of the speech matter much to that image? If you are motivated by an impassioned crowd then you will try to find ways to produce an impassioned crowd, which is exactly what politicians do.
All of these examples are painted with a broad brush. There are ethical businessmen, dedicated to producing a useful, quality product while providing a real living for their employees. There are policemen who are motivated mostly by helping and supporting a community. There are politicians primarily motivated by policy for whom getting elected is a prerequisite rather than the primary goal. It is also true that almost all of the people in these professions would deny that their primary motivations fall along these lines. Still, I think there's a lot to this stuff.
People in different areas of life are there to a very large extent because they have chosen to be there, and people choose things because of their inherent motivations. If you can start with what motivates people to do certain things rather than starting from what people should do then you will get a better understanding of what to expect from people, and be less upset all of the time when they do that instead of what they are supposed to be doing. Spies are always going to try and get the maximum amount of information possible, your privacy is the thing their motivation wants to remove, and your safety is their justification to get what they want.
Is this a paen to cynical acceptance? Perhaps a bit. However, I do think that trying to work out why people do things is better than simply being outraged that they do and demanding something different. If you want to fix things then you have to understand what is broken first.
If you wish to produce more socially conscious businesspeople then you need to alter the image of a successful businessperson somehow, I have suggested that the best way to do this is to make philanthropy the gaudiest, most coveted sign of true wealth and prestige.
If you want government to work better then you need to get people more interested in governing than being elected, which requires disconnecting campaigning from governing. At some point it seems likely to me that somewhere politicians will become seen as an unnecessary middle-man between the electorate (who now have the ability to vote for things 24/7/365) and lobbyists/special interest groups. I expect that the result of such an occurrence would be a new found respect for representative democracy.
I don't know how to stop cops from getting their jollies from intimidating people, something that has been quite evident in every single interaction with the police I have had (and usually I have been on the "cop's side.")
What do I actually mean? A few examples are business executives putting profit above the welfare of their employees, or police harassment/racism/brutality, or politicians putting being elected above anything else. A moral person by almost any measure should put the well being of other people above the difference between being rich and being very rich. The job of the police should be protecting people rather than harming people. Politicians are there to actually get things done rather than to be able to stay there.
None of these problems surprise me, not so much because I am so jaded by their recurrence, but because of how I think about motivations. When deciding what to do for a career a young person creates a picture for themselves of various jobs and then imagines themselves in that role and determines how that would feel.
When thinking of being a businessman it would be usual to think of a rich man in a suit who is looked up to for their power, who have people rushing to attend to their needs, and someone who wins competitions. The sort of people who derive pleasure from that image will try to become business executives. People motivated by wealth, power, being served by others, and competition are essentially by definition not motivated by the distribution of wealth and power for a more egalitarian existence.
When thinking of a policeman most people would think of him chasing down and capturing a bad guy, someone breaking the rules. A policeman is someone imbued with the power from authority to physically restrain and intimidate certain people. If you are motivated by being the physical symbol of official power then you will try to find ways to express that power against those who are not a part of that official power. In these imaginings I think we can all agree that the bad guys are rarely well off white women.
When thinking of politicians what image comes to mind? Is it something other than the applause and adulation of a crowd towards a person delivering an impassioned speech? Does the actual content of the speech matter much to that image? If you are motivated by an impassioned crowd then you will try to find ways to produce an impassioned crowd, which is exactly what politicians do.
All of these examples are painted with a broad brush. There are ethical businessmen, dedicated to producing a useful, quality product while providing a real living for their employees. There are policemen who are motivated mostly by helping and supporting a community. There are politicians primarily motivated by policy for whom getting elected is a prerequisite rather than the primary goal. It is also true that almost all of the people in these professions would deny that their primary motivations fall along these lines. Still, I think there's a lot to this stuff.
