I have to admit, because it’s the unfortunate truth, that I’ve been fairly apathetic for most of my life when it came to matters of politics or going-ons in the world.
And thank you for your year-end review. I became a subscriber well into the year and missed many of the posts. I'll enjoy catching up and I look forward to reading what you write in 2024.
Great article! Politics is so much more than this-or-that election; it's about our society, our collective decisions, and the flourishing of human nature (as Aristotle would say). Human rights are universal, whether it's the Middle East or Eastern Europe.
Subject: "Your subscription has ended . . . Oh no, did we lose you? We’ll miss your company. Come back when you’re ready. There’s an empty chair waiting. "
What horseshit! Except the part about being empty -- as emptiness is all you people have to offer: Content creators who congratulate themselves for accomplishing absolutely nothing that moves America a millimeter in the the right direction. In fact, you're making matters worse with this charade that serves you while you pretend to serve others. You have no original ideas and no questions for those who do -- just like your audience. If you'd just stop talking and start listening -- you'd learn something for a change. But also like your audience, it's all a facade to present yourselves as something you are not. "Cabal of the Credentialed" is the faction for you: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/cabal-of-the-credentialed/ And the The Substack Sector is the faction for them: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
If you could only imagine the the waste of it all. I wonder, would it even matter to you then?
For me, the balance between local and beyond is tough to strike. I think for me, as a high school teacher, knowledge of what’s going on outside of home helps me address questions and concerns for students since they’ll come across it on their own.
It's a great question. I've been taking a lot of care about the people around me and have been working on being more present, especially when they need help. But as for the larger community around me, I think there's more I can do.
Katherine, your clarity and honesty have always been an inspiration to me. You care more about truth than anyone I’ve come across in this whole community. I’ve never seen you let a bias get in the way of your quest for the facts, no matter where this may lead you. Thank you for being such an elegant person.
This means a tremendous amount to me to hear that. Thank you so much for taking the time to share this. It truly means a lot to me. And being called "an elegant person" is just so lovely. Thank you.
Hi Katherine - I enjoyed your article even if I don’t agree with your premise. I obviously applaud your commitment to free speech and to your increasing politicisation. However, there’s also a concern that, if one comes late to subjects which are, as you rightly say, politically (such as Israel/Palestine) is there not a danger you engage with the news of the subject without engaging with the history or the nuance? It’s obviously a contentious subject - but it seems, on some level, indicative of how we’ve got to this point that one manages to write an article focusing solely on the freedoms of one party in a two party dispute without questioning the historical oppression of the Palestinians or, for that matter, the Israelis at the hand of their own extremist government?
Thank you! To answer your question, I would say that before chiming in publicly on any issue, one must first study it sufficiently. I tend to not comment on things when I haven't taken the time to do so, and on particular points, I might say: "hey, this part I'm a bit less knowledgeable about." In the case of Israel/Palestine, I did know a fair bit already before the recent events, but I had some holes, so I took care to study the history, etc. Before doing so, I'd only comment on things that were precise. For example, if we're talking about internal Israeli politics, currently, I don't feel like I have enough background to really write anything of true substance, though I have some knowledge on the topic. Just not enough to feel like my contribution would be sufficiently valuable. I do know a bit more about the situation with Palestinians as I took a lot more time to study both ends of the argument, including speaking the Palestinians directly. My view isn't, by the way, that everything is perfectly great in the way they've been treated—only that there are other overwhelming factors that taint this conflict. Doesn't mean we don't need to do much better in some areas. So my point is, whether it's the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or anything else, the "caring" should be a vehicle for learning more first...then one can decide if they have sufficient background to express themselves or take some other active role. The problem, in fact, is that too often people do not spend the time to learn first and they let emotions or populism alone drive their actions. And, it's important to also learn enough about the topic that you can vocalize the opposition's stance clearly before talking about your own. If you can strongarm their arguments, even better. There's a lot of absolutely lies, denial, and nonsense spewed around this conflict—same as with Ukraine—which I can debunk, but I also try to look for the stronger good faith arguments, of which there are some.
Hi Katherine. Thanks for you reply. My response would be that, again, while I respect the sentiment I’m not sure I can agree with the conclusion. I think anyone with any semblance of objective knowledge about the situation can’t come to any other conclusion that this is an extraordinary asymmetrical issue - which not only encompasses 75 years of oppression against the Palestinians but, also, is combined with the complete dehumanisation to the point that an obviously reasonable and intelligent individual can write an article about freedom while failing to mention that they’ve been living under an apartheid state since inception. That one can write about freedom while failing to mention that there are close to 10,000 Palestinians, many children, languishing in Israeli jails - and that the vast majority of the international community feels the same way except America which has more than enough self interest in the situation to mark them a deeply unreliable narrator in a war that has been waged against the Arab for at least the last 100 years if not before
I suspect we have come to different conclusions due to a different collection of facts. In the context of this post, I was referring to the current war. The rest of the issues can be delved in individually and are much more nuanced, and I suspect we'd have both areas of agreement and disagreement.
But there is no ‘current war’ - Israel and Palestine have been at war for 75 years. That’s the entire point of why one can’t read the news when the history is important. There has never been a peace treaty - how war ends - between Israel, Palestine & Lebanon - just a series of unstable ceasefire, of which the vast majority have been broken by Israel (you can fact check that). Within the context of the war, which forced almost 800,000 people from their home (referred to as the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe) and has had a death rate of close to 90% Palestine, it seems rather important. Furthermore, there is a UN ratified two state solution which Hamas, in 2017, said they were willing to use as a basis for national consensus, recognising the role of the PA as well. Israel have never accepted it and, indeed, the charter of the current Likud Party, which morphed out of the terrorist group Irgun, calls for Israel from the river to the sea - an apparently genocidal chant. So, from those set of facts, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m able to hold two different thoughts in my head. That the actions of October 7th were atrocities. The Palestinian cause is a worthy one - and, inadvertently, the actions of Netanyahu and his fascist government, of which two members have convictions for inciting terrorism by Israel itself, makes us closer to a two state solution than even before. We must support the millions of innocent Palestinians whose lives have been blighted by both Israel and Hamas - and work together to find a solution
Some of the facts you cite aren't quite accurate (particularly when it comes to the two state proposals/ceasefire — though the latter I need to look into more), and likewise on the idea of ethnic cleansing, but I'll have to respond another time when I'm not short on it as I'll need to do some citations. Just know that I'm not basing my thinking on just news, but also historical context. However, in the current context, the support of Israel is in light of Oct 7, which represented atrocities, something which we both agree on. I personally believe and have always believed in a two-state solution, and it sounds like you agree on that front too. Like you said, one can hold two thoughts at once...that there may be some injustice in how Palestinians are treated, and that Oct 7 represented atrocities that should not have been committed. I'd like nothing more than find solutions that would lead to peace, safety, prosperity, and dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis, and acknowledge that not all actions by Israel have been justified.
