What Do You Think?

Professor J,

I'm having one of those weeks where certain ideas that I've been focused on seemed to converge in a whirlpool of information and experience. Do you ever get the feeling the universe wants you to understand something now?

I've been thinking about, well...thinking. Your last post pointed out, to some extent,  how the lack of it weakens and divides. And as you've alluded to many times, it is often the people who have spent the least amount of time giving deep thought to anything who are the ones who are the most sure of their opinions and beliefs.

I'm reading John Maxwell's new book, Thinking for a Change. I like the title's double entendre. Maxwell can usually be relied upon for good advice in the motivation and leadership departments, but I was intrigued with the skills he's promoting:

1. Acquire the wisdom of big-picture thinking - does my thinking extend beyond me and my world
2. Unleash the potential of focused thinking - concentrate to find clarity on the real issues
3. Discover the joy of creative thinking - get out of the box and find break through thinking
4. Recognize the importance of realistic thinking - does my thinking have a solid mental foundation
5. Release the power of strategic thinking - is my thinking leading to plans for today that help me reach my potential tomorrow
6. Feel the energy of possibility thinking - possibility thinking can help you find solutions to even the difficult problems
7. Embrace the lessons of reflective thinking - am I revisiting the past to gain understanding and learn from what happened
8. Question the acceptance of popular thinking - am I rejecting the limitations of common thinking
9. Encourage the participation of shared thinking - am I engaging others to expand and sharpen my thinking
10. Experience the satisfaction of unselfish thinking - am I considering others and their needs
11. Enjoy the return of bottom-line thinking - am I staying focused on results

*copied from a reviewer's post 

While I've been reading this book other things have come to mind. First, our ability to control our thoughts and actually change our brains by doing so. Buddhist monks, for example show an amazing capacity for empathy and compassion when studied, proving that indeed "as a man thinks, so he is." Read the article about one such study here: This Buddhist Monk is the World's Happiest Man My daughter and I recently discussed after our yoga class that it never occurs to us during our practice to hold any negativity or ill will toward anyone. Yet I've heard many Christians condemn yoga and meditation as dangerous (for unclear reasons).

Might the  knowledge of the mind's power be why Christians are admonished to do the following?

"...be renewed in the spirit of your minds." Eph. 4:23

"... whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Phil. 4:8

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" Rom. 12:2

Studies have shown that the self talk we engage in can greatly affect our behavior, the difference between saying "I can't eat that" and I don't eat that" for instance. Here's an article about the study: The Amazing Power of "I Don't" vs. "I can't."

Hopefully Maxwell's book will attract lots of readers (and doers also). We can't change the entire world overnight but we can start with our own thoughts and self talk.

Long Division

Madame:

This Beck thing brings us back to “the early days” (lol) of this blog, where we looked at books by Beck and Obama.  Readers may find that archive search instructive.

You mention that Limbaugh and Coulter will not have even the tardy bit of introspection that Beck seems to have had.  It brings to mind what I heard an “old” and “liberal” radio talk show host say about a lot of the “conservative” commentators, because he has known most of them personally from their beginnings:  they are smart, they only believe part of the things they say (and rarely to the level that they take it), and they are knowingly exploiting for financial gain the willful, emotional ignorance of their “followers.”

Interestingly enough, that particular talk show host was canned by the station he was on for not being “hip” or “progressive” enough (but was probably also canned at least partially because he didn’t march in the all anti-conservative, all-the-time parade).

As I travel the country, I encounter this division theme, which seems to be a familiar one but which few REALLY want to make a determined effort on: As we’ve mentioned, it serves those who hold the semi-hidden power.  How else could one explain so many PRESENTLY middle class people who are in denial and diversion about the reasons for the economic changes around them.  Who ignore and make no connections about all the older cars on the roads (and the autos in need of repair, sometimes appallingly so); of the faltering (and sometimes missing) infrastructure; of the increasing scarcity of certain skills and experiences that used to be basic; of the young who ARE the future but far too many of whom are either unprepared or lacking any real economic opportunity—and who will BE the future, for good or ill; of the formerly middle class people who have spun out of it into what USED to be the “working class,” but which is now in many respects the lower class, an often part-time and hard scrabble existence; of real poverty right in our midst, not even counting the homeless.

