Category Archives: Explorations Outside the Box

Believing is What?

Explorations Outside the Box

What exactly is a ‘belief’?  The dictionary says, to believe is to have confidence or faith in the truth of something.

People  may ‘hold’ beliefs or ‘entertain’ them. To hold is to adhere or remain steadfast. To hold is to continue in the relationship – to be committed. To entertain is to be in an uncommitted relationship.

Do beliefs actually exist inside our heads?

Or are they more convenient labels for a broad range of mental products and processes?

How much thought goes into beliefs?

How stable are beliefs? From a matter of milliseconds to a lifetime?

(Maybe beliefs are momentary blips in the spreading activation. Associations. Memories. Transitory appraisals. More a snapshot in an ongoing stream…What comes to mind in certain situations. Or maybe they come and go, or the conviction with which they are held comes and goes.)

How unchallenged are beliefs within the person?

How deeply held are beliefs?

How much do beliefs motivate behavior?

How much does behavior motivate beliefs?

How much do questions about beliefs give rise to beliefs?

Does asking about a person’s  beliefs create a mental scrambling to express something coherent, something that will pass as a belief?

Does the belief exist before the question?

What are the effects of labeling something a ‘belief’?

What’s the difference between beliefs, assumptions, and suppositions?

What would an Ideal Society Look Like? The Question Phase – Part II: Safe Living Conditions

Explorations Outside the Box, Politics and Economics

Ideal # 2: Everyone has a right to safe and sanitary living conditions

Questions (focusing on ‘safety’ only):

  1. Re-wording ‘safety’ as protection from danger, what types of dangers should we be protected from?
  2. What types of dangers should be tolerated?
  3. How much danger should be tolerated within each category of danger?
  4. Should more vulnerable individuals have greater protections For instance, children or mentally ill persons?
  5. What at are the principles involved in affording vulnerable individuals greater protections?
  6. At what point in the vulnerability continuum does a person no longer qualify for extra protection? Why there?
  7. Where does choice enter the equation of dangers everyone should have the right to be protected from? For instance, should people be physically prevented from exercising their choice to enter a dangerous area, say, an abandoned building with rotting floors?
  8. What would be reasonable measures to physically prevent a person from acting on their choices to endanger themselves?
  9. What would be sufficient warning of danger? What physical barriers would be sufficient? What makes something sufficient?
  10. How much probability of harm is needed to label something as unsafe?

Well, it’s a beginning. As always, the devil’s in the details.

Hyperbolic Discounting and Climate Change

Explorations Outside the Box, Scientific Encounters, The Environment

“Consequences which occur at a later time, good or bad, tend to have a lot less bearing on our choices the more distantly they fall in the future… even when one’s life is at stake. “

–  Alan Bellows  https://www.damninteresting.com/hyperbolic-discounting/

The immediate future looms large in human psychology. People tend to care more about near-term payoff or danger than what might be coming down the pike in a few years. This tendency to downplay later rewards or threats – called hyperbolic discounting – probably evolved because  prehistoric conditions were too harsh for long-term calculations to be of much benefit.  Live for today because tomorrow may never come.

The bigger the delay, the greater the uncertainty, the less likely a person will care enough to do much about it.  Insisting that something bad will happen years from now doesn’t increase certainty or urgency to act, especially if the argument relies on highly complex models and debatable assumptions.  Nor does an argument from authority persuade if one doesn’t respect or trust that authority.

“Think for yourself” and “question authority” are cultural norms – inconsistently observed yet still valued. Push against these norms and you get resistance. Push harder and you get more resistance. Repeat over and over, and they just walk away.

What would an Ideal Society Look Like?

Explorations Outside the Box, Politics and Economics

You can’t fix a problem you don’t understand correctly. And you can’t begin to understand a problem unless you see it as a problem. And you won’t perceive it as a problem unless it conflicts with some ideal of what you want the world to look like: a vision of the good (not just a vision of a fixed bad).

In that spirit, here’s an outline of my ideal society – at least today’s version. Individual guarantees are first, followed by general characteristics:

  1. Everyone has access to affordable housing
  2. Everyone has a right to safe and sanitary living conditions
  3. Everyone has a right to healthcare
  4. Everyone has a right to 16 years of education
  5. Everyone has access to sufficient nutrition and calories
  6. Everyone has access to affordable childcare
  7. Everyone has sufficient discretionary income to clothe themselves adequately and be digitally connected.
  8. Everyone has ample opportunity to improve their socio-economic status during their working life (individual social mobility)
  9. No one has to work more than full-time to support their family
  10. Democratic, accountable and responsive government
  11. Strong environmental standards and protections
  12. Healthy labor market: low unemployment rate
  13. Engaged citizenry: widespread public involvement in government decision-making
  14. Ample opportunities for social belonging/support/relationships
  15. Effective crime control and offender rehabilitation

Each of the above ideals map onto the OECD’s “Better Life” categories: housing (1, 2), jobs (8, 12), education (4), civic engagement (13), life satisfaction (all), work-life balance (9), income/purchasing power (1-9, 12), community (13, 14), environment (2, 11), health (2, 3, 5), and safety (2, 15).