Thanks for your response - I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the facts are not quite accurate. It is true that there is a UN framework for a two state solution. It’s called pre-June ‘67. It’s also true that, in the new Hamas Document 2017, the organisation clearly state that they would accept that as a starting point for national consensus. It’s also true that the Likud Charter states from the river to the sea - as repeated by their representative Eli Cohen three days ago. There’s nothing controversial or nuanced in what I said. The same applies to what I said regarding the Nakba. The 1948 War forced close to 800,000 Palestinians out of their homes. That’s documented repeatedly. It’s also fact that Ilan Pappe has described it as an ethnic cleansing. Again, there is nothing controversial or nuanced in what I said.
And just to note, even though we have areas of disagreement, I can tell that you're arguing in good faith and so we need more conversations like this—both of us might discover something new.
Kinda think that that is rather like motherhood and apple pie -- I expect that pretty much everyone is in favour of social justice. The problem is what it consists of and how to get there -- rather too many are rather impractical at best, are unclear on the difference between being high-minded and being softheaded.
Entomologist E. O. Wilson had a rather brilliant quip on the point in speaking about Marxism which he considered more suited to ants than to humans:
If our theories, particularly on humans, are based on wishful thinking and various vanities then it we shouldn't be surprised if the societies or social policies based on them collapse like the proverbial house of cards. Or Towers of Babel ...
I have no idea why a couple of people seem mad at you for this. Someone seems upset that you didn't take his advice. Odd. Maybe people are upset because you said Social Justice Warrior? Lol. Anyway, you're right.
I've always cared about politics to an extent but the key for me if finding the 5% (or less) that's important. I live in California which is the land of nonsense laws and the nanny state. Some things are truly inane and a lot of politicians just like to hear themselves talk and posture. It's easy to get jaded but none of that means that certain things are not very important. You gave some really good examples. We have a duty (IMO) to at least be someone educated on the important things and on those things we should care and try to make a difference. In whatever ways we can we have to fight for what we believe is right and not just leave it in the hands of others. Despite what someone else said, writing actually does help. It helps contrast all of the lousy writing out there that people read daily. I think I have a bit of SJW in me as well but not in the woke/cancel culture kind of way :)
Perfect! Agree with You! I'm from Latvia, Riga. We support Ukraina and Israel, because my country was occupied from russia (1945-1994) . Hamas is similar anti human power. Thank You for Your Job! Sorry about my terrible english, but I will say You THANK YOU. All systems with agressiv thoughts=criminal regimes, not Countries.
I've always heard such great things about Latvia from my parents.
Really appreciate your support a lot! I'm always so happy when people are able to see through the propaganda, but those who have lived under the Russian occupation understand that country better than most.
Also, people in English speaking countries rarely know other languages well enough to communicate, whereas so many people in other countries have learned English, so I'm always impressed.
Tom Nichols is coming out with an expanded edition of The Death of Expertise next month. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for a new edition that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either. Does anyone even ask such questions anymore?
I wish you well on your book. I'm sure it's great work -- but it's not going to work. Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country. Do you want to sell books or make a difference?
It never occurs to any of you that you could do both -- and do so by doing exactly what you just wrote: "To listen is often more important than to speak." In a previous piece you stated, "Wish I had a ready-made solution, could probably make a bundle." What does it say about you that I offered you such a solution and you didn't even bother looking into it? I wrote about you in this post below -- not because I'm targeting you but rather because of what you represent (however well-intentioned you might be).
Perhaps it's worth reading her book before commenting on its impact? What Katherine excels in is modelling humility and approach to critical self-examination. She goes beyond articulating a problem, which many love to do, to also suggesting approaches that alleviate these problems without the arrogance of being 'the expert'. She endeavours to walk her talk and is the first to admit her flawed thinking or practice. Books are great but living evidence of wisdom in action is better. I think people expect far more from her than is reasonable and I wonder what it is about her that makes people think they can demand more/different from her than others.
Subject: "Your subscription has ended . . . Oh no, did we lose you? We’ll miss your company. Come back when you’re ready. There’s an empty chair waiting. "
What horseshit! Except the part about being empty -- as emptiness is all you people have to offer: Content creators who congratulate themselves for accomplishing absolutely nothing that moves America a millimeter in the the right direction. In fact, you're making matters worse with this charade that serves you while you pretend to serve others. You have no original ideas and no questions for those who do -- just like your audience. If you'd just stop talking and start listening -- you'd learn something for a change. But also like your audience, it's all a facade to present yourselves as something you are not. "Cabal of the Credentialed" is the faction for you: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/cabal-of-the-credentialed/ And the The Substack Sector is the faction for them: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
If you could only imagine the the waste of it all. I wonder, would it even matter to you then?
There is a chasm between what you espouse is best practice and what you actually demonstrate in reality. I wish you well in your endeavours to be heard and understood, and have your authority respected. Wisdom says that in order to expect that from others, you have to be able to demonstrate it to them too. This is lacking in your self-indulgent rants that attempt to affirm your superiority over others who disagree with you.
Here is a piece that describes your conduct and the effect you have on others. Is this how you really want others to experience you or is there something that you might need to do to encourage people to want to connect with you?
I brought up “The Death of Expertise” in the first sentence to avoid what you did just did — make it about her book when it has nothing to do with it. You blew right by that then blew right by this: “Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country.” Then you blew right by her own point about "To listen is often more important than to speak” — and went straight into speaking about what I should do (which you did none of in showing any courtesy in consideration of what I have to say).
“Seek to understand before you seek to be understood.” Had you done the former, you could have kicked off a conversation to learn about ideas and new ways of thinking that would elevate your own. You sought to be understood — and in so doing, suffocated the “conversation” by framing it in the “simplest terms and most convenient definitions” (to borrow from The Breakfast Club).
Had you sought to understand, you would have found that I wrote & produced a documentary that deals with the psychological gymnastics of human behavior (including what you did in your response). Without even the slightest curiosity to understand where I’m coming from (and the unique experiences that shaped what I see and you don’t): You fired off whatever immediately came to mind and that’s the end of it.
Why didn't my doc make a dent? First off, I'm practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. Secondly, you try taking on all of America by yourself. See how far you get in the face of systematic self-delusion calcified by a country with the attention span of a child. Thirdly, with just a little help -- it would have worked. But through it all, I've got even a better idea now -- and naturally, no help (as everyone's got something to protect and it damn sure ain't the truth when they deny the undeniable). I don't roll that way -- as it really is about the truth for me (and I've a lifelong record to prove it). I have a very specific target audience to get this in gear, so it wouldn’t take much. One email could set off a chain of events that could open the door to the kind of conversation this nation’s never had.
I don't need mass appeal -- I just need to get to one man.