Only a populace that had been psychologically conditioned (the cynical would say brainwashed) would accept the disconnection, a disconnection that permits denial, permits the fiction that because THEY are “all right” for the moment, that things must be okay, and the “sensationalist media” and “bleeding hearts” are “enabling the moochers.”  Who, if they even acknowledge its existence at all, refuse to see Robert Reich’s documentary “Inequality for All, ” terming it “b.s. propaganda from another liberal who wants to kill jobs and the American Dream.” 

Good on Reich for soldiering on.  Just like the women suffragists who were ridiculed, harassed, or dismissed by so many of their fellow women, but had truth on their side, uncomfortable truth is present here as well.

Income inequality, and the plight of the middle class (which had been suffering in one fashion or another throughout most of the decade) is almost precisely where it was in 1928.  I hope I don’t need to remind everyone what triggered off economic calamity that next year.   I am NOT predicting economic calamity next year (and fervently hope it doesn’t happen), but I AM saying that, in Rush’s (the group, not Limbaugh) words, “if you choose not to decide, you’ll still have made a choice.”  Meaning that, denial only delays decision and reckoning, it does not evade it.  We can choose both not to see our problems and not to deal with them, but eventually they will deal with us in ways we will have little control over.

Owning Up

Professor J,

Welcome back to the land of the living. ;)

So out of oblivion this week comes Glenn Beck.  I never really got his humor on the radio, though I loved him on CNN Headline News when he had a unique talk show. Then he moved to FOX where they gave him free rein to do whatever he liked and at first I was still a regular viewer. He promoted learning more about our history and asked a lot of questions that were pertinent in the beginning. As time went on his theories on things got...well, a little unhinged.

 One day he was showing a clip of President Obama saying something that sounded sinister. He showed the same short (maybe 5 seconds) clip repeatedly during the show. I went online and found the speech from which the clip was taken and the clip being shown over and over completely misrepresented the tone of the entire speech. I'll admit I stuck with him an embarrassing length of time after that. He finally lost me when the daily chalk boards outlined conspiracies of one kind and then another.

Then there was his incendiary language. Which in this recent interview he says he now regrets and admits to being part of the problem and says " “I think I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart and it's not who we are.”

Only thanks to him and others like him, it is who we are now. 

 He's sorry looking back, but the damage has been done--and the money has been made (wink). But I'll give him some credit for realizing the amount of damage he's done and showing remorse. I doubt we'll see such introspection from the likes of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh who have legions of loyal fans who have bestowed upon them celebrity status and made them fortunes.

Fear and loathing, not searching for common ground and solutions,  is what keeps you atop the best sellers list and makes you a popular talk show guest.  And why mess with success, no matter the cost?

I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html#Y90elQJjyPgFfY44.99

I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html#Y90elQJjyPgFfY44.9

I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html#Y90elQJjyPgF

A Movement of Many

Madame:

Thank you for the good wishes.  I am back in whatever form readers feel I usually am (top, middle, askew, sideways, curmudgeonly?).  But I too shared the frustration of having the time to read and think—and having the physical disposition to do neither.

I am following a bit better what you mean on use of pioneer/frontier thought in American political speech.  Some work has been done, although primarily in relation to the notion of American exceptionalism (and its corresponding historical antecedent of “manifest destiny,”  or, as others would put it, American imperialism).  Richard Etulain did an examination in the 1990s.  James Ceaser (yes, that is spelled correctly) also had a relatively recent piece in the American Political Thought journal.  The Frontier Lab is an organization actively promoting such talk in the political lexicon (and founded long after Kennedy’s New Frontier vision, by the way).  Slatta’s work last decade on rugged individualism and how it is popularized in our culture and speech (and how we resist its questioning) may also have relevance in comparisons of frontier violence, rugged individualized justice, etc. and our mass shootings recurrences.   However, I’m not well-versed enough to know how extensive any work is, or what the present state (if any) of academic research is on the focus area you have outlined.  Your questions are pertinent.  Attention PhD prospects!  A possible dissertation thesis!

