Hal - Deliberately Basic

Not long ago a friend of mine told me he never questions authority. As we are both, in a manner of speaking, children of the sixties, I was somewhat shocked to hear him say this. Although it may not have been wise at the time, I started questioning my father when I was about ten years old. It turns out he was right, but that is not the point. It is especially not the point once you become an adult.

As children we are taught not to question parents, teachers and other authoritative figures such as police officers and the school principle. And rightly so, for the obvious reason we need protection from that which we don’t yet understand. At some point in life, it is imperative that we learn to think critically about all authority that governs us, i.e. for the same reason, we need to protect ourselves and those around us. To our misfortune, most of us never learn the latter half of this principle.

Psychological experiments over the last 40 plus years have proven that people are afraid to resist or object to authority, even knowing they will harm someone. The two best known procedures were conducted in an attempt to explain the Nazi prison camps during WW-II. The  Stanford prison experiment in 1971, and the Milgram experiment in 1974 both concluded that the majority of people will conform to authority regardless of the consequences.

In the Milgram experiment, a “teacher” and a “learner” were involved. The teacher was instructed to deliver an increasingly powerful shock to the learner (a confederate) for each error the learner made while answering the test subject’s (teacher) questions. The majority of participants would continue to deliver shocks up to the maximum amount despite hearing the learner’s screams of agony and even not hearing any sounds at all once a certain voltage was reached.

With the Stanford prison experiment, twenty-four undergraduates were selected to play the roles of guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited “genuine” sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early.

To learn more about this phenomenon, similar experiments have been carried out in Europe and other parts of the world. The results vary from country to country of course, but human beings in general are afraid to defy authority, even when they know they are right. We see this in everyday life. An example is the legality of something versus the moral obligation to do no harm to a fellow human being. In other words, simply because a thing is illegal does not make it right.

Most of us would like to think we would take the high ground and do the right thing when confronted with a situation like this. The fact is, unless you have been tested you don’t really know; the best you can do is be aware of your thinking, and hope you will. I believe I will, because I have been tested, in the most demanding way I know.

I was in the US Army three years in the late sixties. In the military, obeying orders without question is imperative - otherwise an army could not function effectively. In most cases this is not a problem, given the circumstances of warfare. However, certain situations may come about, requiring you to either conform or sacrifice yourself for principle.

Early on, I decided that there were specific things I would not do, even if it meant I would die or go to prison. For example, I would refuse to be on a firing squad. I would kill someone if necessary to save my  life, I would not torture people. I would not kill anyone who was not trying to kill me. I will stick with these principles all my life. More than once I was tested under fire, and I stood by my decisions. This does not mean I am superior. It means I had a prior understanding about authority, and made conscious decisions about living with my actions.

Some questions to consider:
Are you afraid of a cop who you believe has overstepped his authority?
Have you examined your religious beliefs, or do you believe what your    parents taught you?
Is your doctor “always right?”
Would you question your supervisor?
Do you believe if you exercise and eat the right foods you can live to be 100 years old?
Should critical thinking be a part of any school curriculum?

These questions may sound rather elementary for those who question even a little.  Of course, in most circumstances you need to obey doctors, and your boss if you want to continue your life as it is. However, “follow the doctors order” is ignorance exemplified if you fail to examine what he says and ask questions. This may be one of the most “blind obedience” issues that exists.

Blind faith, a religious concept that has caused so much human misery, is another notion that I will never understand. Yet another issue I see that causes me to doubt humanity’s ability to judge right from wrong is urban legends. From the ignorant to the well-educated, this junk soars around the Internet. Even after pointing out that most “pass it to everyone” messages are nearly always wrong, they continue to be accepted without question.

Finally, even if you do think and question, it is of no value unless you can substantiate your reasoning. Rhetorical bullshit is so prevalent it is often hard to separate the chaff from the grain. Emotion gets in the way of common sense and reason.  Questioning without reason is merely annoying.

