Christopher Hitchens was a unique man of immense intellect. All one needs to do is type his name into YouTube and tune into one of the dozens of videos to get a sample of his incredible command of language, his rational approach to any debate, and his wit. Hitchens achieved his greatest fame when he tackled the issue of religion, and it was not until the last five years or so of his life that he became a real household name. As one of his contemporaries describes, Hitchens hated dictators and he gradually progressed in his writing towards the greatest controlling dictator of them all: God. It was his book God is Not Great that really brought him into the limelight, probably due to the negative reaction of so many religious people. But, as they say of The Hitch, love him or hate him, you could not ignore him. Sadly, Hitchens passed away last December.
Martin Amis was by all accounts Christopher's closest friend. Just hearing each of them describe their friendship makes one envious of the strength of their relationship. The following video clip is Martin Amis giving the eulogy at a Christopher Hitchens memorial, in which he attempts to unearth why Hitchens was so beloved by so many. With his characteristic dry humour, Amis recounts a few tales of this four-decade long friendship with Hitchens:
The previous evening, Charlie Rose spends an hour interviewing four of Hitchens' friends, writers Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan, James Fenton, and Martin Amis. These are the men who knew Hitchens the best. Some of them knew him since he was a young man at Oxford. Though this clip is an hour long, it is a very good window into the character of "The Hitch", it is also very funny at times, and of course sad when they discuss his eventual death. Well worth watching and remembering what the world lost when The Hitch passed on:
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Who is it Worth Arguing With?
C.S. Lewis states in one of his books that the sound of people quarreling is negative. This is one of the few things I would agree with Lewis on, and I think it is because he uses the word "quarrel" rather than "argue". In modern society we often think of an argument as a negative thing, but it need not be. An argument is simply a position taken in which there is some logical consistency in constructing the position, and in which one is discussing this with someone of an opposing opinion. A quarrel, on the other hand, seems to me to be simply a yelling match in which both parties are too proud to ever admit they are wrong and, even worse, have made up their mind before beginning the discussion and therefore are completely unwilling to even comprehend the other person's point of view. I think it is very worthwhile seeking arguments and avoiding quarrels in life. But how to tell the difference?
I think the difference stems from different types of people, not from different circumstances. We are probably all capable of the momentary pride that leads to a quarrel, but I believe there are quarrelsome people who always seek out this form of negative and destructive conversation. I also believe it betrays an immature psyche full of insecurity. If one is a mature, secure, confident person, what has one to lose in listening to and understanding an opposing point of view? One can still choose to disagree. But not even allowing someone to explain their point of view, or worse deliberately misinterpreting their point of view for your own personal gain, has no value. Sadly, it is this latter approach that seems pervasive in modern society, particularly in places such as politics and in the debates surrounding religion.
The people that I think it is not even worth trying to debate or have a conversation with are those who are not interested in hearing another person's point of view. Examples of these types of people abound. The first person that jumps to mind is that crass Amercian TV personality Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly is known for yelling "shut up" at the guests on his show. Even if he doesn't tell them to shut up when he disagrees with them, he certainly doesn't let them actually make their point. Never, ever does he hear someone out and then actually ask them to clarify their position so he might better understand. Perhaps O'Reilly's best example of an inability to even listen to an opposing point of view is his embarrassing interview of Jeremy Glick in which he eventually cuts the microphone and ends the interview, all because he can't stand hearing a position that "offends" him.
So, this video clip is an example of what I would call the first level of a quarrelsome person. Everyone knows Bill O'Reilly has a particularly quarrelsome approach to interviewing his guests. He never lets them finish and isn't interested in understanding their point of view. But, I would argue there is another, worse level of quarrelsome person, that person who not only isn't interested in hearing an opposing point of view, but who actively misinterprets their opponent. Two examples immediately jump to mind. As much as I find Bill O'Reilly quarrelsome and negative, two other TV personalities are much more so: Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Both of these people actively and deliberately twist what their opponents say to suit their needs. So in the end they aren't even disagreeing with what their opponent has said, they are in fact disagreeing with a perception fabricated within their own minds. As part of Al Gore's Inconenient Truth message, he famously told audiences that we have ten years left to change our destructive environmental practices before it will be too late to prevent catastrophic change to the atmosphere and the climate. Gore is not a scientist, and he may have grasped the ten years notion out of thin air. I don't think we really know the timelines of change that are needed in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. But, I would think that Mr. Gore's prediction of ten years is actually on the long side. I think most scientists would agree that it is already too late. Ten years is far too long to wait if we are going to prevent significant negative destruction of our atmosphere. We have already been emmitting unsustainable carbon dioxide levels for a couple of centuries. His "ten years" was, in my opinion, a way of demonstring the urgency of the situation to those who really have no idea of the science. If he had said: "It's already too late" then most people likely would have shrugged and figured there's nothing that can be done. So, while Gore's prediction is not particularly scientific, I do think it was made honestly and with the right intentions. Consider how Rush Limbaugh then dealt with that prediction. Since he denies climate change (and science in general), Limbaugh deliberately misinterpreted Gore's prediction and even made fun of it by constructing a countdown doomsday clock on his webpage. You can witness Rush Limbaugh's deliberate misinterpretation of his opponents every day by veiwing his webpage or listening to his radio show. Everything Barack Obama does is evil and ridiculous in Limbaugh's eyes. But, I can guarantee you that if the president called up Limbaugh and asked him to sit down and have an honest converstation so that they can understand one another better, Limbaugh would either reject him outright or turn that conversation into more negative fodder for his deliberate ignorance. There is no desire for argument, only for a quarrel. So, what is an example of a respectful argument that is not quarrelsome? I would offer the example of Richard Dawkins interviewing Bishop Harries. Here are two men of very opposing points of view. Dawkins is, of course, the world's most famous atheist, and Bishop Harries is, of course, a very religious man. Yet, they are able to have a civil conversation and discussion in which they each actively seek out to understand the others' point of view. There is no impatience and telling people to shut up. There is no deliberate misinterpretation, followed by a pronouncement of how silly the other person is based on a ficticious opinion.
Can't we have more of this sort of discourse in society? Can't politicians listen respectfully to their opponents and then decide whether they agree or not based on what is said, rather than disagreeing out of principle before the conversation even begins?
