I’m certain the Globe & Mail story from Prince Rupert, BC, on 22 April needs no further adornment besides the following brief addition: Praise be.
Judge in Prince Rupert, B.C., strikes arguments as ‘stupid’ in contempt case
Best of the judge’s language:
Amen.
Politicians lie. Trump lies. Criminals lie. But now I’m repeating myself. The point is that lying is human and it wouldn’t be central to every single ethos since the species became social if it weren’t. The quotation, however, come out of the mouth of fictional doctor Gregory House—itself… a lie, of a sort.
Maybe it’s the excess or, if not excess certainly exuberance of the the lying going on in the first quarter of the 21st-century. Maybe the sheer volume and velocity of lying going on; maybe it’s the shamelessness and hypocrisy. Something has, however, triggered attention to be especially intensely directed toward lying. Even if the lying is banal or not even there, we see it. Some of us are creating conspiracies out of phantom lying. (Or maybe it’s real lying but merely pales by comparison to what we see every single day from those in positions of trust. There’s usually a pretty reasonable core to every conspiracy theory. )
But let’s get back to lying. There can be no doubt that it is capturing our attention. Media “Pinocchios” and flagrant political/corporate liars abound. Whether that is representative of anything more than that class of people (and by class I do not mean socio-economic, only “cluster”) is unclear. Though there is certainly a lot of evidence in “exaggerated” social media posts to suggest that the problem is wider spread.
I will concede that it is entirely possible there may not be a widespread lying problem. It could be that the big lies (not just The Big Lie) are overrepresented and the vast majority do not actively create, generate, and propagate their own lies over and above what has been typical and normal through human history. In conceding this though, there is no accounting at all for the obvious gullibility and rampant willingness for people to believe the lies they are told and repeat them.
I’m sure it’s splitting hairs to prosecute them as liars and conveniently unnecessary since they are fools and maybe idiots anyway. And, in point of fact, could be liars in their own right in a much smaller arena that doesn’t grab wide attention—probably because they’re not placed appropriately for it to be seen. (I’m still going with fools and idiots. I’m a believer in Occam’s Razor.)
There are a lot of cognitive biases in play for anybody (and by “anybody”, I mean practically “everybody”) focusing on how much lying is going on. Despite the fact that it may have always been that way, we may be noticing it as a result of thinking errors like:
So, there are reasons in our heads. BUT, it’s not all in our heads.
Everybody lies. I lie.
Sometimes its banal, like when I say, “Doing great,” in response to the obligatory, “How’re you doing?” greeting instead of getting into my prevailing concerns or woes. Sometimes it’s significant but I weigh the lie as better than the alternative. There is absolutely no win in telling your spouse, “No, I think those pants make your ass look extra wide.” Nor is there any real point in pointing out to your child that his rendering of his recital piece made dogs howl. Just say it’s great, go for ice cream, and move on.
Some lies are obviously wrong in every respect, not least in law. Fibbing during sworn testimony is plain wrong. It is unredeemable lying. And could land you in jail. Even if you get away with it in the moment, the truth will out eventually. For those who are religious, I’ll point out that lying to God or God’s representative on earth is also a very strict no-no.
Between these extremes are shades of gray(son). It is here that theologians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, and so many others can wile away their days. And to what end? It is extremely unlikely that a definitive rule can or will be set. If for no other reason than the lying is contextual and other values come into play. It is almost certain that any choice on lying will end up bumping into and having a significant impact on some other (possibly moral) matter. (Is a “negligable”—in the sense of nobody being materially harmed—lie, in the service of a greater good, righteous?) This warrants a separate thought; let’s explore righteous lies just a bit.
By the transparency zeitgeist motivations and demands for personal freedom and uninhibited knowledge of everything, a national leader that makes a decision to keep something secret is hunted down politically at least and pilloried. After all (s)he knew and kept it from us, and lied about knowing it, and well, we really wanted to know because, we have freedom and agency and the right to know and… You get the idea.
If that secret saved thousands of lives, kept the economy stable, and let the country or the world get about its business was it worth it? Just because a relatively few wanted to know and felt that they should be part of the “need to know” crowd, but the vast majority didn’t need to know, wouldn’t know what to do when they found out, and knowing or not knowing made no difference to them anyway, does that make radical transparency alright? Does it make the lie less righteous?
This is territory that the vast majority of the population is ill equipped to trek. What the vast majority ought to be interested in is whether lies affect them (negatively) and what that does to their level of trust in the teller of those lies.
