Poor Reading Comprehension

My Problem with Engineers, Visualized

According to my degree, I am an Engineer.

That being said, I can’t stand being around (many) engineers. I think this post is a great visual as to why: Engineers are constantly self-promoting how smart they are, and rarely acknowledge the brilliance of others outside their field. 

Take a look at this dumbass “joke-as-parable”, and tell me that you could not make a really good case for why any of the other student stereotypes listed couldn’t have come up with the same answer. And even if we take it as truth that Isaac Newton was the origin of the question, let’s completely ignore the fact that, amongst a variety of occupations, Newton was a scientist. Dipshits. 

Now go one further and take a look out on the Internet to see the variations of this. Go ahead. I’ll wait……. 

Back? See what mean? The variations on this dealt with nationality - not occupation. And that’s what I’m saying: Engineers have their own nationalistic identity that (like most nationalism) allows them to artificially inflate their own sense of purpose and ability far far far beyond their actual limitations. Worse yet, it becomes such a part of their identity, that for many Engineers most of their time is spent on sophistry and cultural propaganda to help keep the myth alive. 

I am lucky to be surrounded by scientists, mathematicians, lawyers, artists, and stay-at-home mothers (among others) who have far more brilliance in their pinky fingers than I will ever have in my entire life. It’s a real shame that most Engineers will never experience that. They will never experience that because their measure of brilliance is based on the most unreliable measuring device possible — their own egos. 

Earn it, Engineers. Quit talking about it and just fucking earn it.

The Elected Representative Handbook

Dear Elected Representative, 

Welcome to the Handbook on Your Role in our Government. 

You see, when you managed to get elected, you proved to us only one thing. And that one thing is that you were able to garner more votes than the other guy. Here are the things you probably did NOT do. 

1. Get the majority of registered voters in your area to vote for you. Because undoubtedly, not everyone voted. In fact, even in the most highly contested elections, the registered voter turnout usually winds up being around 65% at most. 
2. Did not get overwhelming support from all the people that DID vote for you. You have to account for the fact that there is probably a good percentage of people who simply voted against the other guy. And at least another sizable portion of people who are only voting because they feel it is their civic duty, whether they have a strong opinion about their vote or not.

So hopefully that might help to curb any megalomania that you might feel about what it is you do. Sorry to be a downer, but this brings me to my next point: 

You’ve been elected. What should you be doing?

This gets tricky, because you might say “Make sure I do a good job so I get elected again!” This is the wrong attitude. You see, many of your fellow Elected Representatives have tried many different tactics to make sure they keep getting elected. Unfortunately, many of these tactics are in direct or indirect conflict with what they SHOULD be doing — representing. 

“Representing? I know what that is!”

No you don’t.

Don’t get me wrong. This is tougher than it sounds. Because there are a lot of bad examples out there as to what a “representative” is. And since the measure of a good representative usually means that they keep getting elected, we have a lot of bad juju to overcome. Here are some of your REAL duties.

Helping the people in your district

I have bad news for you. This is the EASY part. This is super damned easy. Any moron can do this. Because a lot of Representatives will think that they are doing a good job simply because they made a decision in favor of their constituents. This is wrong. A monkey can make a decision. And grand-standing your position as “The Decider” as if you’re some kind of comic-book hero who makes Solomonic judgements all over the dark recesses of the city doesn’t help your case either. All it does is make yourself sound like a moron. You might as well call yourself “The Air-Breather” or “The Guy Who Wears a Shirt Most of the Time”.

And yes, we all know you have to think about what’s best for the people of your district. But you can’t just be the greedy asshole who demands Hurricane funds for your district in Nebraska just because “those other guys in New Orleans got them”. There’s more to it than that. Which means you’re gonna have to come to the hard realization that we all depend on each other and have to work together for a “common good” — not just for the people who vote for you.

Knowing What You’re Doing

Yes, there are people out there - advisers and such - whom you will rely on for intelligent input on the issues. But if all you’re doing is simply making decisions based on what they’ve told you, then you might as call in the Replacement Chimp to take over now.

You see, approaching this with wisdom - real wisdom - is what tempers all those lovely “facts” that your advisers have carefully parsed for you. This helps you to gain perspective. And perspective is your best defense against being a dumb-ass.

On the other hand, if you ARE a dumb-ass, try not to touch anything and just hope you can quietly serve out your term without anyone noticing. 

Breaking Bad News

Well you’re elected now so maybe you think that the people you serve are smart. This is incorrect. A person is smart. A big group of people is a busy airport terminal of seething knuckle-draggers who are ready to burn the place down at a moment’s notice. Congratulations! Those are your constituents!