My philosophy is that it is a worthless exercise trying to have a conversation with the Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limbaughs of this world. They are not interested in actually hearing and comprehending other points of view. What they are intersted in is gathering fodder for their quarrel machine. Once I recognize that I'm in conversation with someone of this nature, the conversation ends. There is no point. It is a waste of time, and ultimately it all boils down to people, yet again, putting their conclusions before the evidence.
My last point is that it seems like the overwhelming majority of people who are not interested in hearing their opponents are modern conservatives. I have to admit that this quality is one of the things that drove me away from conservatism and more towards liberalism. Conservatives seem, to me, to be inherently unable to listen to opposing points of view. Is this because of some bias that I myself have, or is it because the messages of modern conservatism (that the free market is the only way to go, that any form of socialism is evil, that environmental sustainability is unecessary, that science is over-funded, that universal healthcare is a waste of money) are all wrong and conservatives who support these messages are insecure about getting into an actual evidence based debate about them? It is much easier to hold your position if you refuse to openly listen to your opponents.
I think the difference stems from different types of people, not from different circumstances. We are probably all capable of the momentary pride that leads to a quarrel, but I believe there are quarrelsome people who always seek out this form of negative and destructive conversation. I also believe it betrays an immature psyche full of insecurity. If one is a mature, secure, confident person, what has one to lose in listening to and understanding an opposing point of view? One can still choose to disagree. But not even allowing someone to explain their point of view, or worse deliberately misinterpreting their point of view for your own personal gain, has no value. Sadly, it is this latter approach that seems pervasive in modern society, particularly in places such as politics and in the debates surrounding religion.
The people that I think it is not even worth trying to debate or have a conversation with are those who are not interested in hearing another person's point of view. Examples of these types of people abound. The first person that jumps to mind is that crass Amercian TV personality Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly is known for yelling "shut up" at the guests on his show. Even if he doesn't tell them to shut up when he disagrees with them, he certainly doesn't let them actually make their point. Never, ever does he hear someone out and then actually ask them to clarify their position so he might better understand. Perhaps O'Reilly's best example of an inability to even listen to an opposing point of view is his embarrassing interview of Jeremy Glick in which he eventually cuts the microphone and ends the interview, all because he can't stand hearing a position that "offends" him.
So, this video clip is an example of what I would call the first level of a quarrelsome person. Everyone knows Bill O'Reilly has a particularly quarrelsome approach to interviewing his guests. He never lets them finish and isn't interested in understanding their point of view. But, I would argue there is another, worse level of quarrelsome person, that person who not only isn't interested in hearing an opposing point of view, but who actively misinterprets their opponent. Two examples immediately jump to mind. As much as I find Bill O'Reilly quarrelsome and negative, two other TV personalities are much more so: Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Both of these people actively and deliberately twist what their opponents say to suit their needs. So in the end they aren't even disagreeing with what their opponent has said, they are in fact disagreeing with a perception fabricated within their own minds. As part of Al Gore's Inconenient Truth message, he famously told audiences that we have ten years left to change our destructive environmental practices before it will be too late to prevent catastrophic change to the atmosphere and the climate. Gore is not a scientist, and he may have grasped the ten years notion out of thin air. I don't think we really know the timelines of change that are needed in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. But, I would think that Mr. Gore's prediction of ten years is actually on the long side. I think most scientists would agree that it is already too late. Ten years is far too long to wait if we are going to prevent significant negative destruction of our atmosphere. We have already been emmitting unsustainable carbon dioxide levels for a couple of centuries. His "ten years" was, in my opinion, a way of demonstring the urgency of the situation to those who really have no idea of the science. If he had said: "It's already too late" then most people likely would have shrugged and figured there's nothing that can be done. So, while Gore's prediction is not particularly scientific, I do think it was made honestly and with the right intentions. Consider how Rush Limbaugh then dealt with that prediction. Since he denies climate change (and science in general), Limbaugh deliberately misinterpreted Gore's prediction and even made fun of it by constructing a countdown doomsday clock on his webpage. You can witness Rush Limbaugh's deliberate misinterpretation of his opponents every day by veiwing his webpage or listening to his radio show. Everything Barack Obama does is evil and ridiculous in Limbaugh's eyes. But, I can guarantee you that if the president called up Limbaugh and asked him to sit down and have an honest converstation so that they can understand one another better, Limbaugh would either reject him outright or turn that conversation into more negative fodder for his deliberate ignorance. There is no desire for argument, only for a quarrel. So, what is an example of a respectful argument that is not quarrelsome? I would offer the example of Richard Dawkins interviewing Bishop Harries. Here are two men of very opposing points of view. Dawkins is, of course, the world's most famous atheist, and Bishop Harries is, of course, a very religious man. Yet, they are able to have a civil conversation and discussion in which they each actively seek out to understand the others' point of view. There is no impatience and telling people to shut up. There is no deliberate misinterpretation, followed by a pronouncement of how silly the other person is based on a ficticious opinion.
Can't we have more of this sort of discourse in society? Can't politicians listen respectfully to their opponents and then decide whether they agree or not based on what is said, rather than disagreeing out of principle before the conversation even begins?
My philosophy is that it is a worthless exercise trying to have a conversation with the Bill O'Reillys and Rush Limbaughs of this world. They are not interested in actually hearing and comprehending other points of view. What they are intersted in is gathering fodder for their quarrel machine. Once I recognize that I'm in conversation with someone of this nature, the conversation ends. There is no point. It is a waste of time, and ultimately it all boils down to people, yet again, putting their conclusions before the evidence.
My last point is that it seems like the overwhelming majority of people who are not interested in hearing their opponents are modern conservatives. I have to admit that this quality is one of the things that drove me away from conservatism and more towards liberalism. Conservatives seem, to me, to be inherently unable to listen to opposing points of view. Is this because of some bias that I myself have, or is it because the messages of modern conservatism (that the free market is the only way to go, that any form of socialism is evil, that environmental sustainability is unecessary, that science is over-funded, that universal healthcare is a waste of money) are all wrong and conservatives who support these messages are insecure about getting into an actual evidence based debate about them? It is much easier to hold your position if you refuse to openly listen to your opponents.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Myth of Government Job Creation...Part II
In a previous post I wrote about the myth of government job creation. Today in the news there is a classic example of what I'm talking about:
This story talks about how Shell is to build a liquid natural gas plant in the small northern coastal town (more of a village really) of Kitimat, BC. The project will "create" between 5,000 - 7,000 jobs. Of course, the premier of the province of British Columbia, Christy Clark, rushed to get her name all over this story and to take credit for the Shell corporation's decision to invest in B.C., saying: "We are a stable government with a business-friendly environment, so they’re very interested in British Columbia." Doubtless Clark believes that this is a part of a fantastic plan to increase the number of jobs in B.C., all part of her economic plan to...well, to where exactly?