I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds in a way no other has — giving me unique insight into America’s decline from decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government. And you blew all that off with one paragraph that took you all of 2 minutes at most. And in your race to be right, you couldn’t wait to tell me about her “approaches that alleviate these problems” — never mind this: “In a previous piece you stated, ‘Wish I had a ready-made solution, could probably make a bundle.’ What does it say about you that I offered you such a solution and you didn't even bother looking into it?”
Rather than rise to the occasion and consider what I have to say, you blew that off too and redirected the “discussion” to what she has to say (ya know, like everyone else is doing every single day on these cesspools of certitude). Incredibly, even after explaining what I shouldn’t have had to, chances are, your last word was the end of it. There will be no journey that Anna Quindlen was talking about in her 2005 article Life of the Closed Mind (quoting Columbia’s President Bollinger):
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’ Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’ . . . When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?”
You did nothing of the kind, and what’s worse — you still won’t (and I really hope you prove me wrong).
All of America is fighting what I call today’s trench warfare between armies of unreachables. Conventional tactics have no chance of breaching the force fields of fallacy people hide behind to protect the hypocrisy and lies they live by. Everyone is trying to plow through problems when you should be going around them. And I’ve got a foolproof plan for precisely how to do that. How could it possibly be foolproof? How I wish you would ask. Had you heard me out, you would have discovered that answer for yourself. Nobody wants to do the work it takes to solve problems, but it seems we have all the time in the world to talk about them.
The problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Sycophants wallowing in these cesspools of certitude act like influencers are some of the greatest minds to ever live: For repeatedly rehashing run-of-the-mill ideas that have no chance of making a dent in the hermetically minds of our times (which includes theirs). But there’s a mass-market for failure in this fantasyland where success is the “glory” of the perpetual pursuit itself. It’s all window dressing— where inquiry that holds up a mirror to their magical thinking is met with venom.
Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like — never considering the defects in their own parts. And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason): They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them.
You think there’s gonna be anything in her book that looks like that? I already put all the time in and you did nothing (which is exactly what she did months ago when she blew off an opportunity to do something that really would make an impact — and monumental at that). Now, you have a chance to do something, and chances are — you’ll do nothing (which is at the core of what The Substack Sector is all about): https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
Or as I put it in another piece: Never in History Have So Many Cared So Much and Done So Little
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Memmer
P.S. I originally closed with "good day" -- but that's how I feel about all these exchanges that predictably go nowhere. That's a mistake -- as it's baggage being carried into a situation in which you may not act in the same way that virtually 100% of the rest did. So there you go -- even I reflected on what I wrote and thought, "I could do better."
You are correct. I didn't attempt to understand your perspective before commenting. This is something that contradicts my own principles and practice so I appreciate you confronting me about that. I too discuss emotional and psychological drivers of human behaviour that encourage self-aggrandizing, controlling and dominating behaviours (narcissism spectrum behaviours) and prevent cooperation, reciprocity and objectivity. Not examining one's behaviour and congruence with one's impact on others can reinforce these antisocial behaviours to preserve one's ideal self-perception. It's good to have an opportunity to reflect on this incongruence and make an effort to improve on my interactions.
Given that perspective taking seems to be valued by both of us, would you say that you followed your own advice in response to Katherine's article?
I took a look at your Substack and website. We could talk shop about workplace narcissism as well — I’ve written volumes on that topic. In light of what I found in your writing, I’d like you to consider this bit below from my site:
===========================
Early on in COVID, I was ridiculed for refusing to take a position on something I knew nothing about. I’m old-fashioned that way. A lot of things are old-fashioned on here — and my willingness to admit mistakes is one of ’em. With the right spirit, you can even have fun with it — as I did in “Elephant in the Room Award.” Acknowledging error is liberating and leads to enlightenment. And I would know . . . many times over. In Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson’s article “Why We Believe—Long After We Shouldn’t, they write the following: “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change them for better ones?”
From a lifetime of practice, “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” is protocol for me. I love to be corrected — even if it stings a bit at first. I’d rather feel foolish for 5 minutes than be a fool for a lifetime. I find changing my mind to be magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another: It’s fantastic! I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one. We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it — and appreciate those who correct us.
When it comes to ascertaining the truth: I don’t care what your cause is, who’s in the White House, who controls Congress or the courts. I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see. There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false. When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like. I call a spade a spade, period. I love moments of truth that put my principles to the test. One of my favorites is the Florida election fiasco of 2000. I just wanted the right thing to be done — whether it served my interests or not was irrelevant. That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.
People love to plug “nobody’s perfect”: And yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything. The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting. In the spirit of “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another.
If you wanna gauge someone’s commitment to doing right by their fellow man — ask ’em how many times they didn’t.
===========================
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world who thinks like that and lives by it — and that’s invaluable information in the right hands. Professionals in the field of examining human behavior spend all their time trying to deal with people who fit the profile of problematic conduct — why not take a little time to look into the discoveries of someone who doesn’t? For instance, in this bit below from Erich Fromm’s "The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil” — the focus of professionals is understandably on those that “are not aware when life asks them a question.” That’s fine – but why not see what you can learn from the life of someone who was aware all along?
***********************
“Our capacity to choose changes constantly with our practice of life. The longer we continue to make the wrong decisions, the more our heart hardens; the more often we make the right decision, the more our heart softens — or better perhaps, comes alive. . . . Each step in life which increases my self-confidence, my integrity, my courage, my conviction also increases my capacity to choose the desirable alternative, until eventually if becomes more difficult for me to choose the undesirable rather than the desirable action. On the other hand, each act of surrender and cowardice weakens me, opens the path for more acts of surrender, and eventually freedom is lost. Between the extreme when I can no longer do a wrong act and the extreme when I have lost my freedom to right action, there are innumerable degrees of freedom of choice. In the practice of life, the degree of freedom to choose is different at any given moment.
If the degree of freedom to choose the good is great, it needs less effort to choose the good. If it is small, it takes a great effort, help from others, and favorable circumstances. . . . Most people fail in the art of living not because they are inherently bad or so without will that they cannot lead a better life; they fail because they do not wake up and see when they stand at a fork in the road and have to decide. They are not aware when life asks them a question, and when they still have alternative answers. Then with each step along the wrong road it becomes increasingly difficult for them to admit that they are on the wrong road, often only because they have to admit that they must go back to the first wrong turn, and must accept the fact that they have wasted energy and time.”
***********************
I was writing about those principles long before I ever heard of him. I didn’t get any of my ideas out of books, but through books I refined my understanding of my own experiences (not to mention how that enhanced knowledge broaden my horizons for new experiences). People far smarter than me were writing about these ideas throughout the ages. I hardly invented the concept about that cross-section of an engine as America — and how people see only what they feel:
“The Rigveda, dated to have been written down (from earlier oral traditions) between 1500 and 1200 BCE, states “Reality is one, though wise men speak of it variously.” According to Paul J. Griffiths, this premise is the foundation of universalist perspective behind the parable of the blind men and an elephant.”