The real concern ought not to be on whether somebody is lying any more than on whether (s)he is speaking English, French, or Mandarin. It is something to be accepted, embraced, understood, and evaluated. That allows attention to be put on the purpose. What is the purpose and the outcome? Is the lie told to take unfair advantage? Is it to save another’s feelings? Is it for the benefit of the teller or someone else? Does it break the law? Does it do harm? If you swing that way, does it break a Covenant with your Lord?
We’re too focused on the lying and paying insufficient attention to the reasons and outcome.
None of which is to let the big orange Pinocchio off the hook for his LIFETIME of lying. It is to say that after so many years, we know it’s a lie. We (and by “we” I mean those who are followers) need to look at the end for which lying was the means. In his personal life, in his business life, in his sporting life, in his political life. In all these ways and for all these purposes the lying was for self-dealing and illegal, unfair advantage.
Enough said. Everybody lies. (Some more than others.)
For more thoughts and ideas check both other posts and my oeuvre.
The Ontario government may be open for business but it’s not helping prepare Ontario youth for the working world. One example is the move to eliminate final exams as a requirement to pass any courses. Apparently final exams take too much of a toll on the teenage psyche.
The mothers at the table next to us in the ski lodge were having none of it. “It’s too stressful? LIFE is stressful…”
They’re right, of course. And not just because they were probably using it as cover for wanting their kids in school studying and writing the exam just that little bit longer. They’re right because the benefits to the child (to the extent there are any) are immediate and personal while the harm is delayed and societal as well.
But is it the kids or us that is to blame? Maybe “the call is coming from inside the house.”
In a microcosm I, too, have been guilty of not putting more pressure on my child. (And, by contemporary standards, my child’s experience was pretty demanding unless the standard is that of an abandoned inner-city child fighting out of poverty. In which case, my child loses… by a lot.) It make me, certainly, feel good to bat away some of the harder things I had to deal with and learn from in my youth. It feels good to let my child benefit from some of what it took me a lifetime of experience and effort to gain–be that monetary or moral… or mere fortitude.
Sadly, it was probably more to my benefit than my child’s. But I take solace in knowing that relative to peers my child is far more “worldly” in a fundamental way. Even though the bar appears to be a lot lower than when I was a youth.
I presume everyone knows that “tempered glass” or “tempered steel” is harder and more durable.
Tempering is the process of giving hardness or softness to a substance; especially steel. It is essentially the application of artificial (extreme) stress to the substance so that it will be stronger under real stress.
If it works for knife blades and diving mask glass (and shower doors), why would we not apply that same logic to education and development of people. I can’t be the only one that has heard the adage that “Tough times don’t last; tough people do.” How exactly do people get “tough.” Is it genetic and if you weren’t born with it you’ll never have it, so we (as an education system) are loathe to challenge you?
Stupid.
Children are naturally resilient. Why do we insist on sponging that out of them? Wouldn’t it be better to build (or “nurture”) those natural tendencies to make more resilient, and mentally capable/durable adults? Isn’t it sufficiently proven over millennia that those qualities are selected naturally through the generations?
In any case, let’s attempt a simple pros/cons assessment.
To be clear, this is only about limiting, if not eliminating final exams. It does not contemplate the many other ways that we avoid teaching the next generation. Usually these techniques are given cover under the aegis of “modern” teaching or “experiential” learning. I’m referring to not compelling a student to perform at a chalkboard (whiteboard) because of the anxiety, to not compelling memorization of multiplication tables even to 10; to not addressing or focusing on fundamentals of language and mathematics. All to the extent that there seems to be nobody under the age of 45 that can estimate change at a retail counter or tabulate a 15% tip in their head.
On the other side of the ledger, there are costs—most of which will not be revealed for years or decades.
So what?
Well, I seem to land decidedly on the side of applying some degree of stress. In school, there is nothing that could be deemed a life-threatening level of stress. (At least not in Canada; the USA is another matter, but that has nothing to do with curriculum.) Nothing that a healthy child should not have to face, will overcome, and will be a better adult for it.
On that basis, precious little recommends the alternative.
But then again, I have unusual views.
Radical transparency is in demand; that much is obvious. Anti-vaxxers and the “Fredum” thugs, anti-business anti-government anti-[insert what bugs you here] and conspiracy theorists all demand greater transparency just in case (or because) somebody’s trying to pull one over on us.
Of course, none of them actually believes the information provided. So there’s that.
I got to thinking about this again seeing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reveal classified information during a public committee meeting. Her unabashed reasoning was that she thought Americans should know [operational boarder information]… On another front, I’ve been seeing a lot of Sarah Kendzior’s book, They Knew (mostly as she promotes it). I believe—as I haven’t read the book—her theme is: you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you, and I have the receipts. By her reckoning, there are provable (government) conspiracies in the USA with different, complicit participants in each instance. The conclusion is apparently that (a) “they” knew a tragedy was coming and (b) it was largely to “their” gain and at “your” cost.