Yes, an investment like this will bring more jobs to the town of Kitimat. So what? So, more people will move to Kitimat to take up those jobs. It is not as if there are between 5,000 - 7,000 unemployed workers in Kitimat just waiting for a new job (Kitimat's population is around 8,000 people in total). It's also not as if there are 5,000 - 7,000 unemployed people around the province or the country who are just itching to relocate to a very remote coastal village to work on a liquid natural gas plant. And, you can bet that after these 5,000 - 7,000 jobs are "created", the unemployment rate in the province will not change one bit.
So, where do the people come from when a project like this "creates" jobs? They shift from other sectors, they come from overseas, immigrants to Canada have new jobs, and people who move to Kitimat to take up the new jobs marry, have a family and have new kids who grow up and, lo and behold, need a job! Economic growth simply leads to population growth, with roughly the same unemployment following the economic growth. Certainly, during booming economic times such as a few years ago in Alberta, there are very few unemployed people and wages are comparitively high. But, Alberta is a great example of where that leads. What happened when there were so many jobs in Alberta? Wages shot up to entice people to relocate to the jobs. But real estate shot up as well, doubling in price in just a couple of years. Then the whole economic meltdown occured and suddently the natural resources weren't in demand anymore.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. What politician's like Christy Clark don't understand is that economic growth leads to population growth. Then, that larger population demands a larger economy and more jobs to support it. The cycle continues, and more jobs are "created", leading to more population growth and a greater demand for jobs.
The cycle never ends. This is why our current system is not sustainable and is ultimately doomed. We are under the false pretention that we can endlessly grow economically, which we can't. We are also under the pretense that we can endlessly harvest natural resources, which we can't. Natural resources are finite, especially hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas. Eventually they will run out. What will happen then? What will happen when we have developed our economy so much that the population has increased to a level that demands that economy to keep going? Which will crash first, the economy or the population?
Understanding the Monster
[WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS OF A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD]
I hesitate to write this post because I don't agree with the excessive amount of media attention given to psychopaths who do very evil things. I think that school shootings and the like are massively over-reported in the media and I think that the exposure is likely a contributing factor that leads to them in the first place. Disturbed young people often seek attention. If they feel powerless and empty in their life, they may feel that, no matter how destructive their actions are and no matter what the long-term consequences are, some media glory is worth it. And, in the case I am about to write about, this seems to be the case. This case has been over-reported in the Canadian media and the perpetrators, in my opinion, should disappear from the public eye forever.
In April 2009, a little 8-year old girl was walking home from school in Woodstock, Ontario. She was abducted by an 18-year old woman, Terri-Lynne McClintic, and taken to a waiting car in which sat 28-year old Michael Rafferty. McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder and is serving a life sentance (which in Canada means no chance of parole for 25 years). Rafferty was recently found guilty of first degree murder by a jury of his peers and was sentenced by a judge to the same fate. Rafferty in particular is unlikely to ever be released from prison.
McClintic is not the kind of girl you want your son to bring home to meet mom. She was a drug abuser, violent, and had a criminal history. Rafferty seems even worse, a predatory psychopath who "dated" (i.e. had sex with) over a dozen women, including McClintic, in the spring of 2009. His extensive sexual escapades appeared insufficient, however, and he desired to have sex with a child. He downloaded child pornography, and eventually determined that he needed to actually go through with his fantasy of pedophilia and so convinced McClintic to help him abduct poor innocent little Tori Stafford. McClintic convinced Tori to get into the car, and then Rafferty drove them to a hardware store to buy a hammer and garbage bags for the gruesome murder that they planned with forethought for poor Tori. McClintic and Tori waited in the car while Rafferty went in and bought the murder weapon.
They drove Tori to a secluded spot 100 km from her home and Rafferty repeatedly raped her while she pleaded with McClintic to make him stop. Then, one or the other or both of McClintic or Rafferty repeatedly hit Tori in the head with the hammer and killed her. They put her body in the garbage bags, covered it with some rocks in a field and left it there.
For three months Tori's parents, family, and friends wondered what had happened to her. For three months they went through every parent's nightmare of not knowing what happened to their child. Then, eventually, a police officer got a lead and found Tori's remains.
I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but this case certainly had me re-thinking my position. I don't think Rafferty or McClintic are capable of rehabilitation. I don't think they've shown the slightest sign of any remorse. I'm not convinced they even acknoweldge to themselves that what they did was wrong. I am convinced that if they were given the chance to do something similar again, they would. These two individuals have no place being free in our society. The judge, when sentencing Rafferty, called him a monster. I would agree. Were I Tori Stafford's father, I would have probably dedicated my life to finding a way to kill the man. Even now, I would probably dedicate myself to finding a way to kill him if he is ever released from prison. That's just a natural fatherly instinct. No scumbag deserves to live after doing that to your little girl.
Now to the point of this post. As I say, I hesitate to even write this post because people like McClintic and Rafferty deserve to spend the rest of their miserable lives in anonymity in prison. Never again should their names appear in the media. They should spend 24 hours in a cell contemplating their evil deeds.
With one little caveat. I believe it is worth studying these types of psychological monsters. As a society we do need to understand where these types of people come from. What makes a person like McClintic or Rafferty? Are they born that way or do they develop that way through some terrible combination of personality and upbringing? I think these are questions worth knowing so that we can identify others in the same boat and try to offer them the help they need before they do similar evil things in our society. Wouldn't it be a great small positive note to this tragic, horrible story if a psychologist finally broke through into McClintic's psyche and understood where she went wrong and then some parent somewhere recognized the same destructive path in their child and fixed it? Wouldn't it be great if we could use this case to prevent another child like Tori Stafford from suffering the same fate?