People in different areas of life are there to a very large extent because they have chosen to be there, and people choose things because of their inherent motivations. If you can start with what motivates people to do certain things rather than starting from what people should do then you will get a better understanding of what to expect from people, and be less upset all of the time when they do that instead of what they are supposed to be doing. Spies are always going to try and get the maximum amount of information possible, your privacy is the thing their motivation wants to remove, and your safety is their justification to get what they want.
Is this a paen to cynical acceptance? Perhaps a bit. However, I do think that trying to work out why people do things is better than simply being outraged that they do and demanding something different. If you want to fix things then you have to understand what is broken first.
If you wish to produce more socially conscious businesspeople then you need to alter the image of a successful businessperson somehow, I have suggested that the best way to do this is to make philanthropy the gaudiest, most coveted sign of true wealth and prestige.
If you want government to work better then you need to get people more interested in governing than being elected, which requires disconnecting campaigning from governing. At some point it seems likely to me that somewhere politicians will become seen as an unnecessary middle-man between the electorate (who now have the ability to vote for things 24/7/365) and lobbyists/special interest groups. I expect that the result of such an occurrence would be a new found respect for representative democracy.
I don't know how to stop cops from getting their jollies from intimidating people, something that has been quite evident in every single interaction with the police I have had (and usually I have been on the "cop's side.")
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Hugs
Recently I attended a 95th birthday and family reunion for the relatives on my wife's mothers side of the family. In that family I would be/am considered to be part of that family, which seems deeply weird to me. What I consider my family now consists of six people, myself, siblings and parents. For me to consider someone a family member there must be a shared existence over a prolonged time from an early age. Most of the people at the event I have spent less than a weekend with.
However, I received many, many hugs. Now, I want to start off with what hugging meant in the country that I grew up in. Until I left the UK in 1988 I had not been hugged by anyone in probably a decade. In the England I grew up in hugging is such an intimate emotional act that it only happens with people in relationships or involving small children. As with any other intimate emotional act, when it happens with someone you are not intimate with emotionally it can feel strange, disturbing, and invasive. Just imagine that someone you have just met gently strokes the hair off your face. The way I was raised this is the same as hugging.
Studies on personal space say that Americans (in general)) actually have a larger personal space than Britons (although I remember a study from college in which this was true apart from directly in front of the face,perhaps I remember that incorrectly.) However, personal space depends enormously on the category in which you place the other person. The personal space between mother and baby is zero. The personal space between family members is bigger, and then bigger for friends and then largest with people you don't really know. I stared off with a larger personal space then usual, and I have a smaller category of friends.
When I first came to the States I found myself being hugged a lot. At the time it seemed like all the time. I remember meeting people for the first time and immediately being hugged. Within the whirlwind of a new culture this was probably the second most intense thing, after meeting several people a day who would immediately interview me about my life. Since then I have probably been hugged by non-family members hundreds of times. Contrast hundreds of times with zero times. By the way, it is extremely difficult to think of some way to prevent someone hugging you in a polite way. Hugging is an expression of intimacy, and if you refuse a hug then you are simply saying that you are less emotionally involved, and care less for that person than they expected. I have never managed it.
Now, I don't want to suggest that I still feel major confusion and discomfort when getting hugged, it has happened so much that I am used to it. However, it still feels a little weird and I get nothing from it (except from my wife). I hug other people because it seems to make them feel happy, connected, and warm. The people at the event were trying to convey that I was part of the family, included and I think that a very nice gesture indeed. However, the event is a one-sided transaction, for me hugging is a minor uncomfortable event that I do out of politeness. I take it in the same way I take a cashier saying, God bless you." It doesn't mean the same thing to them a it does to me, but it is meant well and so I won't do anything to stop it. Kindness is to b encouraged.
A this point I am imagining all the people I have hugged who read this are somewhat horrified as to what they have been doing to me. I don't want that at all. You have been expressing friendship and affection, good for you. I also don't want you to stop, it doesn't do me any harm and y'all seem to like it. Just think of it like going to Italy and doing the kissing of cheeks, personally weird, weird to the other person if you don't, but you are in Italy and when in Rome.....
