Brave Humans

The members of my Sunday School class are at it again. Well, actually, this time it was the pastor. She sent us an article about opposition to the Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act, currently “in committee” in the House. Sponsors of this act want to create a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence who oversees a department that would:
• “hold peace as an organizing principle;
• endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; and
• develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict.”

I considered the negative responses to the act. I think there are a lot of legitimate concerns, such as how this would be perceived internationally, how it would be funded, and how it would interact with other departments (to name a few). What I find distressing is the automatic, dismissive reaction from many who heard about it. After all, as one proponent said, “I thought everybody wanted peace.”

Of course it’s not that simple. As cognitive psychology showed us in the Human, Indeed post, our brains are not wired to immediately accept new information. But equating peace with communists or with a “new world order” is extreme.

I like new ideas, especially when things are not working so well. Peace in the world is simply not there…so what’s wrong with exploring ways to seek it? Thinking outside the box, investigating new measures. We don’t have to sign onto an act that will be unruly, unduly expensive, or nonfunctioning. I haven’t read the entire act, so I have no way of beginning to assess its feasibility. But at this juncture, I don’t think we should automatically reject a serious, planned proposal just because it immediately strikes us as “wrong.” After all, many once found it shocking that anyone would consider that microbes cause disease…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

The title of this post is taken from a speech by Republican Senator Tom Coburn given during debate on the current supplemental spending bills in the House and Senate for funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. You have likely heard about these bills due to the fact that both versions contain calls of varying strength for setting a clear date for a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Both bills have now passed and must be combined into a single piece of legislation that will be sent to the Whitehouse where President Bush has stated clearly that he will veto anything with a pullout date. For what it’s worth, I think he’s got a point here, but that’s not the subject of my post.

The President asked for 100 billion and the Congress essentially said OK. But in the process, several fine members of the Legislative branch added about 20 billion extra in earmarks for domestic pet projects completely irrelevant to Iraq and Afghanistan. As stated by Congressman John Kyl, “Politicians have decided that this is a good train to get on board because it’s got to move.”

Coburn’s booze and bullets remark refers to an earmark for 100 million to cover the security costs of the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. Others include funding to fight bugs in the western states, 3.1 billion to help communities dealing with military base closures, 774 million for poor kids’ health programs, etc.

These earmarks come from both Democrats and Republicans and cover a huge variety of topics and needs. It’s not ALL for booze and balloons. Many of the programs attached to the war-spending bill likely SHOULD be funded.

But that still leave the question of what sort of legislative process produces this outcome? How and why must funding for completely irrelevant projects get tied up with something as large and important as war funding? This is a crazy way to do business that screams with the high probability of misuse and corruption.

The answer is that earmarks are how congressmen get elected. They bring home the pork, and the consequences be dammed. When it comes time to run for votes there are few more powerful arguments than standing in front of a school you got built or talking to people who have jobs at a company you lured to town with tax breaks. Pork works. Unless and until we as voters stop voting for pork, the folks we elect will keep serving it up any way they can.

We need our individual representatives to fight for our rights and needs on the national stage. That’s largely why we voted for them. But this process must become more open and clear. It can’t be about shoving funding in the back door. This is not a new idea, but it struck especially hard in the context of the “do anything for our troops” rhetoric currently all over Washington. I have no idea how to deal with the problem of Iraq, but a good place to start would be to exclude business-as-usual politics from the process.

Be brave. Be human.

Remember the old phrase, “Don’t talk religion or politics”? If you stay away from such topics, you’ll get along; there will be no arguing. Like many clichés, it doesn’t tell all…there are plenty of other causes for conflict (in the family in which I grew up, that’d be sports). Also, like a lot of clichés, there is a bit of truth in it. I’ve noticed that some topics immediately trigger a passionate response. People are invested in their ideas and eager to convince others. So…

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object (so to speak)? I wondered about this, so I asked my friendly neighborhood psychologist, and he explained it all to me. Wonder of wonders, there are really good reasons why this happens.