I am not promoting rights for the perpetrators. I am not promoting a public examination of these monsters, or providing them with the publicity they probably will want once they are serving their sentences. What I am suggesting is that we need to find a way to understand what causes an 18 year old woman and a 28 year old man to go so completely off the rails that they would be capable of destroying an innocent life. Most of us cannot imagine performing such incredibly evil and horrible things. Just saying: "Lock them up and throw away the key" isn't going to prevent the next one. Instead I say: "Lock them up and throw away the key, and at the same time let's spend some effort on understanding what created such monsters."
I hesitate to write this post because I don't agree with the excessive amount of media attention given to psychopaths who do very evil things. I think that school shootings and the like are massively over-reported in the media and I think that the exposure is likely a contributing factor that leads to them in the first place. Disturbed young people often seek attention. If they feel powerless and empty in their life, they may feel that, no matter how destructive their actions are and no matter what the long-term consequences are, some media glory is worth it. And, in the case I am about to write about, this seems to be the case. This case has been over-reported in the Canadian media and the perpetrators, in my opinion, should disappear from the public eye forever.
In April 2009, a little 8-year old girl was walking home from school in Woodstock, Ontario. She was abducted by an 18-year old woman, Terri-Lynne McClintic, and taken to a waiting car in which sat 28-year old Michael Rafferty. McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder and is serving a life sentance (which in Canada means no chance of parole for 25 years). Rafferty was recently found guilty of first degree murder by a jury of his peers and was sentenced by a judge to the same fate. Rafferty in particular is unlikely to ever be released from prison.
McClintic is not the kind of girl you want your son to bring home to meet mom. She was a drug abuser, violent, and had a criminal history. Rafferty seems even worse, a predatory psychopath who "dated" (i.e. had sex with) over a dozen women, including McClintic, in the spring of 2009. His extensive sexual escapades appeared insufficient, however, and he desired to have sex with a child. He downloaded child pornography, and eventually determined that he needed to actually go through with his fantasy of pedophilia and so convinced McClintic to help him abduct poor innocent little Tori Stafford. McClintic convinced Tori to get into the car, and then Rafferty drove them to a hardware store to buy a hammer and garbage bags for the gruesome murder that they planned with forethought for poor Tori. McClintic and Tori waited in the car while Rafferty went in and bought the murder weapon.
They drove Tori to a secluded spot 100 km from her home and Rafferty repeatedly raped her while she pleaded with McClintic to make him stop. Then, one or the other or both of McClintic or Rafferty repeatedly hit Tori in the head with the hammer and killed her. They put her body in the garbage bags, covered it with some rocks in a field and left it there.
For three months Tori's parents, family, and friends wondered what had happened to her. For three months they went through every parent's nightmare of not knowing what happened to their child. Then, eventually, a police officer got a lead and found Tori's remains.
I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but this case certainly had me re-thinking my position. I don't think Rafferty or McClintic are capable of rehabilitation. I don't think they've shown the slightest sign of any remorse. I'm not convinced they even acknoweldge to themselves that what they did was wrong. I am convinced that if they were given the chance to do something similar again, they would. These two individuals have no place being free in our society. The judge, when sentencing Rafferty, called him a monster. I would agree. Were I Tori Stafford's father, I would have probably dedicated my life to finding a way to kill the man. Even now, I would probably dedicate myself to finding a way to kill him if he is ever released from prison. That's just a natural fatherly instinct. No scumbag deserves to live after doing that to your little girl.
Now to the point of this post. As I say, I hesitate to even write this post because people like McClintic and Rafferty deserve to spend the rest of their miserable lives in anonymity in prison. Never again should their names appear in the media. They should spend 24 hours in a cell contemplating their evil deeds.
With one little caveat. I believe it is worth studying these types of psychological monsters. As a society we do need to understand where these types of people come from. What makes a person like McClintic or Rafferty? Are they born that way or do they develop that way through some terrible combination of personality and upbringing? I think these are questions worth knowing so that we can identify others in the same boat and try to offer them the help they need before they do similar evil things in our society. Wouldn't it be a great small positive note to this tragic, horrible story if a psychologist finally broke through into McClintic's psyche and understood where she went wrong and then some parent somewhere recognized the same destructive path in their child and fixed it? Wouldn't it be great if we could use this case to prevent another child like Tori Stafford from suffering the same fate?
I am not promoting rights for the perpetrators. I am not promoting a public examination of these monsters, or providing them with the publicity they probably will want once they are serving their sentences. What I am suggesting is that we need to find a way to understand what causes an 18 year old woman and a 28 year old man to go so completely off the rails that they would be capable of destroying an innocent life. Most of us cannot imagine performing such incredibly evil and horrible things. Just saying: "Lock them up and throw away the key" isn't going to prevent the next one. Instead I say: "Lock them up and throw away the key, and at the same time let's spend some effort on understanding what created such monsters."
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Whatever you Believe, Don't Waste Your Life
Recently, in Nova Scotia, a teenaged high-school student was told he could not wear a T-shirt to school with a slogan that read: "Life is Wasted Without Jesus." The story developed some more from that with the teen insisting he would only come back to the school if he was wearing the shirt. Eventually the school board relented and allowed the teen to wear the shirt, but it seems that some sort of tolerance discussions were included to help students understand diverse points of views in terms of relgions, politics, etc.
Judging by the comments on many of the news websites on this story, initially there was a public outcry that the teen should be left alone and that wearing the T-shirt was his right in a country with freedom of religion. A few dissenting voices pointed out that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but in my opinion the public perception was overwhelmingly in support of the boy's right to wear the shirt. I didn't have particularly strong feelings about it. If I had seen a teen wearing a shirt like that in public (or in a school) I wouldn't have been offended, but I would likely have felt sorry for them. However, I do feel that the shirt is potentially more offensive than it could be since it openly states that you are wasting your life is you don't have a particular religion. This is quite different than a shirt that states something along the lines of: "I love Jesus" or "I choose to follow Jesus" or something along those lines. The difference, of course, lies in the finger pointing towards someone else being wrong and wasteful of their life. This part of the story could probably be argued back and forth. I don't consider it a huge deal. As I say, I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirt, though I do feel that it is out of place in a publicly funded educational institution.