However, I received many, many hugs. Now, I want to start off with what hugging meant in the country that I grew up in. Until I left the UK in 1988 I had not been hugged by anyone in probably a decade. In the England I grew up in hugging is such an intimate emotional act that it only happens with people in relationships or involving small children. As with any other intimate emotional act, when it happens with someone you are not intimate with emotionally it can feel strange, disturbing, and invasive. Just imagine that someone you have just met gently strokes the hair off your face. The way I was raised this is the same as hugging.
Studies on personal space say that Americans (in general)) actually have a larger personal space than Britons (although I remember a study from college in which this was true apart from directly in front of the face,perhaps I remember that incorrectly.) However, personal space depends enormously on the category in which you place the other person. The personal space between mother and baby is zero. The personal space between family members is bigger, and then bigger for friends and then largest with people you don't really know. I stared off with a larger personal space then usual, and I have a smaller category of friends.
When I first came to the States I found myself being hugged a lot. At the time it seemed like all the time. I remember meeting people for the first time and immediately being hugged. Within the whirlwind of a new culture this was probably the second most intense thing, after meeting several people a day who would immediately interview me about my life. Since then I have probably been hugged by non-family members hundreds of times. Contrast hundreds of times with zero times. By the way, it is extremely difficult to think of some way to prevent someone hugging you in a polite way. Hugging is an expression of intimacy, and if you refuse a hug then you are simply saying that you are less emotionally involved, and care less for that person than they expected. I have never managed it.
Now, I don't want to suggest that I still feel major confusion and discomfort when getting hugged, it has happened so much that I am used to it. However, it still feels a little weird and I get nothing from it (except from my wife). I hug other people because it seems to make them feel happy, connected, and warm. The people at the event were trying to convey that I was part of the family, included and I think that a very nice gesture indeed. However, the event is a one-sided transaction, for me hugging is a minor uncomfortable event that I do out of politeness. I take it in the same way I take a cashier saying, God bless you." It doesn't mean the same thing to them a it does to me, but it is meant well and so I won't do anything to stop it. Kindness is to b encouraged.
A this point I am imagining all the people I have hugged who read this are somewhat horrified as to what they have been doing to me. I don't want that at all. You have been expressing friendship and affection, good for you. I also don't want you to stop, it doesn't do me any harm and y'all seem to like it. Just think of it like going to Italy and doing the kissing of cheeks, personally weird, weird to the other person if you don't, but you are in Italy and when in Rome.....
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Intelligence Services in Collecting Data Shock
In international news is the report of a guy who leaked classified information that shows the intelligence community getting vast amounts of data about internet and cell phone use from the major internet companies. As I understand it, and I haven't spent a huge amount of time looking into it, the NSA gets metadata looking for suspicious patterns (like someone calling Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) and THEN getting a warrant to explore individual use. This has caused a huge outcry about privacy, the US government is accused of investigating people without cause or warrant.
Point 1. Metadata isn't privacy related. Collecting information about the number of drivers who cross the border isn't an invasion of privacy and finding suspicious behavior (i.e. a large number of Colombian nationals going back and forward across the border) should lead to a criminal investigation.
Point 2. Investigation of an individual's private record still requires a warrant (although a warrant from a secret court).
Point 3. Point 1 and 2 are irrelevant because if you believe the US government intelligence community wouldn't gather all of this evidence anyway, regardless of its legality, I applaud your naivety. After all the US government murders and tortures people I still remember clearly that within 24 hours of 9/11/2001 the NSA reporting on specifics from the cell phone conversations of the hijackers.
Point 4. My personal belief about the morality of whistle blowing is that if the leaker has a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed then they should be free from prosecution. otherwise they should be prosecuted.