I’m not a fan of either. It goes without saying there will always be groups with privileged information they keep to themselves. In business, it’s called “trade secrets.” Investors hoard and use information for trading advantage and profit. In affairs of state there are countless reasons for keeping things opaque, shall we say. Military and defense activities among an alliance, such as NATO, is a good example. Justice is another.
There are good reasons for this behaviour, which is perfectly reasonable and normal. Besides, information typically requires context to be meaningful and tracts of it requires skills, training, and comprehension that eludes most of those “doing their own research.”
(Valuable) Information can resemble a Rorschach blot: (a) sure to be misunderstood; (b) revealing more about its analyst than the underlying subject; and (c) raw material to manufacture disinformation—rarely for a good purpose.
What good is transparency if what it reveals is at best meaningless and at worst combustible?
Information itself and conspiring to hold it from others is not in and of itself untoward. It can be sane and sensible. We can’t all be polymaths and expert at every esoteric area of expertise. (Except, of course, Elon Musk and Donald Trump.) We don’t all have a direct say in how the government operates. We get our say periodically to elect representatives to represent us. We certainly get no say in the human resources and processes by which modern states operate any more than one-share stockholders can demand a say in corporate structure and operations. It has never happened before; it will not happen now, and; it will not happen in the future.
The division of labour, a foundational Capitalist principle, compels us for efficiency and effectiveness to leave tasks and the necessary carrying out of those tasks, including choices about information (disclosure), to nominated or designated people.
This bedrock principle upon which the Western, democratic world (and arguably every other part of the world) bases itself and its affairs is dependent on one of two things. In North America anyway, these are rapidly changing.
The first is trust the second is fear. Fear, in this context, is much to fraught to tackle here, so let’s focus on trust. In a social context this is trust in institutions and the people that populate, particularly lead them. Social trust is in tatters on its way to being shredded.
For some justifiable reasons, the populous has lost trust in the institutions of government and the representative politicians (of the other tribe). In the USA, the political tribes have fully separated and certainly the Republican party has done everything it can to actively drive mistrust of not only Democrats but government in general.
Side note: Probably because it spends much more and has accumulated better PR, “business” luxuriates in higher levels of social trust. This is bizarre when a substantive record of how and why trusting “business” has failed the masses. But, whatever.
Absent trust, credibility is an early relationship casualty so every institutional error is perceived as having ulterior motive. That leads to genuine withholding of information for good reasons. Thus the doom cycle commences and continues.
Sometimes it behooves leaders of all sorts—business, government, families—to withhold information for the broadest benefit of the whole. Using a tired philosophical saw, yelling “fire” in a crowded auditorium results in pandemonium. People—in herds—responding to information they may not understand or have the tools to effectively address, are known to panic… regularly. The crowd will stampede and many will not make it out.
(This used to be axiomatic: given today’s level of “doing my own research” rejection of authority, who knows how many would rampage—perhaps for altogether different reasons—anticipating more palatable facts to surface.) A leader may not mention the fire, using a ruse or some other oblique rationale for orderly withdrawal. More people are unharmed. Is that so bad?
One of those justifiable reasons for trust diminishing I mentioned earlier is the overwhelming evidence of corruption and (their tribe’s, of course) self-dealing. Withholding information, even as a syndicate, should be expected. What may also be expected but is definitely beyond the pale is self-dealing, benefitting unjustly, and harming others—those others who have given their faith to the “good faith” of those empowered. (Let’s also not restrict ourselves to politicians and governments; this applies to businesses and other organizations be they charities or labour unions or…)
We have stumbled into the area of corruption, not conspiracy or secrecy or withholding information. The legal phrasing generally contains, “…conspiracy to….” The word “to”—not “conspiracy”—is the operative one here. The conspiracy part merely refers to a group; “to” leads to a crime.
The issue is not conspiring or colluding or anything else until they become instrumental to implementing and executing a crime. At this point the rabble rousing and transparency demanding has a crisis: the choice forces many to create the artifice of crime out of whole cloth.
When bankers, oil & gassers, other industrialists and oligopolists collude to maximize movement of wealth from the masses to the few, that warrants uprising. When chemical companies conspire to influence regulation or cover-up lethal toxic impacts of their making to avoid culpability, that might warrant pitchforks. When the government and the political leaders (of their tribe) self-deal by pocketing hundreds of thousands or billions of dollars by virtue of their privilege, that warrants blowback.