The problem emerges when we see the follow-up story about the boy's father pulling the teen out of school. All of a sudden we realize we are not dealing with a peaceful, loving family that simply wants to have their religious beliefs respected and tolerated, and who are also willing to respect and tolerate the diverse beliefs of others. Instead we get this father driving up to the school, refusing to engage with the public or answer any questions, making his own statement with Bible in hand, and taking his son out of school because they are engaging in "extra-curricular" activities that are not "good old fashioned academics" such as reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. Clearly the father has no idea what education is, to begin with, and he also is a very intolerant man. He isn't interested in a society that respects diverse points of view. This is not about having a society in which there is freedom of religion, it is about having a society in which he can display his own religious point of view but is not open to hearing (or allowing his son to hear) others' points of view. Part of education, a big part, is learning about the world we live in and how other people think. Learning about other cultures, poltiical systems, and religions, is a genuinely valuable part of education. Education is much more than simply learning the Three R's. This school board has gone out of their way to accomodate a potentially explosive issue. They have taken what I believe to be a mature and respectful approach in allowing the teen to wear his shirt, but to include some education on tolerance and religion to help deal with the diverse opinions involved. But this father has specifically rejected this tolerance and education by taking his son out of the school saying essentially that he will only bring his son back to school if they allow his son to wear his religious billboard without having to hear anyone else's point of view.
This seems to be a classic case of what I was writing about when I wrote about shining religious lights in society. I prefer my dark light.
Judging by the comments on many of the news websites on this story, initially there was a public outcry that the teen should be left alone and that wearing the T-shirt was his right in a country with freedom of religion. A few dissenting voices pointed out that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but in my opinion the public perception was overwhelmingly in support of the boy's right to wear the shirt. I didn't have particularly strong feelings about it. If I had seen a teen wearing a shirt like that in public (or in a school) I wouldn't have been offended, but I would likely have felt sorry for them. However, I do feel that the shirt is potentially more offensive than it could be since it openly states that you are wasting your life is you don't have a particular religion. This is quite different than a shirt that states something along the lines of: "I love Jesus" or "I choose to follow Jesus" or something along those lines. The difference, of course, lies in the finger pointing towards someone else being wrong and wasteful of their life. This part of the story could probably be argued back and forth. I don't consider it a huge deal. As I say, I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirt, though I do feel that it is out of place in a publicly funded educational institution.
The problem emerges when we see the follow-up story about the boy's father pulling the teen out of school. All of a sudden we realize we are not dealing with a peaceful, loving family that simply wants to have their religious beliefs respected and tolerated, and who are also willing to respect and tolerate the diverse beliefs of others. Instead we get this father driving up to the school, refusing to engage with the public or answer any questions, making his own statement with Bible in hand, and taking his son out of school because they are engaging in "extra-curricular" activities that are not "good old fashioned academics" such as reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. Clearly the father has no idea what education is, to begin with, and he also is a very intolerant man. He isn't interested in a society that respects diverse points of view. This is not about having a society in which there is freedom of religion, it is about having a society in which he can display his own religious point of view but is not open to hearing (or allowing his son to hear) others' points of view. Part of education, a big part, is learning about the world we live in and how other people think. Learning about other cultures, poltiical systems, and religions, is a genuinely valuable part of education. Education is much more than simply learning the Three R's. This school board has gone out of their way to accomodate a potentially explosive issue. They have taken what I believe to be a mature and respectful approach in allowing the teen to wear his shirt, but to include some education on tolerance and religion to help deal with the diverse opinions involved. But this father has specifically rejected this tolerance and education by taking his son out of the school saying essentially that he will only bring his son back to school if they allow his son to wear his religious billboard without having to hear anyone else's point of view.
This seems to be a classic case of what I was writing about when I wrote about shining religious lights in society. I prefer my dark light.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Insecurity: The Unifying Theory of Humanity?...Part II
I've written previously about how I theorize that insecurity drives human behaviour. When you look around society, much of the behaviours you observe are largely driven by a need that people have to be percieved as important, or to add some value to their lives. At the most basic level, one can look at a young man driving a muscle car and ponder what he is compensating for. (Indeed, Pontiac Trans Ams and Chevy Camaros used to be called "penis extenders" in honour of this theory). You can go into many gyms or fitness centres and watch young people spend hours and hours of their lives trying to get just a bit "better looking". Young men and women who don't realize that they already have virtually flawless bodies will spend hours of time trying to get even thinner or even more muscular. It is an absurd phenomenon, but it is easy to comprehend when you understand that those young people are deeply insecure about themselves and their actions are largely driven by their insecurity about how people percieve them.
Observing and understanding the obsessive behaviour of gym rats or muscle car enthusiasts is one thing, but what about world leaders? Do you look at Barack Obama, David Cameron, or Stephen Harper and think much the same thing? Likely not. You may even be tempted to look at a man like Barack Obama and admire his incredible self-confidence. He might seem like a fulfilled man who is on a mission in life to make the world a better place. But is he?
I think that many politicians go into politics because they want to make a the world a better place. Or, to be more accurate, they go into politics because they think they want to make the world a better place. There is an important distinction. Many politiicans go into politics because they genuinly think they want to make a difference and they think they have some ideas about how to make the world a better place, but the actual driving force for them to act out on those ideas is insecurity. Deep, deep inside, most people want to feel good about themselves because they are deeply insecure about how they are perceived. If Barack Obama was completely secure and confident in who he is, why would he be motivated, at the most raw of human motivations, to get up and give speech after speech about how the world should be? He wouldn't. He's simply go on with his life, trying to make a difference, but needing no recognition for his contribution to this world. No, most politicians need that public recognition that they are doing the right thing.
Now most politicians may not be inherently evil people who want to go off to war and kill thousands of people. But what happens when almost everyone who goes into politics does so because they are deeply insecure about themselves? You have a pool of people, from whom the leaders emerge, all of whom have this deep insecurity about themselves. The most insecure ones are the most driven for acceptance and recognition by the world and therefore are the most likely to end up as the leaders of parties or of countries. As a result, the prime ministers and presidents of this world are mostly deeply insecure men in dire need of penis extension. Narcisists and megalomaniacs, who suddenly have access to billions of dollars and lots of military equipment, and faced with crisis after crisis around the world. Married to this insecurity is the genuine belief that they can make the world a better place, so off they go to do so, even if the path to a better world is very bloody. George W. Bush is the classic example of what I'm talking about here. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to undersand the deep insecuriteis that Bush Jr. suffered from. One can see his longing for paternal approval and recognition. And the whole world witnessed and suffered the results.