This whole thing is of little interest to me beyond this. The scandal is overblown, they would do it anyway, and there are much worse things going on that are right out there in public with less outcry.
Point 1. Metadata isn't privacy related. Collecting information about the number of drivers who cross the border isn't an invasion of privacy and finding suspicious behavior (i.e. a large number of Colombian nationals going back and forward across the border) should lead to a criminal investigation.
Point 2. Investigation of an individual's private record still requires a warrant (although a warrant from a secret court).
Point 3. Point 1 and 2 are irrelevant because if you believe the US government intelligence community wouldn't gather all of this evidence anyway, regardless of its legality, I applaud your naivety. After all the US government murders and tortures people I still remember clearly that within 24 hours of 9/11/2001 the NSA reporting on specifics from the cell phone conversations of the hijackers.
Point 4. My personal belief about the morality of whistle blowing is that if the leaker has a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed then they should be free from prosecution. otherwise they should be prosecuted.
This whole thing is of little interest to me beyond this. The scandal is overblown, they would do it anyway, and there are much worse things going on that are right out there in public with less outcry.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Enough
"Enough" is one of my favorite concepts and I think it hugely under-utilized. "Enough" is an easy concept in certain situations, such as eating enough to be healthy, but more complicated in other situations, such as trying hard enough.
In the simple cases I think it comes down to a tipping point, to little food and you will be unhealthy, too much food and you will be unhealthy, enough food is the Goldilocks zone in the middle. Other tipping points can be where usefulness stops. If you want to have a successful career in business then at some point further schooling in business has no real effect other than to delay your start in business.
Then there come situations in which what is enough becomes murky. What is enough money? What is enough love? What is good enough?
In the United states the poverty line, the basic definition of not enough, runs at about $23,000 a year for a family of four. In a descending list of median household incomes by country the first country to have a number below that of the US poverty line is Italy, in 19th place. According to the US government, slightly more than half of all Italians don't have enough money. According to the Italians, 16% of their population lives below the poverty line. What is enough money?
If you, as I do, think that money is for providing happiness, then enough money is the amount of money needed to produce happiness over which money makes no difference, or at least less difference than putting resources into anther area of your life. The biggest jump in happiness quite reasonably happens when you go from not having your basic needs met, to having them met. Sick, homeless, hungry frightened people are much less happy than well, housed, fed, safe people. Does this mean that having your basic needs met is enough money? Yes if you are a Buddhist, o if you are a regular person.
Happiness has been correlated with income, but only to a point. In the US any correlation between happiness and money stops somewhere around $100,000. Is this enough money? Well, after a certain point what seems to matter with happiness and income is whether you make a similar or different amount to your neighbors. If you make $50,000 and your neighbor makes $60,000 you will probably be less happy than a person who makes $50,000 whose neighbors make $40,000. So, enough money is pretty much a bit more than getting your basic needs met and around the same amount as the people around you, which is why Costa Rica is one of the happier places in the world.
What is enough love? Somewhere between not feeling that you are missing something and needing a little breathing room?
What is being a good enough person?
Why am I even talking about this concept? I am sure that I have said all of this before. I am talking about "enough" because of an interesting piece of information I found out today. The happiest country in the world is Australia, or Denmark, or Costa Rica. It depends on which measure you use. If you just ask people if they are happy then Denmark wins. If you factor in a bunch of economic indicators then Australia wins. If you add in environmental factors then Costa Rica wins. The idea seems to be prevalent that having enough to be happy isn't enough to be happy, It is inconceivable to many that Bhutan could be a happier place than Australia, just look how poor they are!
"Enough" will matter more in the long run. As technology increasingly replaces people then our present cultural and economic model of the necessity of a full time job in a house will no longer be feasible. Eventually the number of jobs at which humans outperform machines will be substantially less than half of the population. Unemployment will become the norm rather than a crisis. With most people having no kids at home and no job, "enough" becomes a far more important concept than "more."