So thinking that you serve as a tool of the people’s opinion is the wrong way to go about this. If your constituents want lower taxes, well then by God let’s “fight” for lower taxes, right? Wrong. Everyone’s reptilian brain wants lower taxes. But unfortunately sometimes you have to look at the numbers and figure out how the hell you’re going to break it to the people who elect you that we all have to take a bite out of this shit sandwich. It’s gonna suck. 

Sticking up for the little guy

Admittedly, this whole “minority rights”  thing is a real obstacle toward a streamlined government. But unfortunately that “streamlined government” is usually a dictatorship. So that’s a no go. At least you should make sure that that’s a no go. Please.

So when your constituents demand that you round up all the gays, or muslims, or gay muslims in the area and put them in a concentration camp, you’re supposed to say “NO”.

Not a little “no”. A BIG “NO”. This might sound counter to being a “representative of the people” but in the original, larger sense of the word, it is one of the few times when you will actually be fitting the definition of the word. Enjoy it while you can.

Remember: “Screw ‘em, they don’t vote / didn’t vote for me” is the surest path to NOT being a “representative of the people”. Again, counter-intuitive, I know, but you’ll feel better about yourself if you DON’T make that re-election ad that foments hatred against Asians. 

Warning: this might cost you your re-election.  Hope you are good with words.

Being Good with Words

This is gonna help you a lot as a politician. In fact, if you aren’t good with words, then you’re undoubtedly gonna have to pull some shady or questionable stuff to keep yourself elected - like start a war, or stir up blame for a minority group for all your problems. Hopefully you won’t do either of those things. 

Oh don’t get me wrong. Those things are tempting because they are SUPER easy. I know you WANT to do them. Saying it’s all “those other guys” fault is some easy, easy outrage-peddling. And if 24-hour cable news has taught us anything, peddling outrage is a thriving multi-billion dollar industry. 

But unfortunately, if you’re gonna do it right, then you’re gonna have to do it the hard way. Which means taking the high road even when people are pulling the same fear-mongering and outrage-peddling we talked about. And that’s where things are really gonna suck. Especially when you watch those same people win your spot using those asinine tactics.

But if you CAN do it right, then you’re gonna spend a lot of your time appealing to the smart part of people’s brains and hoping that something will stick. I’m going to warn you: this might not work. But if it does work, even a little bit, then you will have caused people to exercise a part of their brains they weren’t used to. And you can let that be some sort of consolation prize as you make your concession speech next term.

Doing what you can. While you can. 

We’re kinda dumb as a whole. What’s worse is that we all think we’re smart. Which just makes it harder to persuade us on anything. Because that guy in the op-ed piece of the newspaper made us think that we are actually informed.  Don’t be fooled. We are not.  

What’s worse, there’s a whole bunch of us who are just busy. So essentially your position exists because we’re busy and/or dumb. That’s the whole gist of it.  

So while we’re busy paying bills and going to work and going to school plays and getting the car repaired and getting groceries and looking for jobs and whatnot .. we will need you to be looking over awful lobbyist-leveraged legislation. And I mean a LOT of it. Seriously, the state that I live in had over 1600 pieces of legislation that had to be looked over last session. 1600! That’s a hot mess. But that’s part of your civic duty. It’s what you signed up for - making sure the government serves it’s people in the best way it possibly can, regardless of whether or not it gets you elected again. 

The biggest disservice you can do is to think of this as your career. You’re a caretaker, sitting in a position that quite honestly might not be yours next term. I know that’s tough to hear. But once you start looking at this as “YOUR job”, you will be susceptible to making the same poor decisions that anyone who wants to keep their job might make: gaming the system, colluding with co-workers, artificially inflating your own value to your boss. It’s sad. Soul-suckingly sad. So don’t do it. This isn’t “your job”. This is a tour of civic duty. Always remember that. 

Good luck!

I am asking you to help kill the straw man

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. ~ Walden

Yes, that quote is popular right now. But I hope that does not mitigate it’s efficacy in any way. We may all have an idea of what our various “roots” of evil are. And choosing one myself nearly exceeds my own levels of arrogance. Nearly. :)

Additionally, the sheer complexity of many of these “roots” usually dooms the solution(s) to be complex as well. And in many cases, the complex solutions are neither easily defined nor pragmatic.   

Nevertheless, here is my pragmatic solution for striking at, in my opinion, one of the biggest and least recognized “roots”.

Always accurately depict the other side’s position.

WHY THIS IS A “ROOT”

First, my definition of a “Straw Man”. 

A straw man is a mischaracterization of a position followed by argument against that mischaracterization (as opposed to argument against the actual position). 

This is NOT about being civil. This is not about being dispassionate and clinical. This is about not skipping the very first step of an argument whereby it is agreed upon that both parties understand the other party’s point. This does not mean agreement on the topic. It simply means that both sides can state the other side’s point to a reasonable level of satisfaction of the other party. 