So who is the opposite of this model of political leader? Perhaps the Dalai Lama. Though I am an atheist and I think many of the Dalai Lama's beliefs are preposterous and baseless, you have to admire his peaceful approach to life that seems to be rooted in a very secure feeling about himself. He doesn't strike you as the kind of bloke who, if given the nuclear codes and the keys to all the military might in the world, would go on a mission to liberate Tibet by force. I don't get the feeling that the Dalai Lama has a deep seeded need for societal and historical recognition.
I'm not finished with this post but, after letting it sit for a couple of days, I have nothing further to add at this point. So, I'll leave Part II here and come back to my theory in the future.
Observing and understanding the obsessive behaviour of gym rats or muscle car enthusiasts is one thing, but what about world leaders? Do you look at Barack Obama, David Cameron, or Stephen Harper and think much the same thing? Likely not. You may even be tempted to look at a man like Barack Obama and admire his incredible self-confidence. He might seem like a fulfilled man who is on a mission in life to make the world a better place. But is he?
I think that many politicians go into politics because they want to make a the world a better place. Or, to be more accurate, they go into politics because they think they want to make the world a better place. There is an important distinction. Many politiicans go into politics because they genuinly think they want to make a difference and they think they have some ideas about how to make the world a better place, but the actual driving force for them to act out on those ideas is insecurity. Deep, deep inside, most people want to feel good about themselves because they are deeply insecure about how they are perceived. If Barack Obama was completely secure and confident in who he is, why would he be motivated, at the most raw of human motivations, to get up and give speech after speech about how the world should be? He wouldn't. He's simply go on with his life, trying to make a difference, but needing no recognition for his contribution to this world. No, most politicians need that public recognition that they are doing the right thing.
Now most politicians may not be inherently evil people who want to go off to war and kill thousands of people. But what happens when almost everyone who goes into politics does so because they are deeply insecure about themselves? You have a pool of people, from whom the leaders emerge, all of whom have this deep insecurity about themselves. The most insecure ones are the most driven for acceptance and recognition by the world and therefore are the most likely to end up as the leaders of parties or of countries. As a result, the prime ministers and presidents of this world are mostly deeply insecure men in dire need of penis extension. Narcisists and megalomaniacs, who suddenly have access to billions of dollars and lots of military equipment, and faced with crisis after crisis around the world. Married to this insecurity is the genuine belief that they can make the world a better place, so off they go to do so, even if the path to a better world is very bloody. George W. Bush is the classic example of what I'm talking about here. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to undersand the deep insecuriteis that Bush Jr. suffered from. One can see his longing for paternal approval and recognition. And the whole world witnessed and suffered the results.
So who is the opposite of this model of political leader? Perhaps the Dalai Lama. Though I am an atheist and I think many of the Dalai Lama's beliefs are preposterous and baseless, you have to admire his peaceful approach to life that seems to be rooted in a very secure feeling about himself. He doesn't strike you as the kind of bloke who, if given the nuclear codes and the keys to all the military might in the world, would go on a mission to liberate Tibet by force. I don't get the feeling that the Dalai Lama has a deep seeded need for societal and historical recognition.
I'm not finished with this post but, after letting it sit for a couple of days, I have nothing further to add at this point. So, I'll leave Part II here and come back to my theory in the future.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Kony Effect
Everyone who had an internet connection in March was probably aware of the Kony2012 campaign going "viral". One day no one had heard of Invisible Children, Joseph Kony, or Jason Russell. Seemingly the next day everyone had watched and "liked" his short documentary somewhere on the internet, outraged that children were conscripted unwillingly as child soldiers.
Then, as we all know, the backlash happened. Within a day or two of the Kony2012 message going viral and thereby undoubtedly exceeding Russell's dreams of publicity, the critics wrote their critiques and basically destroyed Kony2012. They say there is no such thing as bad press, and at first you might be tempted to think that all the criticism simply furthered the cause of Invisible Children. But, the opposite is actually the case. In order to be successful in bringing Joseph Kony to justice, there needs to be sustained political pressure, not simply a 24-hour awareness by the Facebook generation and then a quick move on to watching the Oscars. By heavily criticizing Russell and the Kony2012 campaign, the majority of viewers seemed to switch off and move on. The political pressure never mounted, and Kony will almost certainly remain at large until he dies of some natural cause in a shack somewhere between Uganda and Tanzania.
Some of the criticisms were valid. It is possible or even probable that Invisible Children could be more financially responsible. It is likely that the West doesn't have all the answers to the problem of child soldiers, and if Kony were arrested then another man would likely pop up to replace him. But does that mean we should simply move on and forget about Kony? Absolutely not. Even if someone else does pop up and replace Kony, a message will be sent that eventually justice will be served. If we then go after then next war criminal, and the next, and the next, then I propose that we can change this world for the better.
Some of the criticisms were out to lunch. I read one critique in which the writer said he was tired of westerners thinking they have all the answers and tired of us coming in and splashing money around trying to solve complex problems. "Ugandans know what is best for Uganda", was a common criticism of the Kony2012 movement. Really? Then why are Ugandans allowing their children to be conscripted into being soldiers who then turn on their parents, sometimes being forced to murder them? I don't really see this as a debatable morality that is OK so long as Ugandans are OK with it.
Ultimately, the Kony2012 effect in early 2012 was an illustration of the instant hero / instant villian society we live in. Culture in the west is largely driven by media (increasingly by social media). Generations of westerners have been raised on television shows in which a handsome, likeable character turns out to be the despicable villian, all within 46 minutes (while they are also persuaded in the other 14 minutes of the hour that one gas-guzzler is actually more efficient than another). Life is not that simple. Not everyone is either a hero or a villian. We are all humans, complicated and full of both heroic and villainous traits. How many of us actually like to be judged by people in a few seconds? Would you like to be permanently written off as a villian just because you cut someone off in traffic once and it was caught on an iPhone and published to YouTube? Probably not. Would it be a fair analysis of your entire life and character? Definitely not.