First, a word about cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology is very good at predicting and explaining human behavior. It is NOT good at explaining an individual’s behavior. Therefore, everything I’m about to convey concerns humans in general…but I am not talking about you specifically. Ok, all set? Here we go, delving into the fascinating world of the human mind….

Part I: Here’s a classic study: a class is shown about 30 words that revolve around the concept “sleep:” bed, tired, night, moon, etc. After a minute (to push people past the general time limit on their short-term memory), they are asked to list all the words they remember. Many of the people include “sleep” as having been on the list, even though it was not. That’s because of how we organize information in the brain. We put stuff together that goes together. Every word on the list is related in most people’s minds to sleep, and so when asked to think about the related ideas on the list, many people also think about sleep. They often are absolutely sure they heard the word mentioned. The technical term for this is semantic mapping; a series of connections between related concepts that is one of the major ways we organize information in memory.

So what, you might say? Well, semantic mapping is not really my point, but it’s the basis for…

Part II - Confirmation bias: This is largely based on the connections mentioned above, and it works like this: if I hear a central phrase or word, my mind automatically drops into a series of related associations. I automatically interpret any new information through the lens of these associations. For instance, if I hear the phrase “Walt Disney World,” I associate that with such things as sun, fun, relaxation, food, rides, customer service, hotels, heat… a positive series of connections for me. So if I were to hear a report critical of WDW, I’d hear it with all those ideas already in mind. Therefore, changing my perception of WDW would be very difficult.

Confirmation bias suggests that it is mentally more difficult for people to comprehend ideas that contradict what they already think about something. This is especially true if the topic in question is one about which we have strong and long-standing ideas. We literally have a cognitive bias to pay more attention to information that confirms what we think and less to that which challenges what we think. We will even go so far as to alter conflicting information we hear in order to better fit our current beliefs.

I find this fascinating. There are really good reasons why we struggle to discuss controversial topics, and those reasons include the human brain. I’ll leave you to do whatever you want with this information; I’m not going to lecture anymore. Personally, I’m off to the WDW website…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

In our American two-party system, third party candidates generally serve as spoilers. It could be argued that our last two Presidents owe their first-term wins to third-party spoilers. Now as the 2008 campaign begins to heat up, a new third party enters the scene: Unity08.

Unity08 doesn’t present itself as a political party. In fact, its founders have stated they do not intend to create a new third party. Still, their goal is to have an 08 Presidential ticket consisting of a Democrat and a Republican, determined through an online convention. In effect this would be a third party. A bipartisan party of compromise.

At first blush it seems like a good idea. Break through the partisan politics and reclaim the middle. After all, representative government is based on compromise, so a party based on bipartisanship surely would be better than the red-state/blue-state division we currently have. But the more I think about it, the more I think Unity08 is a really bad idea.

By making a bipartisan ticket its goal, Unity08 seems to be essentially advocating for a single party system. Rather than trying to create a new centrist political party as an alternative to Democrats and Republicans, Unity08 would fuse the two on a single ticket. Those candidates who fail to secure the nomination of their respective party could have a second chance by signing up with Unity08, similar to Joe Liberman’s latest run for the Senate as an “independent.” I don’t see how this would help bring about political change.

Compromise is a good thing, but I don’t want to vote for compromise. As I see it, Unity08’s goal of ending partisanship is misguided. The problem is not that our political parties are too partisan, but that they are only two sides of a diverse political sphere. If Unity08 wants the middle to be heard, then it should create a moderate platform and make a stand as a third party. We can compromise after the election.

Introduction: This post is a follow-up to a follow-up. Two of the websites I’ve sited here are extensive; I say that not to discourage you from seeking them out but to know that I’m not even attempting to summarize them. I’m just commenting on some points that struck me. I suggest you to hit the sites to get the full stories.

Several weeks ago in my post, “I’ll Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours,” I discussed a visit between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more than 40 American religious leaders. Last month, many of those leaders traveled to Iran by invitation of Pres. Ahmadinejad to visit with Muslim and Christian leaders, government officials, and other Iranians. One of the participants summarized the trip and explained the group’s recommendations for both the U. S. and Iran:
• “immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;
• cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” images; and
• promote more people-to-people exchanges including religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.”