Note: I wrote this article in June, 2008. The NYT posted an article July 1, 2008 about the same experiments. This is a great follow-up to the original experiments, with additional work still in progress at Ohio State University.

“The most remarkable thing,” Dr. Burger said, “is that we’re still talking about the work, almost 50 years after it was done. You can’t say that about many experiments.”

The Boomer generation is without a doubt, living with age-denial syndrome. We not only want to live forever, we want to live forever young. We want health, wealth, and good looks, and we want it now. Every generation must have some weakness; ours is shallow, wishful thinking.

Suppose, for the sake of pros and cons (and because it is interesting to think about) that you could live as long as you desire. Add to this good health and wealth enough to sustain you as long as you live.  But the most important aspect of this hypothetical situation is, you can terminate yourself any time you want. Absolute Immortality with no way out is too fraught with problems to even consider

This is not as absurd as you might think (or maybe it is). Consider this NYT article: Could We Live Forever?
 ”There is no fixed life span,” says Dr. James Vaupel, no wall of death dictated by basic biology that we are edging toward. People are living longer and longer, he said, and he sees no reason to think the trend will slow or stop in the foreseeable future. He should know. Dr. Vaupel is the director of the laboratory of survival and longevity at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany. 

Would you still want to live to say, 200 years old? What are the pros and cons of living beyond 100 years old? We live in a time when there are about 5.3 million people in the world who are centenarians. Does length of life equate with quality of life? After a point, for most people, I don’t think it does.

Here is a fine excerpt from The Physics Forum:
If I were to live forever then I would have so many memories that I wouldn’t know how to deal with it all. Generation after generation would pass by me and I would feel so left out. There would be no family, no friends that would last. One day they would be children and in retrospect it would seem a short time before they would be dead. By removing myself from the natural evolution of the species I would selfishly cheat myself out of any long term enjoyment. Death is a part of what makes life so valuable.

At first this may seem a bit shallow, but consider how long human being have been looking for the fountain of youth. Given the opportunity, what would you do?

If you do not label yourself either liberal or conservative, someone else will. Most people I know fall somewhere in the middle. However, in Ohio USA, especially south of the Great Lakes region, is a vast conservative plain. Being neither liberal nor conservative, I have noticed a marked difference between these sociopolitical combatants beyond the obvious. But first, what are the dictionary definitions for these factions that are such polar opposites?

American Standard Dictionary
Conservative:
1. Opposed to liberal reforms. 2. Resistant to change.

Liberal:
1. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress. 2. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.

With only these definitions you can readily put yourself in one camp or the other. As a conservative you can fight change and attempt to maintain traditional values, and social norms. Choose to be a liberal and you can fight for social change and progress. Do you detect a superficial explanation of liberal vs conservative with this criteria? You should, because there is much more to these divisive parties than a mere few words can define.

The key is divisive. In reality, both of these confraternities are radical for their cause. In effect this is a battle between movement and staying put. Movement means change, and change creates fear and resistance. Non-movement means maintaining the status quo, be it evil or not,  and most people will take the road of least resistance. Liberalism exists because of the evil and social inequality created and maintained by conservatism. Conservatism exists because liberals would create too much change too fast. Both could come under one heading, radicalism. And both suck at their approach to progress or quiescence.

One major difference I have observed between these two gangs is how they attempt to progress with their causes. The liberals I know and have known tend to create things such as political correctness. They quietly (in most cases) implant shit like this into society, to the point of making puke bags as necessary as garbage cans. Ultimately PC becomes a joke, yet once instilled, it will not go away. You can no longer call a spade a spade.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are in your face with their illogical, false, downright bullshit. Conservatives are, every man for himself, mean, hard-ass, think like me or die, people. This brings me to a phenomena I have noticed for about 15 years or so. It has been about that long since the Internet really caught on and has become as common as a telephone in developed countries.