Next up: we’re going to unpack each of these ideals – see what hidden puzzles they contain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ideology, Politics, and Religion

Explorations Outside the Box, Politics and Economics

Ideology is not a collection of beliefs and opinions. Ideology is a system of beliefs and opinions. The parts (beliefs and opinions) are interconnected and form a complex whole. The whole is organized according to some core principles or themes.  The sine qua non of ideological discourse is the “ideological square”, an elaboration of Us versus Them thinking:

  1. Exaggerate Our Good Things: Our vision is good and true.
  2. Exaggerate Their Bad Things: Their vision is evil and false.
  3. Minimize Our Bad Things: Our vision has no serious downside.
  4. Minimize Their Good Things: Their vision has no merit.

Political coalitions are more or less ideological.  On the less ideological side, they may be held together by alliances of convenience, whose common cause may be more dislike of the other side than broad agreement on a range of issues. Or their members may share a key sentiment, like ‘keep government small’ but for different reasons, e.g., pro-business, anti-bureaucracy, pragmatism, efficiency, separation of church and state, distrust of do-gooders, freedom from coercion or interference, etc. As allies in a cause, they may become sympathetic to other points of view within their coalition, but that is different than embracing an ideology.

Ideologies are like secular religions – the essence of religion not being belief in supernatural entities or alternative worlds like heaven, but a “…system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” (Geertz 1993)

Within every political party, there are factions that are more ideological than others. That is, they have developed a system of ideas about the general order, ideas held with such confidence and fervor that they are clothed with an aura of factuality.

The problem with systems is their vulnerability to disintegration. With systems, everything’s connected: break a few links and the whole thing comes tumbling down. This vulnerability fosters a sense of threat. Hence, ideologues are often paranoid. Conspiracies and enemies abound. You get Us and Them and the Ideological Square.

References:

Geertz, C. (1993) Religion as a cultural system. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays, Geertz, Clifford, pp.87-125. Fontana Press.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2005) Politics, ideology and discourse. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language (Ruth Wodak, Ed.), pp. 728-740.

Thoughts as Family

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Some patterns of thought are like family. A few words out of their mouths and you know where they’re going. After a while, you know that when Uncle Fred starts talking about those damn Republicans, he’s just going to go on another rant, which doesn’t help anyone’s mood or increase their understanding. So you learn to nod, confirm, and then gently steer the conversation elsewhere. So it is with thoughts.

Thoughts as Signifiers of More or Less

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Words point to something beyond themselves. When you “accept” a thought, that means you have not resisted an arbitrary stopping point in the potentially endless signifying. But the last thought is not the last word is not the full story; it’s just a snapshot of one spot in the stream of meaning-making.  When does a “thought” begin and “end”?  Who is to say that a few mind-words constitute a full “thought”? When you “accept” the beginning of a thought but then redirect attention to something in the external environment, you very well may be nipping the thought in the bud. At some point, you decide to stop the spreading activation. That’s a decision – often a good decision. It’s not because the possibilities have been exhausted but that you’ve decided pursuing them is no longer worth it.

Being with the Flow

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

“Being” with the flow of thoughts and feelings, and not trying to cut them off through redirection of attention, can generate good things and bad things. Sometimes it helps to “be” with thoughts and feelings, to let them carry one along for awhile, for them to work themselves out, or for us to become desensitized to them, or for us to learn or change through them. But cutting them off is also fine, depending. Sometimes we want to focus on the task at hand. Sometimes we’ve heard the same old song many times before and find little value in listening once again.

Labeling Emotions

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

Making it a general principle to “accept, then redirect” thoughts –  that is, to accept the initial manifestations of a thought stream and then redirect attention to the “present” –  reflects low regard for what thought streams have to offer. The technique of labeling moods and emotions reflects a similar devaluation of emotional life. To label is to engage in shallow processing. This is sadness; this is anger. These are all ways of constraining thoughts and blunting emotions. To label is to reduce, to make small. It’s no accident that labeling people is considered rude – it’s diminishing and a sign of prejudice.