Apparently the meetings were not just polite conversations. Talk was substantive. For example, at one point, Pres. Ahmadinejad again brought up the issue of the Holocaust, asking why it has been used to hurt the Palestinians. He suggested, “Why can’t this be studied?” The reply: “It has been studied… [these are] dark days in the world. There must be peace and security and justice for both Israel and Palestine.”

I was hopeful after watching this interview. No treaties were signed, no agreements were made, but at least people with opposing views were talking. It’s a start. The war in Iraq is not going well, and heading into another military venture would be a nightmare. As my daughter says, “War just brings more war.” There’s evidence for this statement from the Pentagon. There’s not a civil war going on in Iraq; there are some elements of civil war, but the conflict is more complex than that. So, perhaps it’s worse than a civil war.

I also recommend checking out a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh mentioned in the interview. Hersh takes a hard look at both the U. S. and Iran, and it’s not encouraging:
• the U.S. purportedly currently is conducting covert operations in Iran to map targets;
• some I. A. E. A. inspectors question the sanity of the Iranian leadership;
• many in the I. A. E. A believe that Iran does indeed intend to pursue nuclear weapons; and
• there is a belief that if the U. S. attempts to use military force to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it will “make development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride.”

The most compelling part of this article for me was a comment from a European diplomat, who, when discussing sanctions vs. war, said, “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.” That sums it up for me.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

There is a wonderful scene in the movie “Mr Holland’s Opus” where the hero, a teacher, is working Summer Driver’s Ed to raise a little extra cash. Talk about Brave Human! Anyway, the brief scene shows the car zoom past the fixed camera, obviously going too fast, while the once-patient voice over of Mr. Holland becomes increasingly shrill. Then there is a crash off screen, followed by Mr. Holland’s now strenuously-patient voice asking “SO, what have we learned from this?” As a teacher and as a person interested in bettering myself, I hold a belief in the importance of finding a lesson in my varied experiences. (The effect this has had on my children and the amount of grist it has provided them for teasing me as they have grown from adoring, humble, malleable cuddle-bugs into the razor-tongued young savages with whom I now live is, in retrospect, regrettably obvious, but I never saw it coming. Hmmmmn. Maybe there’s a …. never mind.)

As I have looked over the postings and the experiences of working with this Brave Humans site, I realized that I had taken away some lessons from my process of reading, thinking, and writing. I’ll get to the specifics of my personal insights in a later comment. The more salient point here is that I had the experience of learning *something*, maybe even a few things. I mention this because I assume that one goal of the site is to encourage new thoughtfulness, broader understandings, and better connection between people in a microcosm which might even generalize to the macrocosm.

So, I thought I’d look for evidence of that in the postings of others. One recent one that jumps out is Grant’s decision to view less of the Leftish Newstertainment of Jon Stewart, based on his new understanding that the self-congratulatory quality of such viewing only furthers the polarizing of his mind, and therefore (in a small but important way) of the culture. Way back in Rick’s “A Question of Balance,” his comment 15 reflected a new openness to an idea from Grant about the culture being defined by the middle. And I loved this comment by Lily in “God’s Country” comment 13, as I see this as evidence of a process of a new way of being with each other in inquiry and in wonder, eschewing the rancor of the blogosphere-at-large: Lily said “It is quite wonderful to be able to discuss hot button issues civilly, isn’t it? It is totally foreign to my experience, so you will have to forgive me for being somewhat addled—I have to readjust my thinking here!” These may be small changes or large, ultimately consequential or not, but they indicate that we might be actually creating some changes, at least here in the microcosm.

So now it goes out to you other Brave Humans. After all this talk back and forth, what have we learned, as individuals or as a group? This is the season of Lent in the religion of my childhood, and Spring is coming for all the pagans. Time for something thoughtful and something new! What new things are budding in you based on your own brave Humanity?