Competent, employed professionals entrusted with a particular division of labour, making good-faith decisions for the greatest good based on imperfect and shifting information, probably is not. Certainly anyone or any organization holding operational information without a criminal intent has no obligation to disclose all of it just because “one shareholder” wants to see it. Even government bodies.
If there is a crime at hand, pursue the crime. Prove it. There are rules for information disclosure with provable probability of crime. (Caveat: Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s a crime. Corrollary: Just because you do like something doesn’t mean it it isn’t a crime. You know who I’m talking about.)
Incidentally, Sarah, none of this suggests or recommends NOT being vigilant about potential crimes—especially coups d’état, which are inarguably social harms… and crime. But yeah, “they” probably or maybe definitely knew! They’re there and you’re not. And Marjorie: some things don’t need to be radically transparent just because you—loosely said—think so.
Get over it.
Why are good ideas perverted, leaving an ineradicable bad condition?
This is an update to the post only to serve as a pointer to a genuine journalist who is on the same track and published very soon after this was posted. Ezra Klein’s Times piece, “This Changes Everything” (NYT 12/3/23) is well worth the read.
Name one “wonder” technology that wasn’t brought into the world on the crest of great promise of only good things that wasn’t quickly exploited for much less glorious purposes. It’s hard.
The printing press certainly opened knowledge to the masses, yet it was but a small hop to printed propaganda. Firearms probably were sold as the defensive equalizer, and … (Oh who’s kidding whom: firearms always had only one purpose: maybe noble, even necessary, but rarely “for good.”) What about social media? (cellular) telephony? the Internet itself? All wonders. Or crypto-currency? No, forget it. Again, there is really one purpose and value—and it’s not any sort of societal, human advance.
All were sold based on how they would enhance society or address unscratched itches, blah, blah, blah. To a one, each is non-trivially corrosive. They are technology lye: useful but will eat the skin right from your bones.
Wonders or not, the genie’s out of the bottle. So there’s no point in pretending it could be otherwise. More than that, it would never be otherwise. We are an imaginative and creative species. We will explore, discover, invent, and innovate. All of which will always be sold on the basis of the great good they can do because we are generally an acquisitive and ambitious species.
I’ve been talking to (smart) people about this for a while. What is almost never given adequate attention is the “malevolent imagination.” That is, the highly creative counterpoint to beneficent creativity. It exists. We see examples in every movie, novel, or other story featuring an evil mastermind. Some of us, within the fantasy of the story, admire the way the author has taken what we know as good and turned it to something bad. (It’s like how I admire a good burglar.) Even if it comes dangerously close to the loopier territory of conspiracy and conspiracy theory.
Why isn’t such innate creative talent put to better use at the birth of these wonderous technologies? Why isn’t there considerably more open evaluation and understanding of new technology exploitation? At the very least it would create a richer appreciation for the technology and its potential—a boon for the innovator and promoter.
More important here, it would identify where caution should be taken and attention paid for the general good. For example, why is it that only with AI have many of the brightest minds come forward to say, “Hey, slow down. This could be really dangerous…?” Were they the only once primed by Terminator 2?
I am in no way suggesting that technology innovation should stop or even be curtailed (mostly). I am saying that there are an awful lot of stupid people that will amplify and push a technology because they are not clever enough to see the hazards. Even more people may see it but, frankly, don’t care because in the short term anyway, it’s valuable (to them).
So it’s incumbent on the relatively few remaining—so vastly outnumbered—to sway the rules of the game to account for these contingencies and risks. Even if they do not succeed in the short run, wouldn’t it be great to be aware of what could happen? What the warning signs might be, and what correctives could be applied? As in everything: forewarned is forearmed.
This thought is about the malevolent imagination. It exists and like the technologies identified, is neither good nor bad. In some circumstances, coupled to a IGNOBLE heart, it lends itself to the “evil mastermind.”
But what of the malevolent imagination attached a NOBLE heart? (It’s probably easier to think of this as partners rather than an individual; though it makes more sense in an individual.) In its most virtuous sense, the noble heart might ensure a dangerous technology were stillborn because of the terrible future the malevolent imagination sketched. Probably that only delays the inevitable. But having bought only some time, the noble heart could prepare countermeasures.
What if Oppenheimer’s later regrets were manifest globally prior to the atomic bomb’s development? More proximately, what if one saw the blindingly obvious eventuality of the attack/defense arms race of cybercrime or how “freedom of speech” becomes license to anonymous libel and extreme incivility in a global town square? Would the Internet or social media never happen? Would that particular path be erased?