An economy based on providing enough for everyone is not a growing economy, it doesn't need to be. It is only very recently that there has been enough money for people some areas, and the twentieth century was ideologically largely about a battle between different methods of making more money, and capitalism won. However, in a few years there are going to be large areas of the globe with enough money, and not much for people to usefully do. Such a position is incompatible with a capitalist system. At some point in the future, and much closer than I think people realize, there will have to be a mainstream change in how we view society, something moving from money, work, competition to satisfaction, happiness, community.
At some point "enough" will have to be recognized as actually enough. This is a good thing. If right now you are here, right now, and you recognize that you have enough, it is actually quite hard not to be happy......enough.
In the simple cases I think it comes down to a tipping point, to little food and you will be unhealthy, too much food and you will be unhealthy, enough food is the Goldilocks zone in the middle. Other tipping points can be where usefulness stops. If you want to have a successful career in business then at some point further schooling in business has no real effect other than to delay your start in business.
Then there come situations in which what is enough becomes murky. What is enough money? What is enough love? What is good enough?
In the United states the poverty line, the basic definition of not enough, runs at about $23,000 a year for a family of four. In a descending list of median household incomes by country the first country to have a number below that of the US poverty line is Italy, in 19th place. According to the US government, slightly more than half of all Italians don't have enough money. According to the Italians, 16% of their population lives below the poverty line. What is enough money?
If you, as I do, think that money is for providing happiness, then enough money is the amount of money needed to produce happiness over which money makes no difference, or at least less difference than putting resources into anther area of your life. The biggest jump in happiness quite reasonably happens when you go from not having your basic needs met, to having them met. Sick, homeless, hungry frightened people are much less happy than well, housed, fed, safe people. Does this mean that having your basic needs met is enough money? Yes if you are a Buddhist, o if you are a regular person.
Happiness has been correlated with income, but only to a point. In the US any correlation between happiness and money stops somewhere around $100,000. Is this enough money? Well, after a certain point what seems to matter with happiness and income is whether you make a similar or different amount to your neighbors. If you make $50,000 and your neighbor makes $60,000 you will probably be less happy than a person who makes $50,000 whose neighbors make $40,000. So, enough money is pretty much a bit more than getting your basic needs met and around the same amount as the people around you, which is why Costa Rica is one of the happier places in the world.
What is enough love? Somewhere between not feeling that you are missing something and needing a little breathing room?
What is being a good enough person?
Why am I even talking about this concept? I am sure that I have said all of this before. I am talking about "enough" because of an interesting piece of information I found out today. The happiest country in the world is Australia, or Denmark, or Costa Rica. It depends on which measure you use. If you just ask people if they are happy then Denmark wins. If you factor in a bunch of economic indicators then Australia wins. If you add in environmental factors then Costa Rica wins. The idea seems to be prevalent that having enough to be happy isn't enough to be happy, It is inconceivable to many that Bhutan could be a happier place than Australia, just look how poor they are!
"Enough" will matter more in the long run. As technology increasingly replaces people then our present cultural and economic model of the necessity of a full time job in a house will no longer be feasible. Eventually the number of jobs at which humans outperform machines will be substantially less than half of the population. Unemployment will become the norm rather than a crisis. With most people having no kids at home and no job, "enough" becomes a far more important concept than "more."
An economy based on providing enough for everyone is not a growing economy, it doesn't need to be. It is only very recently that there has been enough money for people some areas, and the twentieth century was ideologically largely about a battle between different methods of making more money, and capitalism won. However, in a few years there are going to be large areas of the globe with enough money, and not much for people to usefully do. Such a position is incompatible with a capitalist system. At some point in the future, and much closer than I think people realize, there will have to be a mainstream change in how we view society, something moving from money, work, competition to satisfaction, happiness, community.
At some point "enough" will have to be recognized as actually enough. This is a good thing. If right now you are here, right now, and you recognize that you have enough, it is actually quite hard not to be happy......enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)