Nick

So, I take it from the general level of comments that most people who read this site are familiar with the Bible. The starting point for my post is the parable of “The Prodigal Son.” I going to assume you’re familiar with the story and not go into all the details. What I’d like to highlight is the very end. The “other” brother.

He’s upset. He did all the things a good son does, he has the love of his father, and he’s been given his share of inheritance. But he never got his party. While his brother was out squandering his inheritance, he stayed home and did his father’s bidding. He wants his recognition, too.

Yeah, parties are nice. It’s good to be the focus of celebration. But isn’t it also nice to have a home and family by your side, and a constant source of support nearby?

Before the brother returned home, did the other son wish for a party in his name? What I’m thinking is, no. It wasn’t until he had someone with whom he could compare his own status.

It’s funny how you can be perfectly happy with yourself, your life, your career, your home, etc., and then some point of comparison with someone else can bring doubt into that happiness. Goodness knows I’ve had to deal with this for the past eighteen years in my weekly phone conversations with my father. I must feel stuck and unhappy. We don’t make enough money to be happy. We don’t live in a good enough home. Our jobs have no future. These are the words I hear from him.

I’ve come to realize I can’t convince him otherwise. I am happy in my life. I do not feel stuck. We do have enough money and a good home. We have a future. But he’s holding us up to some other goals, some people he hears about on the news, what’s in the newspaper. I’m not using any comparisons. I don’t need any. How do I feel? What do I know? That’s enough for me.

I’ve made my choices in life, and I’ll continue to do so, without reference to what others think I should be doing. I am much more of a “life is a journey” type of person, rather than one who’s working up to a final exam. I’ve never been one who did well on tests.

Comparisons lead to a “you vs. me” mentality. Obviously you and I have differences. If you have something I desire, I could feel badly. Or if I have something you desire, you might feel badly. Or…here’s a thought…we could both enjoy what we have, and be happy with that. Who knows, we could even share. Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with striving. Simply put, I think that there is perhaps not enough time and energy spent in our own appreciation.

This reminds me of a simple saying I found years and years ago on a sugar packet at a restaurant: “Be glad for the things you don’t have that you don’t want.” You may not have everything you want, but I’m sure there are lots of things you don’t want that you don’t have.

Be human,
Julia

Last week a friend sent me this article and asked me what I thought. The basic argument is that even as newborns, adopted baies are traumatized by the separation from their birth mothers and this trauma stays with them for life. A clinical social worker and adoption assessor writes the column. She knows much more about adoption than I do. What I think she should learn a bit more about is behavioral science.

To give the author, Ms. Davis credit, I think she is sincerely trying to both educate and provide support for adopted kids and their adoptive parents. I also have no issue with her general conclusions concerning how adoptive parents deal with the issues their kids may face. What bothers me is the characterization of the importance of infancy in determining the quality of individual life.

Ms. Davis cites the work of Dr. David Chamberlain (Babies Remember Birth) in which he states that newborn infants can recognize their own mother vs. other women within days if not hours of birth. This is true. Both recent and long-standing research on infant perception indicates that newborns can recognize the sight, sound and even smell of their mothers. There is also a great deal of additional evidence that these infant memories are very fragile and difficult to recall as we age, but be that as it may, newborns can recognize their mothers.

What troubles me is the logical jump from these findings to the existence of what Nancy Newton Verrier is quoted as describing as a “primal wound” suffered by infants separated from their birth mothers that significantly disturbs the rest of their lives. This wound is a “feeling of abandonment stamped onto the infant’s unconscious mind.” Infants temporarily separated from their biological moms due illness/placement in neonatal intensive care or other reasons are also thought to feel this unconscious wound.

As I’ve stated before, my background is in behavioral science research and this sort of logical leapfrog is always problematic.

It may well be true that such a wound exists. It may also be true that such a wound is the root cause of many personal and behavioral problems experienced by adopted children. The problem is that there is no way to either clearly support or refute this possibility, and further that the clear implications of the proposal are so damming for adoptive parents and kids.