“Army of one” was a typical Army screwup.  It was supposed to be “Army of ONE,” meaning Officer, NCO, Enlisted, the three types of soldiers, but that was lost quickly, and even if it had remained, would still have confused the potential recruit (who would have presumably had little or no understanding of all that).  

Your words on the effects of isolation—and the implications—describe well the travails of our hyper-individualized society.   Those who are intense Facebook-philes mayhap should take heed.  Isolation and hyper individualism are also major contributing factors to the confirmation bias you note.

Your thoughts on the millenials: Let’s hope that is both the good trend and the results of that trend.  I like that gradual transformation better than the one that has been necessary to effect too many past transformations: calamity/tragedy/suffering.

How to avoid groupthink and rigid conformity in the achieving, you ask?  Perhaps we should look to the elves of fantasy (and possibly their real-life inspirations, the Finns) to see how to have both individual freedom and yet a sense of communal responsibility.

I am as hopeful as you that the trend toward smaller and more sustainable is long-lasting.  A question: What will all the industries—housing, mortgage, furnishing, remodeling, etc.—do when their prey are both no longer abundant and unwilling to expose themselves?

If those industries’ greed—or rather the results of their greed—end up hoisting them on their own petards, lovers of poetic justice may rejoice.

Of course, that doesn’t address what has—in many respects of the word—already been effectively stolen…

KISS

Professor J,

Hope you are feeling more like yourself again. The thing that made me the maddest when I was sick was that I finally had time to lounge around and read but my feverish brain couldn't focus on anything. Frustrating!

Today, in order not to overwhelm you, with more stuff to respond to, I'm keeping it simple.  This time of year I am in the mood to simplify. I cleaned out my clothes closet and pantry this week. It's always shocking to see how much can be accumulated and I'm not even a heavy shopper. Not surprisingly simplifying is one of those routine resolutions we make annually.

But it's becoming more than just a yearly personal challenge. I've noticed lately that in the media and among friends, the question of how much is enough and whether or not we could live with less is reaching a kind of tipping point. The attitude is less "can we do without some of this stuff?"  and more wouldn't we really be happier without some of this stuff?"

You and I discussed a few years back (that just sounds weird) the economic downturn and the likelihood that it would impact people's long term behavior. At the time we were talking specifically about debt and if we thought people had learned any lessons they'd been be applying to life after the recovery. But the learning to let go of material things, and order our lives in a way that is healthier, and simpler is apparently another side effect. Google "tiny houses" for images of just how small people are going. It's inspiring. They are not only tiny but affordable and sustainable. Only time will tell if it's a fad or if we are really moving past consumerism as a life style.

Here's a link to the Tiny House Blog. 

Classic

Professor J,

I do hope you are feeling better. I often wonder when I'm really ill, as I was recently, if our bodies don't just decide we've pushed them too far and they are going to stop us in our tracks, smack us in bed, and finally get the rest they need whether we think we have time for it or not.

I am reading Dale Carnegie's classic, How to Stop Worrying and Start Living. A friend actually gave it to me to give to my daughter, a chronic worrier, but I thought I'd read it before passing it on. I am always interested in how when I'm thinking about certain ideas I seem to encounter information from unlikely sources related to it. Kind of like when you've visited a city and then it seems to suddenly be mentioned everywhere. I always wonder if the universe is bringing me information to connect ideas I'm thinking about, or if I'm just paying attention to certain ideas and then I notice them. Perhaps both.

As I was reading the book I ran across this:

"...If a man will devote his time to securing facts in an impartial, objective way, his worries will usually evaporate in the light of knowledge.'

But what do most of us do? If we bother with facts at all--and Thomas Edison said in all seriousness, 'There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the labor of thinking'--if we bother with facts at all, we hunt like bird dogs after the facts that bolster up what we already think--and ignore all the others! We want only the facts that justify our acts--the facts that fit in conveniently with our wishful thinking and justify our preconceived prejudices!