And lo and behold, I illustrated “Blind Men Touching An Elephant” in this couple-minute clip from documentary: https://youtu.be/gaEBh2GCZkg. And this clip captures the essence of what my doc is about: https://youtu.be/p4hMfZfN8WA
“Reality is one, though wise men speak of it variously” — between 1500 and 1200 BCE! Long before brain imaging to understand human behavior, we already had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity, but we didn’t take advantage of the gifts we were given. And what a shocker — we don’t make good use of those fancy new insights either.
You have the knowledge, the credentials, and a good manner about you — but you don’t have the story and idea on how to channel all that into a mechanism that would make the most of it. I do.
P.S. Pease don't confuse "conventional" with meaning that she doesn't have fresh take. A person could have a unique approach but still remain within a conventional construct. For lack of a better term, I'm talking about asymmetric "warfare" to a world stuck in trench warfare.
The rules have changed -- as in, there are none. To combat that with any success, you've gotta think completely outside the box in brand new ways. No one is doing that -- and it shows!
Thank you kindly for your reply. Btw, I wrote this bit below before I saw it:
******************
P.S. I originally closed with "good day" -- but that's how I feel about all these exchanges that predictably go nowhere. That's a mistake -- as it's baggage being carried into a situation in which you may not act in the same way that virtually 100% of the rest did. So there you go -- even I reflected on what I wrote and thought, "I could do better."
******************
As for your perfectly valid question: If I weren't saying the same thing across-the-board about all conventional approaches of any kind, that would be different. But I’m even saying the same thing about efforts I agree with. In our culture of over-the-top praise or over-the-top scorn, when’s the last time you’ve seen anybody agree with someone but say, “That’s not gonna work”? And by the way, my track record for the truth and seeing the lay of the land is impeccable. I don’t want you to take my word for it — I’d like you to look at my record.
For instance (as I wrote on my site): In “The unconscious is not what you think it is” TEDx Talk, Dr. Joel Weinberger proudly proclaimed the following on being right about Trump’s 2016 win: “How did we get it right and everyone else get it wrong?” By miserably failing to ask the right questions years before — he unwittingly created the conditions to “get it right.” As I put it in a title of one post: “Biden Beat Trump but Helped Put Him There in the First Place — As Did the Democratic Party.” No one else is asking such questions — making it impossible for them to learn from their mistakes (just as the Right refuses to learn from theirs).
Also from my site:
*************
It astounds me that some of the most brilliant minds in the world seem incapable of correlating how “unrelated” issues impact one another. The most harmful pollution on the planet is noise — narrative that drowns out sensible discussion. You could blame those who amplify that deafening noise with delight — or be smart by not doing dumb things that drive the narrative in the first place.
Pursuing aims in ways that predictably damage your cause is bad enough. But once the outcome becomes clear, it’s beyond belief that you refuse to reflect on your methods. Even if you’re right and have the best of intentions: If you’re not smart in making your moves, you can exponentially worsen the problem you’re addressing — along with seemingly unrelated ones. And already have — again and again (insert image of “The March of Folly” by Barbara Tuchman):
“Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.”
America is unschooled in adjustment.
*************
From my site again:
=================================
In a blurb on yet another book on cognitive dissonance, a science-fiction writer wrote, [the author] has seen the future.” If he had, he’d know his book has no chance of achieving its aims. On what basis would you believe that another book, conference, project, study, report, or podcast — would put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country? Conventional methods have repeatedly failed. Why would you believe next time will be any different? But integrate those same tools into an unconventional framework for honest debate — and it will be different.
=================================
In a post called “Mountain of Preaching on a Molehill of Practice,” I wrote about all these echo chambers that accomplish absolutely nothing and make matters worse to boot. In the part about Katherine, I wrote, “Perhaps you’re the right person with the wrong approach — while I’m the wrong person with the right one.” Have you ever seen or heard of anything like that before? If you take the time to hear me out, you’ll see all kinds of things you’ve never seen before.
In her bio it reads, “Curious writer & author . . . Fueled by free thought, inquiry, mischief & reason.” Where was that spirit back in July and where is it now? She Liked someone who defended her and blew off someone who challenged her (again). Had she heard me out, she could have been the catalyst to turn the tide — and then written a book about that. Now THAT would be something.
She didn’t even bother to try — but you did (which is especially telling in light of my criticism of your original response). How far you’re willing to take it remains to be seen. I’ve got the idea and you’ve got the credentials. Why do you think I spent so much time replying to you in the first place? I held onto a sliver of hope that you would do what you just did.
If you want to start solving problems, first you need to clear the clutter that’s crippled this country. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything: And you do it by holding one man to his own “standards”: A professional know-it-all who fabricated a fantasyland of “following the facts where they lead."
And believe it or not, the underworld of absurdity that shields this man from scrutiny -- are the same people who would unwittingly expose this fraud for what he really is (and who they are in the process). His defenders assume I'm out to "DESTROY" this man -- when it's quite the contrary. Hear me out and all will become clear.
Everyone is miserably failing to make a dent because they’re fighting the impenetrable forces of self-interest. What if there were a way to use self-interest to serve the truth? The only way to see that is to understand the story and mentality of those involved — and that takes work. A bit about work (from my site):
*************************
Work is a Journey on Which You Welcome Challenge. Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem. Work does not defend before you consider. Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.
Work comes with the willingness to be wrong. Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease. Work rises & falls, as this is the prism through which we work (insert image of hierarchy of argument): How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check. Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
*************************
“One voice began to echo through the night. One voice raised in song. The song was terribly out of tune — but sung with great enthusiasm. One voice became two — and two became three.” — Admiral McRaven
And lo and behold, my site is called One Voice Became Two: A Portal of Possibility from a Concerned Citizen: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/
If you don’t want to be that voice — please point me in the direction of someone who will.
Mr. Davis is rude. Think of the character Will Hunting confronts in the bar with a history lesson. At least Hunting gave some knowledge of the subject. Davis is proving the point--why go to school? We are in class right now. The question is: "If we speak out about injustice, are we like the Leftist social justice fanatics?" Are we the same? No! Because we have different political goals. That answers the lovely, talented precious girl named Katherine's query. Who I love.
I appreciate the moral clarity of this essay.
And thank you for your year-end review. I became a subscriber well into the year and missed many of the posts. I'll enjoy catching up and I look forward to reading what you write in 2024.
Great article! Politics is so much more than this-or-that election; it's about our society, our collective decisions, and the flourishing of human nature (as Aristotle would say). Human rights are universal, whether it's the Middle East or Eastern Europe.
Fine. Use the term if you must but please don't go all out and start with the blue hair.