Here’s what I mean.
1) Assume that what we think we know about babies’ abilities to recognize their own moms at birth is true. There is clear evidence to support these conclusions so it seems a good bet.

2). Lots of research on adopted kids shows higher than average incidences of problematic behaviors and experiences. Given both the amount and consistency of these results, believing this seems a good bet as well.

3) The “primal wound” idea first asserts that if babies can recognize their birth moms, then separation from that recognized figure for any significant length of time is severely detrimental to the child. It further proposes that not only does such a wound exist; it is the primary cause of many of the life-long problems that are reported in research on adoption.

Again this may be true, but the assumptions are questionable and there is simply no good way test the theory. We can’t ask infants if they either remember or miss their birth mothers after an adoption or stint in a NICU. We can’t figure out if such memories (assuming they exist) cause the infant or older child any emotional problems.

The biggest problem here is the lack of any consideration of the impact of the experiences in child’s life beyond the point of adoption in infancy. The column states “adoptees often are unconsciously aware of their “difference”. This may be true, but I would argue that if so, this likely has much more to do with the child’s daily life than any primal wound from infancy. For example, an adopted child’s extended family may treat her differently from her brother and this may cause her emotional trauma, but there is neither any need nor evidence to support going back to infant separation as an explanation for these problems.

My final issue with the primal wound idea is that it is hopeless. If true, adopted children are doomed to pain and their adoptive parents are doomed to failure. The simple fact of adoption demands this and there is no way out. This conclusion sounds hopeless to me, and if it were much better supported, I would be saddened by it, but support its dissemination. The simple fact, however, is that the primal wound is an un-testable idea and deserves to be treated with much greater skepticism that is the case in this column.

Be brave. Be Human.
-Grant

A couple mornings ago, I woke up and heard an interesting tidbit on the radio. One of the Ivy League schools – Harvard, I believe – conducted a study, and came to the conclusion that there was a “Leadership Crisis” in the United States. A large majority of those surveyed – approaching 65%, I believe – distrusted their state and federal leaders, business leaders and religious leaders.

What does this mean? I have several thoughts.

- Why is everything labeled a “crisis”? Why not “opportunity”? Why not “chance for improvement”? Easy, because those terms don’t strike people the same way “crisis” does. “Crisis” plays well in the media, grabs attention, points to a problem, no matter how truly large or small. It grabs headlines.

After all, wasn’t that the University’s point? They did release a PSA, of whom one of the recipients was the largest talk radio station in my market, whose morning personality read the PSA during morning drive time. The University grabbed headlines.

- So, only 35% of Americans surveyed think we do not have an issue with leadership. Why is anyone surprised? Think about it:

• The average American watches close to seven hours of television per day.
• We allow ourselves to be taxed so our communities can build larger sports venues, but we refuse to work to overhaul the public education system.
• We are one of the most obese nations on the planet, yet health clubs, running tracks, parks and bike paths exist within driving distance (how ironic) of most Americans.
• We are quicker to request a hand out (or just take it), than to pick up a shovel, a power tool, or book to better ourselves.

I agree that is the negative view, but we can all cite examples where we see these issues on a regular basis. Now, let me take this in another direction: I’ve am yet to work with an organization of any type over ten people in size – church, business, other not for profit, club, etc. – where the Pareto Principle has not proven generally correct. Extrapolating the principle to work, results, whatever you want to call it, the Pareto Principle says that 80% of the work will be accomplished by 20% of the people. I’ve seen it vary from 85/15 to 75/25, but as I said earlier, it’s been proven generally correct in every organization in which I have participated.

Knowing this, I think it is fair to say that only 25% of the American population consists of leaders, overachievers, whatever we want to call them. Why should we be surprised that the 75% of “non leaders” don’t trust the leaders? Those “non leaders” can:

• Pick up a book to learn new subject matter.
• Pick up a shovel, dig a hole, and learn a trade.
• Learn to use some technical device and benefit from its use.

Whatever happened to self-leadership and self-motivation?