Yet that is what happened to Russel and the Kony2012 campaign. Instant hero one day. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter and even in the mainstream media was all over him with praise for trying to make the world a better place. Then, seemingly hours later, the whole package was villified and thrown out because it wasn't quite as shiny as originally percieved.
Welcome to the new world of instant judgement and hero/villian status. You better have your ducks in a row and make sure every one of them is squeaky clean before you ever go public with anything.
Then, as we all know, the backlash happened. Within a day or two of the Kony2012 message going viral and thereby undoubtedly exceeding Russell's dreams of publicity, the critics wrote their critiques and basically destroyed Kony2012. They say there is no such thing as bad press, and at first you might be tempted to think that all the criticism simply furthered the cause of Invisible Children. But, the opposite is actually the case. In order to be successful in bringing Joseph Kony to justice, there needs to be sustained political pressure, not simply a 24-hour awareness by the Facebook generation and then a quick move on to watching the Oscars. By heavily criticizing Russell and the Kony2012 campaign, the majority of viewers seemed to switch off and move on. The political pressure never mounted, and Kony will almost certainly remain at large until he dies of some natural cause in a shack somewhere between Uganda and Tanzania.
Some of the criticisms were valid. It is possible or even probable that Invisible Children could be more financially responsible. It is likely that the West doesn't have all the answers to the problem of child soldiers, and if Kony were arrested then another man would likely pop up to replace him. But does that mean we should simply move on and forget about Kony? Absolutely not. Even if someone else does pop up and replace Kony, a message will be sent that eventually justice will be served. If we then go after then next war criminal, and the next, and the next, then I propose that we can change this world for the better.
Some of the criticisms were out to lunch. I read one critique in which the writer said he was tired of westerners thinking they have all the answers and tired of us coming in and splashing money around trying to solve complex problems. "Ugandans know what is best for Uganda", was a common criticism of the Kony2012 movement. Really? Then why are Ugandans allowing their children to be conscripted into being soldiers who then turn on their parents, sometimes being forced to murder them? I don't really see this as a debatable morality that is OK so long as Ugandans are OK with it.
Ultimately, the Kony2012 effect in early 2012 was an illustration of the instant hero / instant villian society we live in. Culture in the west is largely driven by media (increasingly by social media). Generations of westerners have been raised on television shows in which a handsome, likeable character turns out to be the despicable villian, all within 46 minutes (while they are also persuaded in the other 14 minutes of the hour that one gas-guzzler is actually more efficient than another). Life is not that simple. Not everyone is either a hero or a villian. We are all humans, complicated and full of both heroic and villainous traits. How many of us actually like to be judged by people in a few seconds? Would you like to be permanently written off as a villian just because you cut someone off in traffic once and it was caught on an iPhone and published to YouTube? Probably not. Would it be a fair analysis of your entire life and character? Definitely not.
Yet that is what happened to Russel and the Kony2012 campaign. Instant hero one day. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter and even in the mainstream media was all over him with praise for trying to make the world a better place. Then, seemingly hours later, the whole package was villified and thrown out because it wasn't quite as shiny as originally percieved.
Welcome to the new world of instant judgement and hero/villian status. You better have your ducks in a row and make sure every one of them is squeaky clean before you ever go public with anything.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Insecurity: The Unifying Theory of Humanity?...Part I
It is said that Einstein, after having changed the world of physics and science forever with his work on relativity in the early 20th Century, then spent the rest of his career searching in vain for a grand unifying theory of physics. When you are genearlly considered to be the greatest scientist in modern times, you can likely find a bit of space to spend a few decades pondering the nature of the universe without too much criticism that you're not being productive.
Is there such a grand unifying theory of human behaviour? Can we humans be defined by one theory? Can our societies be reduced down to one statement that, ultimately, governs all our behaviours, both individual and collective? Perhaps not, given the complexity of human emotion, psyche, and great cultural differences. Do the same things motivate investment bankers on Wall Street as a young child on the streets of Dhaka? Freud might have reduced everything we do to some motivation stemming from the basics of sex and violence. Other psychologists and sociologist might have other theories about human behaviour, and I have my own theory (though admittedly I am not trained in the study of human behaviour, beyond my understanding of neuroscience). At least, in observing people in North America, I have a theory about what motivates a lot of the negative behaviours I witness. I don't claim to have a grand unifying theory of humanity overall, but I do profess that one thing motivates a lot of the negative human behaviour in our society.
Insecurity.
That it is. Ultimately, the vast majority of North Americans are supremely insecure. All of us have witnessed someone who is clearly insecure on the surface. We might think that insecurity always manifests as timidity, nervous chuckles, et cetera. Most young women in their late teens and early twenties are supremely insecure about their bodies. They perceive that they are not sexually attractive enough (for what?) and often overcompensate with inappropriate clothing, excessive time spent on self-examination et cetera. Young men in North America are, I believe, also so insecure about their own sexuality that the default position for many of them is one of open homophobia. Any young man who is not openly homophobic is suspect amongst his peers.
But what I'm proposing is something much more profound than that. Even a cocky, wealthy, powerful politician or businessman is ultimately very insecure about who they are and what their qualities are. Indeed, they are perhaps more so than most. Recently I saw a wealthy businessman (well, one would be tempted to call him a businessman except that he isn't actually in any business other than using money to make money in investments) who stated that his primary objective in life was to go to bed every night with more money than he woke up with that morning. I looked up this individual's net worth and found it to be in the order of $300M. I'm not a jealous person, and I have no problem with someone having significantly more money than I do. I have no problem with someone being a multi-millionaire or billionaire if they have taken risk and been successful in their business. But, I will never understand how someone with more money than they could know what to do with could still have making more money as their primary objective in life. At least, I would never understand it if I didn't put it down to deep psychological insecurities. If you had enough money that you could easily live whatever lifestyle you wanted, why would you want to spend your time (limited as it is in this life) trying to accrue more money? That is a a bit like going to university to become a science teacher and, instead of becoming a teacher when you graduate, just going on in university taking more and more science courses, not because you enjoy the subject for its own sake, but because you want to have more scientific knowledge than any other science teacher.
Ultimately, I believe that what motivates a lot of people's behaviour is insecurity about what people think about them. Deep fears that you aren't good enough are very motivating in life. Those sorts of feelings can drive someone to work hard for decades in a career that they would otherwise have little or no interest in. Ever met someone who really doesn't care what people think about them? I don't mean someone who pretends not to care, and who therefore tries to stand out in some hippy-ish way, but someone who really doesn't care about what other people think. No jealousy, no inferiority complex. Just contentedness.