As Andre Maurois put it: 'Everything that is in agreement with our personal desires seems true. Everything else puts us into a rage."

An early description of confirmation bias.

Our best thinking is done when we put our emotions aside but sadly the Maurois quote seems to pinpoint accurately the kind of "thinking" that is being done all around us. Some things it seems just never change. 

Another Maurois quote: "We appreciate frankness from those who like us. Frankness from others is called insolence."

Well, now. Isn't that the truth!:)

Speedy recovery, my friend! 

Going Around

Dear Readers,

We hope you are well, because our dear professor is not. I'll be posting tomorrow in his stead. Stay warm, everyone and wash your hands...and get well soon, Professor J!

Farewell, Pioneers Part II

Professor J,

As usual your nitpicking has made me think deeper about my ideas. I always find myself mentally clarifying, detailing things you've misunderstood, or backtracking on this or that because you've found an error in my thinking. Honing my thinking over and over. All of which are some of the reasons why I keep showing up. :)

But allow me a clarification: I'm sure the original inhabitants of this country would take issue with much of my phraseology and underlying ideas. I was however speaking to a particularly "American" idea and way of thinking that is ingrained deeply not as to whether or not it is correct to hold such a one sided historical view.

And thank you for pointing out Frederick Jackson Turner's writings to me. What I was looking for, though, was something related not to the spirit of the image but how the words and phrases related to it are used in political speech. I was on the hunt for research into how often that kind of terminology is used, by candidates holding which kind of views, and perhaps a study showing that certain words seem to pop up when particular things are happening in the culture or economy. Are there national events or cycles that cause speech writers to trot out certain words? And if we looked at all the correlations would there appear to be something formulaic about it?

This probably exists somewhere and everyone knows about it but me, if so please share. ;)

A few years back when the Army changed it's slogan from "Be all you can be" which was simple, direct, and inspiring to "An Army of one" I thought how inappropriate the motto was for the organization. If any group represents the idea of team building and camaraderie, it's the armed forces. Generally almost nothing about it says "go it alone" or "you don't need anyone else." I think it's a pretty good indication of just how pervasive the thinking is. The current, "Army strong" is probably the result of someone realizing that an army of one is an oxymoron.

We may be waking up to the psychological as well as physiological importance of connection to others. Any article or book about how to live a long, healthy life includes a focus on the importance of having a small group of friends who you can share problems and celebrate victories with. The lone wolf is much more likely to be depressed in his isolation, and I suspect stuck in his ideas which will remain unchallenged and therefore likely not well thought out, because he will never have to explain them or have them questioned by anyone else. The same danger exists in having relationships solely with people very much like one's self.

In one of my favorite books, Howard's End, E.M. Forster uses the phrase "Only connect!"  to emphasize the value of relationships. The phrase sounds almost comical with today's constant connection to others carried with us at all times. But of course Forster was referring to real connections with people, and not what sometimes passes for connection today. It seems he would have recognized what we've done though, even before the technology for it existed:

 "The more people one knows the easier it becomes to replace them," Margaret sighs. "It's one of the curses of London." 

So if scientists and mental health experts, doctors and healthy living experts are telling us that we need more connection for our overall physical and mental health is it possibly just a matter of time before we acquiesce some of our independent spirit for our own good? The hyper individualistic thinking may be something that cannot effectively be changed once it's is entrenched. If that is the case our best hope may be the next generation which is already much more adept at sharing and collaboration.  Companies that study trends are turning up the millenials' penchant for sharing instead of owning. They are more interested in access than ownership. Which will probably mean they'll clamor for things like better public transportation. Something their parents cared little about. So the value of us and the power of we may gain strength with time.

But of course, the constant companion question: How to do it optimally without tipping over into group think and rigid conformity?

One May Be The Easiest Number To Defeat

Madame M:

Excellent analysis.  Although I would think many Native American tribes could take issue with your terminology and some implications, the overall legacy problem seems to have tremendous validity.

The literature, while perhaps scant, is not entirely devoid of reference to the effect of pioneer thought.  Frederick Jackson Turner’s classic essay on it is practically required reading for many graduate school historians (and occasionally political scientists).  And you would find a number of congruent ideas to yours.