- We assume that everybody has an equality of work ethic. This is not true. However, politically based discussions about work, outcome, results, etc. exclude the variable of work ethic, and they should not. It is the important variable indicating what people can do but refuse to do. Discussing work ethic brings us to the middle ground between the extremes of “man should do everything for himself” and “government should help everyone”, or between “man needs no help from me” and “man is helpless without me”. Work ethic, and its converse, laziness, are fair judgments to make on individuals when discussing activity and results.

- What does this study say about Activism? Not much that is good. For the last generation and a half, we have been taught that Vocalism is Activism. It is not. It is Vocalism. Let’s look at Harvard’s “willing accomplice” status in this study:

• They found a “problem”, and spent money to do so, all to produce a result that is no more than a sanity check.
• They published their findings on the “problem”, worded in a way to pique interest AND concern. Lots of concern.
• Then they waited.
• And will wait longer.
• And will continue to wait.
• Until someone else to picks up the baton and runs with it.

That is not activism. That is Vocalism with entitlement mentality. It sets the expectation that, because I am loud, someone will fix my problem. It’s the toddler with the temper tantrum. (Funny, I always learned to let the toddler work themselves out of the tantrum, instead of giving them what they wanted.) So, by using Vocalism, we allow the collective toddler to get the better of us, and we give them what they want.Vocalism does not work. Activism works. Let’s stop talking, and start doing. Otherwise, all we do is contribute to the problem of Vocalism – entitlement based collective whining.

Leadership is not about discussion, it’s about action. We have to start with ourselves and our communities. That’s where grass roots grow.

Be Brave…act!

If you want to watch the news in Britain, you watch the BBC. The BBC gets a LOT of money from the British government and has a long-standing reputation for high quality impartial reporting of the news of the world. This impartiality is insured in part by the existence of Ofcom, which is accountable to the British government (something like the American FCC) and ensures objective reporting and content.

I will say up front that I like the BBC for exactly these reasons. The talking heads report the news and actually leave me to interpret it and think about it on my own. I watch the BBC periodically both to get a non-U.S. perspective on the news and also to see news actually reported. No jokes. No snide comments. No “personalities” hawking their latest book. No infotainment. Just news.

There is, however, a new player at the table within the admittedly monolithic world of British news. A new on-line news service called 18 Doughty Street (named after the address of their studios in London) is becoming more and more popular. It was launched on-line explicitly to avoid oversight by Ofcom. The idea is to provide some balance to the traditional reporting of the BBC, but, in the words of co-founder Ian Dale, “no impartiality”. The format and content of the product by 18 Doughty Street would be profoundly familiar to anyone subjected to what currently passes for news journalism in the U.S., and this is exactly the point. These folks figured out that what the U.S. news broadcasters are doing makes money, and they have adopted the formula essentially whole. Given it is an on-line product they are also able to extend the interaction with their audience. Viewers get to vote on various aspects of the content, and those votes help determine what will be shown.

The overall political bias of 18 Doughty Street is currently conservative. For example, they are quite up front about their attacks on the BBC as liberally biased and are working to end its taxpayer support. This bias makes it more difficult for me to watch their content (and I have), but that’s not my point. If Doughty Street is financially successful, then it’s almost certain that competing liberal programming will be produced and make money fighting Doughty Street. At that point can a British Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly be far behind?

We started Brave Humans to work against exactly this sort of crap, and I use that word intentionally. Not liberal crap, not conservative crap, but crap masquerading as information and news. Here’s hoping that the BBC or some other reputable news organization can find the answer to the challenge posed by Doughty Street. That answer has eluded news people in the U.S. and forced us normal folks to come up with one of our own. One final quote from Doughty Street co-founder Ian Dale illustrates the problem perfectly. “ Do you know the problem with balance?” he asks. “It’s boring.”

Mr. Dale, not only is it NOT boring (check out the BH action for the past few weeks if you don’t believe me), it’s the only way we’re going to move forward on things that matter. If the people at Doughty Street don’t get this, surely there are many brave humans in Britain who will.

Be Brave. Be Human.

-Grant