Subject: "Your subscription has ended . . . Oh no, did we lose you? We’ll miss your company. Come back when you’re ready. There’s an empty chair waiting. "
What horseshit! Except the part about being empty -- as emptiness is all you people have to offer: Content creators who congratulate themselves for accomplishing absolutely nothing that moves America a millimeter in the the right direction. In fact, you're making matters worse with this charade that serves you while you pretend to serve others. You have no original ideas and no questions for those who do -- just like your audience. If you'd just stop talking and start listening -- you'd learn something for a change. But also like your audience, it's all a facade to present yourselves as something you are not. "Cabal of the Credentialed" is the faction for you: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/cabal-of-the-credentialed/ And the The Substack Sector is the faction for them: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
If you could only imagine the the waste of it all. I wonder, would it even matter to you then?
What about home? What will you do for that?
What do you mean? My own home?
The community of people around you in your offline life. Friends, family, and so on.
Good! I wish you luck branching out.
For me, the balance between local and beyond is tough to strike. I think for me, as a high school teacher, knowledge of what’s going on outside of home helps me address questions and concerns for students since they’ll come across it on their own.
That's a great perspective. I also think that your role as a teacher is one of the most important there is.
It's a great question. I've been taking a lot of care about the people around me and have been working on being more present, especially when they need help. But as for the larger community around me, I think there's more I can do.
Katherine, your clarity and honesty have always been an inspiration to me. You care more about truth than anyone I’ve come across in this whole community. I’ve never seen you let a bias get in the way of your quest for the facts, no matter where this may lead you. Thank you for being such an elegant person.
This means a tremendous amount to me to hear that. Thank you so much for taking the time to share this. It truly means a lot to me. And being called "an elegant person" is just so lovely. Thank you.
Hi Katherine - I enjoyed your article even if I don’t agree with your premise. I obviously applaud your commitment to free speech and to your increasing politicisation. However, there’s also a concern that, if one comes late to subjects which are, as you rightly say, politically (such as Israel/Palestine) is there not a danger you engage with the news of the subject without engaging with the history or the nuance? It’s obviously a contentious subject - but it seems, on some level, indicative of how we’ve got to this point that one manages to write an article focusing solely on the freedoms of one party in a two party dispute without questioning the historical oppression of the Palestinians or, for that matter, the Israelis at the hand of their own extremist government?
Thank you! To answer your question, I would say that before chiming in publicly on any issue, one must first study it sufficiently. I tend to not comment on things when I haven't taken the time to do so, and on particular points, I might say: "hey, this part I'm a bit less knowledgeable about." In the case of Israel/Palestine, I did know a fair bit already before the recent events, but I had some holes, so I took care to study the history, etc. Before doing so, I'd only comment on things that were precise. For example, if we're talking about internal Israeli politics, currently, I don't feel like I have enough background to really write anything of true substance, though I have some knowledge on the topic. Just not enough to feel like my contribution would be sufficiently valuable. I do know a bit more about the situation with Palestinians as I took a lot more time to study both ends of the argument, including speaking the Palestinians directly. My view isn't, by the way, that everything is perfectly great in the way they've been treated—only that there are other overwhelming factors that taint this conflict. Doesn't mean we don't need to do much better in some areas. So my point is, whether it's the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or anything else, the "caring" should be a vehicle for learning more first...then one can decide if they have sufficient background to express themselves or take some other active role. The problem, in fact, is that too often people do not spend the time to learn first and they let emotions or populism alone drive their actions. And, it's important to also learn enough about the topic that you can vocalize the opposition's stance clearly before talking about your own. If you can strongarm their arguments, even better. There's a lot of absolutely lies, denial, and nonsense spewed around this conflict—same as with Ukraine—which I can debunk, but I also try to look for the stronger good faith arguments, of which there are some.
Hi Katherine. Thanks for you reply. My response would be that, again, while I respect the sentiment I’m not sure I can agree with the conclusion. I think anyone with any semblance of objective knowledge about the situation can’t come to any other conclusion that this is an extraordinary asymmetrical issue - which not only encompasses 75 years of oppression against the Palestinians but, also, is combined with the complete dehumanisation to the point that an obviously reasonable and intelligent individual can write an article about freedom while failing to mention that they’ve been living under an apartheid state since inception. That one can write about freedom while failing to mention that there are close to 10,000 Palestinians, many children, languishing in Israeli jails - and that the vast majority of the international community feels the same way except America which has more than enough self interest in the situation to mark them a deeply unreliable narrator in a war that has been waged against the Arab for at least the last 100 years if not before
I suspect we have come to different conclusions due to a different collection of facts. In the context of this post, I was referring to the current war. The rest of the issues can be delved in individually and are much more nuanced, and I suspect we'd have both areas of agreement and disagreement.
But there is no ‘current war’ - Israel and Palestine have been at war for 75 years. That’s the entire point of why one can’t read the news when the history is important. There has never been a peace treaty - how war ends - between Israel, Palestine & Lebanon - just a series of unstable ceasefire, of which the vast majority have been broken by Israel (you can fact check that). Within the context of the war, which forced almost 800,000 people from their home (referred to as the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe) and has had a death rate of close to 90% Palestine, it seems rather important. Furthermore, there is a UN ratified two state solution which Hamas, in 2017, said they were willing to use as a basis for national consensus, recognising the role of the PA as well. Israel have never accepted it and, indeed, the charter of the current Likud Party, which morphed out of the terrorist group Irgun, calls for Israel from the river to the sea - an apparently genocidal chant. So, from those set of facts, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m able to hold two different thoughts in my head. That the actions of October 7th were atrocities. The Palestinian cause is a worthy one - and, inadvertently, the actions of Netanyahu and his fascist government, of which two members have convictions for inciting terrorism by Israel itself, makes us closer to a two state solution than even before. We must support the millions of innocent Palestinians whose lives have been blighted by both Israel and Hamas - and work together to find a solution
Some of the facts you cite aren't quite accurate (particularly when it comes to the two state proposals/ceasefire — though the latter I need to look into more), and likewise on the idea of ethnic cleansing, but I'll have to respond another time when I'm not short on it as I'll need to do some citations. Just know that I'm not basing my thinking on just news, but also historical context. However, in the current context, the support of Israel is in light of Oct 7, which represented atrocities, something which we both agree on. I personally believe and have always believed in a two-state solution, and it sounds like you agree on that front too. Like you said, one can hold two thoughts at once...that there may be some injustice in how Palestinians are treated, and that Oct 7 represented atrocities that should not have been committed. I'd like nothing more than find solutions that would lead to peace, safety, prosperity, and dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis, and acknowledge that not all actions by Israel have been justified.