Not in the least. But it is possible that we all might have given clearer thought to prophylactic measures viz. cybersecurity or time to take action to ford up civil connection at every level as a vaccine to the coming decadent societal impacts.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do that thing. Fording up social trust, reinvigorating morality or some other ethic may have been the bulwark. It may have worked. It may have had ripple effects. But these are different times.
Still, as a red team or by whatever name you choose, going dark early could be the only way to preserve the light.
If you’re intrigued, there’s plenty more to make you think about creativity and other things in my oeuvre.
My firm, Institute X, responded and provided a paper to the Canadian Government’s Consultation on Cyber Security. It’s a considered white paper that assumes government should do what it’s supposed to do (public safety and security; and support Canadian industry). We suggest that an “unreasonably” high standard for cyber security and directed support toward the Canadian cyber security industry (e.g., national security-protected procurement) will benefit Canada on multiple fronts.
Download it here: institute-x-cyber-security-consultation-submission-oct-2016.
Somebody should do a PhD thesis on the (negative) impact, let alone debasement of friendship wrought by social media. It’s impossible not to be right, though it would be restricted to academic circles because everyone who is “social” on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc., would not merely deny it but viciously counter-attack. Still…
Maybe I’m off-put by nostalgic remembrance of how things never actually were. Or worse, perhaps the recognition of how NOT central—Hell, questionably peripheral—I am to my friends and business colleagues is weighing on my meagre self-esteem. In any case, here it is.
Not that long ago I read a few of articles. A couple were in the WaPo and were essentially about why smart people have fewer friends and why if you’re smart you will have fewer friends. I worked the logic backward: I have few friends and I seem relatively happy—at least at the moment, so I must be smart. Awesome. The last article was from HBR. It’s title: You Have Fewer Friends Than You Think. It WAS in keeping with the other two, so I instantly felt satisfied.
I thought about those articles recently, having notice of how many people I know are simply rude. It’s rampant and everywhere. But I was thinking specifically about how few people respond to communication. For instance, the business colleagues—people I was working with and helping—and friends(!) who can’t be bothered to respond to phone calls, emails, and texts. Who detach and go radio silent in the middle of an exchange. It’s outrageous.
Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about people met only in passing or those “friended” or “contacted” in social media. These are people with whom I have a fifteen year of history; people I’m paid to collaborate with to address a client’s needs (and they’re the client!!).
For a long time, even though I personally choose to respond to everyone within a seemly time, rarely more than 24-hours, I cut these people a lot of slack. “Everyone’s really busy…,” “There’s lots of priorities…,” and so on I would say to myself to excuse their behaviour.
I no longer feel so charitable.
First, you’re not that important. Not to me or anyone else.
Second, you’re common. Apparently like everyone else doing what’s good for you only as long as it’s good for you. That’s not special. And adults, never mind the menschen do what the have to do in their social group particularly when it doesn’t immediately benefit or satisfy them.
Or maybe I’m just coming to terms with the fact that I, too, have fewer friends than I think I do.
Those who know me are aware of a hobby horse I’ve ridden for at least the past decade. My contention is that someplace along the way between Adam Smith and now, Capitalism evolved from an explanation and theory to a cult and a broader philosophy to a full blown religion with its own dogmas, catechisms, and so on.
The idea is not meant to denigrate or debase the economic value and general force for (economic) progress that Capitalism provides. I am a supporter. I don’t think it needs to be torn down and replaced. (By what?) Like anything and everything else, all the good it affords comes with ugly costs that have to be bourne… by someone. Besides, to appropriate Churchill: it’s the worst economic system around, except all the others.
No. When I jump on my hobby horse and ride through the Western frontier of this notion, my point is only to expose what should be obvious. Unfortunately, those who dislike and have a grudge Capitalism and its effects use the argument and corrupt my intent by forming lynch mobs. Equally unfortunate, those who are acolytes refuse to accept any of these otherwise obvious conditions and deny the argument entirely, unthinkingly–like any religiously observant follower ought, I might add.
This post is not to get into the foundations or substance of this argument. That will come later. It’s to seek genuine insights for validation or refutation from the one or two people that read these posts. Why? I’m burnishing the idea into a thesis to propose for graduate work.
“Oh great,” you say, “Another useless bit of academic crapping on capitalism.”
Not so much. I would hope that like pointing out to the 280-lb, 165cm person that perhaps approach to food (Straight, direct, and unimpeded… as a psychological crutch for feelings of exclusion…) as observed from outside might be the something to internalize and act upon, the take-away from such a thesis and study would be a recognition that there is a way to make and use, or direct capitalisms tendencies toward greater things. Not toward the inevitabilities of religious fervor.
If you have any thoughts or directions toward published works: books, monographs, journal articles from any specialty study area, feel free to send them my way.
Thanks