This brings me to a test of my theory of insecurity. If you are curious about whether your or someone else's behaviour is motivated by insecurity, ask yourself if you would still spend time doing a particular behaviour if you were the only person on earth. I mean this in a theoretical sense. If one was really the only human being on earth, then one would be spending every minute trying to find food and shelter. But what I mean is, if you had your basic needs met but never saw anyone else, would you still behave the way you do? If you drive to work in a BMW sports coupe, would you still do so if no one ever saw you in the car and if no one ever would see you in the car? If so, then perhaps it's not insecurity that is motivating you, perhaps it is just a love of the BMW sports coupe itself. But if you hesitate and think that perhaps you would put the extra $60,000 you spent on the car towards some other use if no one ever knew you had the car, aren't you partly admitting that you own the car because of what other people think of you? That is the essence of insecurity, isn't it? You care deeply about what others think of you, and it motivates your behaviour. And you don't care about what other people think about your abilities to form friendships, to love, to be honest, but rather you care about what strangers think about your car as you drive by. Why else would a man worth $300M still be motivated to make more money every day unless to show the world that he was even better than the guy who happens to have $350M?
So, why does insecurity motivate bad behaviours in our world? Because insecurity always drives people to behave in ways that try to make up for their feelings of inadequacy. It always motivates people to try to make themselves feel better than others. Part and parcel of this is putting others down. If I want to feel better than someone else, I can achieve that partly by pulling myself up and partly by putting others down. Insecurity leads to arrogance, bullying, power, greed, violence. All of the things that we need less of in the world.
Is there such a grand unifying theory of human behaviour? Can we humans be defined by one theory? Can our societies be reduced down to one statement that, ultimately, governs all our behaviours, both individual and collective? Perhaps not, given the complexity of human emotion, psyche, and great cultural differences. Do the same things motivate investment bankers on Wall Street as a young child on the streets of Dhaka? Freud might have reduced everything we do to some motivation stemming from the basics of sex and violence. Other psychologists and sociologist might have other theories about human behaviour, and I have my own theory (though admittedly I am not trained in the study of human behaviour, beyond my understanding of neuroscience). At least, in observing people in North America, I have a theory about what motivates a lot of the negative behaviours I witness. I don't claim to have a grand unifying theory of humanity overall, but I do profess that one thing motivates a lot of the negative human behaviour in our society.
Insecurity.
That it is. Ultimately, the vast majority of North Americans are supremely insecure. All of us have witnessed someone who is clearly insecure on the surface. We might think that insecurity always manifests as timidity, nervous chuckles, et cetera. Most young women in their late teens and early twenties are supremely insecure about their bodies. They perceive that they are not sexually attractive enough (for what?) and often overcompensate with inappropriate clothing, excessive time spent on self-examination et cetera. Young men in North America are, I believe, also so insecure about their own sexuality that the default position for many of them is one of open homophobia. Any young man who is not openly homophobic is suspect amongst his peers.
But what I'm proposing is something much more profound than that. Even a cocky, wealthy, powerful politician or businessman is ultimately very insecure about who they are and what their qualities are. Indeed, they are perhaps more so than most. Recently I saw a wealthy businessman (well, one would be tempted to call him a businessman except that he isn't actually in any business other than using money to make money in investments) who stated that his primary objective in life was to go to bed every night with more money than he woke up with that morning. I looked up this individual's net worth and found it to be in the order of $300M. I'm not a jealous person, and I have no problem with someone having significantly more money than I do. I have no problem with someone being a multi-millionaire or billionaire if they have taken risk and been successful in their business. But, I will never understand how someone with more money than they could know what to do with could still have making more money as their primary objective in life. At least, I would never understand it if I didn't put it down to deep psychological insecurities. If you had enough money that you could easily live whatever lifestyle you wanted, why would you want to spend your time (limited as it is in this life) trying to accrue more money? That is a a bit like going to university to become a science teacher and, instead of becoming a teacher when you graduate, just going on in university taking more and more science courses, not because you enjoy the subject for its own sake, but because you want to have more scientific knowledge than any other science teacher.
Ultimately, I believe that what motivates a lot of people's behaviour is insecurity about what people think about them. Deep fears that you aren't good enough are very motivating in life. Those sorts of feelings can drive someone to work hard for decades in a career that they would otherwise have little or no interest in. Ever met someone who really doesn't care what people think about them? I don't mean someone who pretends not to care, and who therefore tries to stand out in some hippy-ish way, but someone who really doesn't care about what other people think. No jealousy, no inferiority complex. Just contentedness.
This brings me to a test of my theory of insecurity. If you are curious about whether your or someone else's behaviour is motivated by insecurity, ask yourself if you would still spend time doing a particular behaviour if you were the only person on earth. I mean this in a theoretical sense. If one was really the only human being on earth, then one would be spending every minute trying to find food and shelter. But what I mean is, if you had your basic needs met but never saw anyone else, would you still behave the way you do? If you drive to work in a BMW sports coupe, would you still do so if no one ever saw you in the car and if no one ever would see you in the car? If so, then perhaps it's not insecurity that is motivating you, perhaps it is just a love of the BMW sports coupe itself. But if you hesitate and think that perhaps you would put the extra $60,000 you spent on the car towards some other use if no one ever knew you had the car, aren't you partly admitting that you own the car because of what other people think of you? That is the essence of insecurity, isn't it? You care deeply about what others think of you, and it motivates your behaviour. And you don't care about what other people think about your abilities to form friendships, to love, to be honest, but rather you care about what strangers think about your car as you drive by. Why else would a man worth $300M still be motivated to make more money every day unless to show the world that he was even better than the guy who happens to have $350M?
So, why does insecurity motivate bad behaviours in our world? Because insecurity always drives people to behave in ways that try to make up for their feelings of inadequacy. It always motivates people to try to make themselves feel better than others. Part and parcel of this is putting others down. If I want to feel better than someone else, I can achieve that partly by pulling myself up and partly by putting others down. Insecurity leads to arrogance, bullying, power, greed, violence. All of the things that we need less of in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)