Thanks for your response - I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the facts are not quite accurate. It is true that there is a UN framework for a two state solution. It’s called pre-June ‘67. It’s also true that, in the new Hamas Document 2017, the organisation clearly state that they would accept that as a starting point for national consensus. It’s also true that the Likud Charter states from the river to the sea - as repeated by their representative Eli Cohen three days ago. There’s nothing controversial or nuanced in what I said. The same applies to what I said regarding the Nakba. The 1948 War forced close to 800,000 Palestinians out of their homes. That’s documented repeatedly. It’s also fact that Ilan Pappe has described it as an ethnic cleansing. Again, there is nothing controversial or nuanced in what I said.
And just to note, even though we have areas of disagreement, I can tell that you're arguing in good faith and so we need more conversations like this—both of us might discover something new.
"A social justice warrior?" Oh, the horror! 😉🙂
Kinda think that that is rather like motherhood and apple pie -- I expect that pretty much everyone is in favour of social justice. The problem is what it consists of and how to get there -- rather too many are rather impractical at best, are unclear on the difference between being high-minded and being softheaded.
Entomologist E. O. Wilson had a rather brilliant quip on the point in speaking about Marxism which he considered more suited to ants than to humans:
"Wonderful theory, wrong species."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
If our theories, particularly on humans, are based on wishful thinking and various vanities then it we shouldn't be surprised if the societies or social policies based on them collapse like the proverbial house of cards. Or Towers of Babel ...
I have no idea why a couple of people seem mad at you for this. Someone seems upset that you didn't take his advice. Odd. Maybe people are upset because you said Social Justice Warrior? Lol. Anyway, you're right.
I've always cared about politics to an extent but the key for me if finding the 5% (or less) that's important. I live in California which is the land of nonsense laws and the nanny state. Some things are truly inane and a lot of politicians just like to hear themselves talk and posture. It's easy to get jaded but none of that means that certain things are not very important. You gave some really good examples. We have a duty (IMO) to at least be someone educated on the important things and on those things we should care and try to make a difference. In whatever ways we can we have to fight for what we believe is right and not just leave it in the hands of others. Despite what someone else said, writing actually does help. It helps contrast all of the lousy writing out there that people read daily. I think I have a bit of SJW in me as well but not in the woke/cancel culture kind of way :)
Perfect! Agree with You! I'm from Latvia, Riga. We support Ukraina and Israel, because my country was occupied from russia (1945-1994) . Hamas is similar anti human power. Thank You for Your Job! Sorry about my terrible english, but I will say You THANK YOU. All systems with agressiv thoughts=criminal regimes, not Countries.
I've always heard such great things about Latvia from my parents.
Really appreciate your support a lot! I'm always so happy when people are able to see through the propaganda, but those who have lived under the Russian occupation understand that country better than most.
Your English is great (Ukrainian here 😁) and your heart is warm and human.
Thank You! #StandWithUcraine
That's the most important part!
Also, people in English speaking countries rarely know other languages well enough to communicate, whereas so many people in other countries have learned English, so I'm always impressed.
(PS. I'm also from Ukraine originally)
Better than being a social injustice warrior!
Tom Nichols is coming out with an expanded edition of The Death of Expertise next month. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for a new edition that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either. Does anyone even ask such questions anymore?
I wish you well on your book. I'm sure it's great work -- but it's not going to work. Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country. Do you want to sell books or make a difference?
It never occurs to any of you that you could do both -- and do so by doing exactly what you just wrote: "To listen is often more important than to speak." In a previous piece you stated, "Wish I had a ready-made solution, could probably make a bundle." What does it say about you that I offered you such a solution and you didn't even bother looking into it? I wrote about you in this post below -- not because I'm targeting you but rather because of what you represent (however well-intentioned you might be).
The Substack Sector: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
Perhaps it's worth reading her book before commenting on its impact? What Katherine excels in is modelling humility and approach to critical self-examination. She goes beyond articulating a problem, which many love to do, to also suggesting approaches that alleviate these problems without the arrogance of being 'the expert'. She endeavours to walk her talk and is the first to admit her flawed thinking or practice. Books are great but living evidence of wisdom in action is better. I think people expect far more from her than is reasonable and I wonder what it is about her that makes people think they can demand more/different from her than others.
And this goes for you too:
Subject: "Your subscription has ended . . . Oh no, did we lose you? We’ll miss your company. Come back when you’re ready. There’s an empty chair waiting. "
What horseshit! Except the part about being empty -- as emptiness is all you people have to offer: Content creators who congratulate themselves for accomplishing absolutely nothing that moves America a millimeter in the the right direction. In fact, you're making matters worse with this charade that serves you while you pretend to serve others. You have no original ideas and no questions for those who do -- just like your audience. If you'd just stop talking and start listening -- you'd learn something for a change. But also like your audience, it's all a facade to present yourselves as something you are not. "Cabal of the Credentialed" is the faction for you: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/cabal-of-the-credentialed/ And the The Substack Sector is the faction for them: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
If you could only imagine the the waste of it all. I wonder, would it even matter to you then?
Dear Rick,
There is a chasm between what you espouse is best practice and what you actually demonstrate in reality. I wish you well in your endeavours to be heard and understood, and have your authority respected. Wisdom says that in order to expect that from others, you have to be able to demonstrate it to them too. This is lacking in your self-indulgent rants that attempt to affirm your superiority over others who disagree with you.
Here is a piece that describes your conduct and the effect you have on others. Is this how you really want others to experience you or is there something that you might need to do to encourage people to want to connect with you?
https://nathaliemartinekphd.substack.com/p/ego
I won't respond to any more of your comments.
Dear Dr. Martinek:
I brought up “The Death of Expertise” in the first sentence to avoid what you did just did — make it about her book when it has nothing to do with it. You blew right by that then blew right by this: “Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country.” Then you blew right by her own point about "To listen is often more important than to speak” — and went straight into speaking about what I should do (which you did none of in showing any courtesy in consideration of what I have to say).
“Seek to understand before you seek to be understood.” Had you done the former, you could have kicked off a conversation to learn about ideas and new ways of thinking that would elevate your own. You sought to be understood — and in so doing, suffocated the “conversation” by framing it in the “simplest terms and most convenient definitions” (to borrow from The Breakfast Club).
Had you sought to understand, you would have found that I wrote & produced a documentary that deals with the psychological gymnastics of human behavior (including what you did in your response). Without even the slightest curiosity to understand where I’m coming from (and the unique experiences that shaped what I see and you don’t): You fired off whatever immediately came to mind and that’s the end of it.
Why didn't my doc make a dent? First off, I'm practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. Secondly, you try taking on all of America by yourself. See how far you get in the face of systematic self-delusion calcified by a country with the attention span of a child. Thirdly, with just a little help -- it would have worked. But through it all, I've got even a better idea now -- and naturally, no help (as everyone's got something to protect and it damn sure ain't the truth when they deny the undeniable). I don't roll that way -- as it really is about the truth for me (and I've a lifelong record to prove it). I have a very specific target audience to get this in gear, so it wouldn’t take much. One email could set off a chain of events that could open the door to the kind of conversation this nation’s never had.