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t get at least one spam message from someone, extolling a conservative cause. These urban legends run the gamut from kill the illegal aliens to Christians for God and country. They mis-quote history, how the democrats have ruined our society - always without actually reading the truth. They support the troops, the war, more prisons, more death, and George Bush. They hate. They hate Katrina victims, welfare, gays,  blacks, Latinos, and abortion. And they push this dung heap all over the net with the same warning at the bottom - if you really care about your country, Mom and apple pie, you will pass this “truth” to everyone in your address book.

I have never gotten a message from a liberal. Never have I received anything about the virtues of a liberal cause, whatever it may be. No one demands that I save the whales, or vote for a liberal candidate, or love a segment of society. Not a single thing have I received about the ACLU. Again, I am not a liberal. But I do admire their finesse, innovating bullshit.

Conclusion:
Liberals are people who attempt to help those they know nothing about. Conservatives are people who attempt to spread hate for those they know nothing about. Obviously, it takes more energy and solicitation to spread hate.

“Reflect often upon the rapidity with which all existing things, or things coming into existence, sweep past us and are carried away.”
Marcus Aurelius - Meditations

Those of us who write for a blog, also read blogs. If you are serious about writing and your blog, then it stands to reason, you must be curious about what other people are doing. Blogging is about disseminating information, banal and bromidic or original and worthwhile. One of the most prevalent blog topics is how to get more done in your alloted time on earth, while simplifying your life. Until recently I’ve been a sucker for this paradox of do more, get more, buy more, but simplify.

Like most people, I read only blogs that have particular interest to me. Any time I see that someone has come up with a better way to get something done, my curiosity is piqued. Many times this involves either more software or a gadget i.e more hardware. Either way, a new element has entered the scheme to simplify, and adds yet another level of attention distraction.

About a month ago I gave up using a PDA. I have had two different PDAs in the last five years, and although they are invaluable for carrying about large quantities of information, they are also a pain in the ass. Many times I need to enter information quickly, make a note for something, and I have never mastered a way to do that with a PDA. I went back to a pocket calendar and paper. I no longer have the 200 plus contacts, the PDF and Word documents, photos, and other information available, but I find I rarely use these anyway. And I store contacts on my cell phone, so there was some redundancy already built in.

Choice is a good thing, but how many text editors, sticky notes, and small calendars can you use. Again, I have gone to a simple paper notepad, even a slip of paper stuck in the calendar will do just fine. I rarely use real sticky notes; they are well, sticky, and only useful to me to stick on a paper for someone else to read. I never use them on the computer, digital or paper. There is not much more disgusting than a perfectly good LCD monitor plastered with sticky notes.

As a Mac user I find widgets useful, only if they perform a function I use often. Again, how many clocks, weather, calendars and other assorted clutter do I really need? Things such as package tracking, however, are quite useful. If I leave a note on one of the gazillion note widgets, chances are I will forget about it.

If you didn’t know that markets are created for new gadgets, you do now. Software is one of the best examples I can think of to illustrate this. Consider Microsoft Word®, the word processor. If you have been around for a while, you know that it has gone through numerous iterations, each purporting to improve productivity way beyond its predecessor. You also remember WordPerfect® for DOS. As a writer, WordPerfect was the best word processor I’ve ever used. It was stable and reliable. It did one thing and it did it well – it worked similar to a typewriter, and got your words in print, albeit digital.

Now, your Word, word-processor does almost everything, and redundancy rules your world. Are you really more productive with much of the newer software? Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no. Do you need to jump on the bandwagon and upgrade whenever a new version of Windows is released? Of course not. The greater point is, if what you have works well for you, keep it until you have a compelling reason to change.

I call this blog Hal, Deliberately Basic. My goal in life has always been to simplify and KISS. New toys can be fun, but somehow I always return to the basics. Make life easy, enjoy freedom from too many things that own you, and always work in moderation.