Sociologists talk about how we are atomizing, each expecting his own freedom and minimally concerned or unconcerned about the freedom of others—and often minimally concerned or unconcerned at all about others outside of very immediate family or a small circle of “friends”.

One too frequently hears this expressed in terms of the rest of the citizenry (not FELLOW citizenry, note) similar to “F’ them.  I earned my way, and they can too.”  Even though the circumstances are usually far different from when the individual supposedly “earned” his or her own way.  But even more importantly, there is no desire to change the underlying conditions that generate poverty. 

As you alluded to, the real powers sit back and feel comfortable every time they hear the talk they have seeded echo back to them.  They know they don’t need to do the conquering.  Divide, disconnect, and isolate, and the people—or more accurately, the fractured groups or disempowered individuals—will conquer themselves.

Aristocrats and now plutocrats have been using that technique throughout history.  And we keep falling for it.  Human emotions and psychology change too little or too slowly, it would seem.

I therefore applaud and support your standing in the middle of the tide of individualism to be a breakwater for cooperation.

Excellent thinking to start us off in 2014!

Farewell, Pioneers

 

Professor J, 

Staying home, and spending hours in bed with fun gadgets like humidifiers gives a girl time to think. I was a bit surprised when I tried to find research about the use of pioneer and cowboy imagery in American political speech no one seems to have written about it. (I'm talking to you, political science majors.)

I wonder if our self made man, every man for himself, pioneer spirit is killing America. And if we just don't see it yet. We are still enamored by the idea of cowboys and rags to riches stories. Work hard, don't give up, and keep chasing the American Dream.

The thing that made us great under completely different circumstances won't keep us great under the new interconnected conditions.

While reading about how standardized testing is harming our students' ability to think, discussing the sad concept of community our culture has (thanks, Rush), and wondering how we became such a great nation and achieved so many miraculous things something began to sink in. That pioneer spirit was grand. And necessary. It's part of our national psyche and identity still used in advertising and political speeches and we think it's a good thing. Much has been written about the image of the cowboy on American society. We are tied to it. Just think how often the term "pioneer" gets thrown around as a description of anyone who does anything unusually new. Except that now we are tied by it. The time for it (warning: sacrilege to follow) may have passed.

Here's why: A nation born out of a desire for liberty and personal freedom needs pioneers. A country with vast expanses that need to be tamed needs those willing to live alone with their families and be self sufficient. There was much hard work to do early on, nearly impossible work it seems at times, and a particular attitude of independence was necessary. Frontiers are opened up by those who are willing to forgo the comforts of community. Winds howling across open plains without a single other person must have whispered "You don't need anyone."

The problem is the frontier is gone, unless you are going to space. We live in well run cities and towns where people have been living and working together for over a hundred years. The pioneer spirit that was a necessity is now holding us back from finding solutions and working together. But the idea of it is tightly bound in our popular self image. I suspect it's the underlying attitude behind things like Doomsday Preppers, where people actually seem to look forward to an event where they envision they could ward off disaster for their families, alone.

In worst case scenarios, however, it isn't that you won't need anyone, it's that you'll need everyone.

I see this attitude as contributing to the polarization we are seeing as well. It's hard to be proven wrong in your own little fiefdom. You can insulate yourself from those who think differently while finding a channel to get your views reinforced. Not knowing anyone different than you, because your frontier (front yard) insulates you is convenient for maintaining those maverick attitudes. It keeps all of us from getting together to pinpoint real problems and forming alliances for solving them.

The people with the real power must love that. 

I love the picture I've included with this post. The solitude, toughness, and independent spirit it captures aren't bad things. But it may be time for that not to be worn on our collective sleeve anymore. We need that attitude deep down inside, to know that when things are really bad we have what it takes to go it alone if we have to.  But in our day to day lives the more valuable skill may be collaboration.

The time has come to embrace the power of us. 

How to do that without people succumbing to group think or losing their sense of individuality is an entirely different can of worms. :)