I don't need mass appeal -- I just need to get to one man.
I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds in a way no other has — giving me unique insight into America’s decline from decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government. And you blew all that off with one paragraph that took you all of 2 minutes at most. And in your race to be right, you couldn’t wait to tell me about her “approaches that alleviate these problems” — never mind this: “In a previous piece you stated, ‘Wish I had a ready-made solution, could probably make a bundle.’ What does it say about you that I offered you such a solution and you didn't even bother looking into it?”
Rather than rise to the occasion and consider what I have to say, you blew that off too and redirected the “discussion” to what she has to say (ya know, like everyone else is doing every single day on these cesspools of certitude). Incredibly, even after explaining what I shouldn’t have had to, chances are, your last word was the end of it. There will be no journey that Anna Quindlen was talking about in her 2005 article Life of the Closed Mind (quoting Columbia’s President Bollinger):
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’ Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’ . . . When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?”
You did nothing of the kind, and what’s worse — you still won’t (and I really hope you prove me wrong).
All of America is fighting what I call today’s trench warfare between armies of unreachables. Conventional tactics have no chance of breaching the force fields of fallacy people hide behind to protect the hypocrisy and lies they live by. Everyone is trying to plow through problems when you should be going around them. And I’ve got a foolproof plan for precisely how to do that. How could it possibly be foolproof? How I wish you would ask. Had you heard me out, you would have discovered that answer for yourself. Nobody wants to do the work it takes to solve problems, but it seems we have all the time in the world to talk about them.
The problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Sycophants wallowing in these cesspools of certitude act like influencers are some of the greatest minds to ever live: For repeatedly rehashing run-of-the-mill ideas that have no chance of making a dent in the hermetically minds of our times (which includes theirs). But there’s a mass-market for failure in this fantasyland where success is the “glory” of the perpetual pursuit itself. It’s all window dressing— where inquiry that holds up a mirror to their magical thinking is met with venom.
Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like — never considering the defects in their own parts. And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason): They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them.
You think there’s gonna be anything in her book that looks like that? I already put all the time in and you did nothing (which is exactly what she did months ago when she blew off an opportunity to do something that really would make an impact — and monumental at that). Now, you have a chance to do something, and chances are — you’ll do nothing (which is at the core of what The Substack Sector is all about): https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/the-substack-sector/
Or as I put it in another piece: Never in History Have So Many Cared So Much and Done So Little
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Memmer
P.S. I originally closed with "good day" -- but that's how I feel about all these exchanges that predictably go nowhere. That's a mistake -- as it's baggage being carried into a situation in which you may not act in the same way that virtually 100% of the rest did. So there you go -- even I reflected on what I wrote and thought, "I could do better."
Dear Richard,
You are correct. I didn't attempt to understand your perspective before commenting. This is something that contradicts my own principles and practice so I appreciate you confronting me about that. I too discuss emotional and psychological drivers of human behaviour that encourage self-aggrandizing, controlling and dominating behaviours (narcissism spectrum behaviours) and prevent cooperation, reciprocity and objectivity. Not examining one's behaviour and congruence with one's impact on others can reinforce these antisocial behaviours to preserve one's ideal self-perception. It's good to have an opportunity to reflect on this incongruence and make an effort to improve on my interactions.
Given that perspective taking seems to be valued by both of us, would you say that you followed your own advice in response to Katherine's article?
I took a look at your Substack and website. We could talk shop about workplace narcissism as well — I’ve written volumes on that topic. In light of what I found in your writing, I’d like you to consider this bit below from my site:
===========================
Early on in COVID, I was ridiculed for refusing to take a position on something I knew nothing about. I’m old-fashioned that way. A lot of things are old-fashioned on here — and my willingness to admit mistakes is one of ’em. With the right spirit, you can even have fun with it — as I did in “Elephant in the Room Award.” Acknowledging error is liberating and leads to enlightenment. And I would know . . . many times over. In Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson’s article “Why We Believe—Long After We Shouldn’t, they write the following: “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change them for better ones?”
From a lifetime of practice, “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” is protocol for me. I love to be corrected — even if it stings a bit at first. I’d rather feel foolish for 5 minutes than be a fool for a lifetime. I find changing my mind to be magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another: It’s fantastic! I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one. We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it — and appreciate those who correct us.
When it comes to ascertaining the truth: I don’t care what your cause is, who’s in the White House, who controls Congress or the courts. I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see. There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false. When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like. I call a spade a spade, period. I love moments of truth that put my principles to the test. One of my favorites is the Florida election fiasco of 2000. I just wanted the right thing to be done — whether it served my interests or not was irrelevant. That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.
People love to plug “nobody’s perfect”: And yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything. The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting. In the spirit of “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another.
If you wanna gauge someone’s commitment to doing right by their fellow man — ask ’em how many times they didn’t.
===========================
You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world who thinks like that and lives by it — and that’s invaluable information in the right hands. Professionals in the field of examining human behavior spend all their time trying to deal with people who fit the profile of problematic conduct — why not take a little time to look into the discoveries of someone who doesn’t? For instance, in this bit below from Erich Fromm’s "The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil” — the focus of professionals is understandably on those that “are not aware when life asks them a question.” That’s fine – but why not see what you can learn from the life of someone who was aware all along?
***********************
“Our capacity to choose changes constantly with our practice of life. The longer we continue to make the wrong decisions, the more our heart hardens; the more often we make the right decision, the more our heart softens — or better perhaps, comes alive. . . . Each step in life which increases my self-confidence, my integrity, my courage, my conviction also increases my capacity to choose the desirable alternative, until eventually if becomes more difficult for me to choose the undesirable rather than the desirable action. On the other hand, each act of surrender and cowardice weakens me, opens the path for more acts of surrender, and eventually freedom is lost. Between the extreme when I can no longer do a wrong act and the extreme when I have lost my freedom to right action, there are innumerable degrees of freedom of choice. In the practice of life, the degree of freedom to choose is different at any given moment.
If the degree of freedom to choose the good is great, it needs less effort to choose the good. If it is small, it takes a great effort, help from others, and favorable circumstances. . . . Most people fail in the art of living not because they are inherently bad or so without will that they cannot lead a better life; they fail because they do not wake up and see when they stand at a fork in the road and have to decide. They are not aware when life asks them a question, and when they still have alternative answers. Then with each step along the wrong road it becomes increasingly difficult for them to admit that they are on the wrong road, often only because they have to admit that they must go back to the first wrong turn, and must accept the fact that they have wasted energy and time.”
***********************
I was writing about those principles long before I ever heard of him. I didn’t get any of my ideas out of books, but through books I refined my understanding of my own experiences (not to mention how that enhanced knowledge broaden my horizons for new experiences). People far smarter than me were writing about these ideas throughout the ages. I hardly invented the concept about that cross-section of an engine as America — and how people see only what they feel:
“The Rigveda, dated to have been written down (from earlier oral traditions) between 1500 and 1200 BCE, states “Reality is one, though wise men speak of it variously.” According to Paul J. Griffiths, this premise is the foundation of universalist perspective behind the parable of the blind men and an elephant.”
And lo and behold, I illustrated “Blind Men Touching An Elephant” in this couple-minute clip from documentary: https://youtu.be/gaEBh2GCZkg. And this clip captures the essence of what my doc is about: https://youtu.be/p4hMfZfN8WA
“Reality is one, though wise men speak of it variously” — between 1500 and 1200 BCE! Long before brain imaging to understand human behavior, we already had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity, but we didn’t take advantage of the gifts we were given. And what a shocker — we don’t make good use of those fancy new insights either.
You have the knowledge, the credentials, and a good manner about you — but you don’t have the story and idea on how to channel all that into a mechanism that would make the most of it. I do.
Thanks again for your time!
Rick
P.S. Pease don't confuse "conventional" with meaning that she doesn't have fresh take. A person could have a unique approach but still remain within a conventional construct. For lack of a better term, I'm talking about asymmetric "warfare" to a world stuck in trench warfare.
The rules have changed -- as in, there are none. To combat that with any success, you've gotta think completely outside the box in brand new ways. No one is doing that -- and it shows!
Thank you kindly for your reply. Btw, I wrote this bit below before I saw it:
******************
P.S. I originally closed with "good day" -- but that's how I feel about all these exchanges that predictably go nowhere. That's a mistake -- as it's baggage being carried into a situation in which you may not act in the same way that virtually 100% of the rest did. So there you go -- even I reflected on what I wrote and thought, "I could do better."
******************
As for your perfectly valid question: If I weren't saying the same thing across-the-board about all conventional approaches of any kind, that would be different. But I’m even saying the same thing about efforts I agree with. In our culture of over-the-top praise or over-the-top scorn, when’s the last time you’ve seen anybody agree with someone but say, “That’s not gonna work”? And by the way, my track record for the truth and seeing the lay of the land is impeccable. I don’t want you to take my word for it — I’d like you to look at my record.
For instance (as I wrote on my site): In “The unconscious is not what you think it is” TEDx Talk, Dr. Joel Weinberger proudly proclaimed the following on being right about Trump’s 2016 win: “How did we get it right and everyone else get it wrong?” By miserably failing to ask the right questions years before — he unwittingly created the conditions to “get it right.” As I put it in a title of one post: “Biden Beat Trump but Helped Put Him There in the First Place — As Did the Democratic Party.” No one else is asking such questions — making it impossible for them to learn from their mistakes (just as the Right refuses to learn from theirs).
Also from my site:
*************
It astounds me that some of the most brilliant minds in the world seem incapable of correlating how “unrelated” issues impact one another. The most harmful pollution on the planet is noise — narrative that drowns out sensible discussion. You could blame those who amplify that deafening noise with delight — or be smart by not doing dumb things that drive the narrative in the first place.
Pursuing aims in ways that predictably damage your cause is bad enough. But once the outcome becomes clear, it’s beyond belief that you refuse to reflect on your methods. Even if you’re right and have the best of intentions: If you’re not smart in making your moves, you can exponentially worsen the problem you’re addressing — along with seemingly unrelated ones. And already have — again and again (insert image of “The March of Folly” by Barbara Tuchman):
“Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.”
America is unschooled in adjustment.
*************
From my site again:
=================================
In a blurb on yet another book on cognitive dissonance, a science-fiction writer wrote, [the author] has seen the future.” If he had, he’d know his book has no chance of achieving its aims. On what basis would you believe that another book, conference, project, study, report, or podcast — would put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country? Conventional methods have repeatedly failed. Why would you believe next time will be any different? But integrate those same tools into an unconventional framework for honest debate — and it will be different.
=================================
In a post called “Mountain of Preaching on a Molehill of Practice,” I wrote about all these echo chambers that accomplish absolutely nothing and make matters worse to boot. In the part about Katherine, I wrote, “Perhaps you’re the right person with the wrong approach — while I’m the wrong person with the right one.” Have you ever seen or heard of anything like that before? If you take the time to hear me out, you’ll see all kinds of things you’ve never seen before.
In her bio it reads, “Curious writer & author . . . Fueled by free thought, inquiry, mischief & reason.” Where was that spirit back in July and where is it now? She Liked someone who defended her and blew off someone who challenged her (again). Had she heard me out, she could have been the catalyst to turn the tide — and then written a book about that. Now THAT would be something.
She didn’t even bother to try — but you did (which is especially telling in light of my criticism of your original response). How far you’re willing to take it remains to be seen. I’ve got the idea and you’ve got the credentials. Why do you think I spent so much time replying to you in the first place? I held onto a sliver of hope that you would do what you just did.
If you want to start solving problems, first you need to clear the clutter that’s crippled this country. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything: And you do it by holding one man to his own “standards”: A professional know-it-all who fabricated a fantasyland of “following the facts where they lead."
Heroes in Error: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/10/heroes-in-error/
And believe it or not, the underworld of absurdity that shields this man from scrutiny -- are the same people who would unwittingly expose this fraud for what he really is (and who they are in the process). His defenders assume I'm out to "DESTROY" this man -- when it's quite the contrary. Hear me out and all will become clear.
Everyone is miserably failing to make a dent because they’re fighting the impenetrable forces of self-interest. What if there were a way to use self-interest to serve the truth? The only way to see that is to understand the story and mentality of those involved — and that takes work. A bit about work (from my site):
*************************
Work is a Journey on Which You Welcome Challenge. Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem. Work does not defend before you consider. Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.
Work comes with the willingness to be wrong. Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
You’ll find that work is far more fruitful and fulfilling than ease. Work rises & falls, as this is the prism through which we work (insert image of hierarchy of argument): How we weigh what we see and measure our response. We’ll fall short from time to time — but those willing to work will keep each other in check. Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
*************************
“One voice began to echo through the night. One voice raised in song. The song was terribly out of tune — but sung with great enthusiasm. One voice became two — and two became three.” — Admiral McRaven
And lo and behold, my site is called One Voice Became Two: A Portal of Possibility from a Concerned Citizen: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/
If you don’t want to be that voice — please point me in the direction of someone who will.
Thanks again for your time,
Rick
She is wonderful.
Mr. Davis is rude. Think of the character Will Hunting confronts in the bar with a history lesson. At least Hunting gave some knowledge of the subject. Davis is proving the point--why go to school? We are in class right now. The question is: "If we speak out about injustice, are we like the Leftist social justice fanatics?" Are we the same? No! Because we have different political goals. That answers the lovely, talented precious girl named Katherine's query. Who I love.