After all, if you can’t get that far, then any argument past that point is likely off topic. But unfortunately, this requires a concerted effort of both parties to get through the slog of actually being able to re-state the other side’s point. And most people really want to simply jump right in to their opinion.

So when your friend mischaracterizes your point of wanting to treat illegal aliens in a humane manner as “You just want anarchy”, you spend the rest of the argument re-stating repeatedly your original point. Which of course meets the same mischaracterization over and over again. Now you are no longer talking about illegal immigration, but instead getting into an extremely heated and asinine argument over what your position even IS. And there is no conclusion or progression of the discussion.

Which means there was no chance for “Fostered Introspection”.

FOSTERED INTROSPECTION

Fostered Introspection is the process by which the CHANCE of keeping a truthful and honest approach on a topic is nurtured.

 Here’s what this does NOT necessarily mean:

• Making a cunning argument that makes someone “think”. 
• Presenting overwhelming evidence against another’s position.

Most of the time, the progression of any conversation winds up being about respect. Our “positions” are so easily tied to our “values”  which are so easily tied to our identity. So an attack on one is an attack on all. 

Additionally, I don’t believe persuasion on a contentious topic is usually achieved in minutes or hours, but rather in years. And at that, in 30 second intervals. So at the point that you see your opponent “dig in”, you have already failed in fostering introspection, as they are more likely to think about ways to counter your argument rather than arguing against your point.  

In truth, what I am saying is that it’s probably more often than not a better long-term plan to shut up and be brief rather than to pursue. And I am more guilty than nearly anyone I know of disobeying this guideline.

WHAT A WORLD WITHOUT A STRAW MAN DOES

When you have an argument without a straw man, you allow the conversation to get much further than it ever would without one. As a result, neither side has the luxury of being lazy with their thinking. They MUST address the actual issues as opposed to the distorted and easily defeatable argument that you’ve placed in their mouth. And in doing so we allow for Fostered Introspection later. Progress happens.

STRAW MEN AND DEEP THINKING

Too often our egos allow us to believe that the world is incapable of thinking deeply. I don’t believe that to be true. In fact I think quite the contrary. 

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - Nikola Tesla

Tesla might have just been talking about scientists, but I believe this applies to most people. We all think deeply, but the paths we take can so easily be diverted by our ego, regardless of our intellect or education.

We are all stupid in some way, shape, or form. But not all of us have some semblance of brilliance.

Most stupidity is not caused by a lack of intellect, but rather, an abundance of motive.

We all have the ability to be stupid. All we gotta do is want it bad enough. And so when we live in a world where the abundance of information we have can so easily be seasoned to our taste, it easily allows us to cloud our own deep thinking on an issue. 

FINALLY, A PRAGMATIC BENCHMARK TO A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION

Always accurately depict the other side’s position. is a great idea. But we still have the subjective nature of the word “accurately”. In order to take up some slack and remove all the nasty wiggle-room there is in that word, I propose the simple benchmark of simply repeating back what your opponent has stated before you argue against it. If you can accurately represent their point of view to their satisfaction, then you have done your root-striking. 

I can’t imagine where we would be right now if this part of our humanity could be bleached out to negligible levels. But at a fundamental and many times obfuscated level, I honestly believe it to be one of the greatest impedances to nearly everything we do.

 Thanks for reading this. 

The Definition of Marriage

Depending on the audience, many opponents of gay marriage (like Governor Santorum) will take the more passive approach of relying on “the definition of marriage” as their big go-to argument.

“Sorry guys, but here’s the definition and it says it’s between a man and a woman.. soooo….. “. etc etc.

Santorum even went so far as to pose the question, “if two men can get married, why not 3 men?”. And thus further framing the argument as one where the “definition” is the crucible of the issue. 

Like most politicians, Santorum simply hasn’t thought things through. And so he is relegated to follow the same sad argument of hiding behind the status quo and the definition of things instead of actually representing real people.

Because from the conservative’s point of view, those sneaky gays are exposing the loop-hole that nobody specifically stated that marriage was between one man and one woman. Damn gays!

Unfortunately so many pro-gay marriage folks take the bait. And so the bulk of the argument becomes more about “what’s the definition of?” and less about “is this conducive to a just and equitable society?”. 

In answer to Santorum’s question, “why not 3 men?” during his appearance at a college, he received boos, pat ridicule and people who fell for the trap that that was what the argument should be about. No doubt making Rick Santorum feel like he had bested the pro-gay marriage movement with his impeccable logic.

What didn’t arise was someone who said “Polygamy is a separate issue. The important thing is not whether it should or should not be allowed, but that when polygamy IS discussed, the ruling will be applied to heterosexuals AND homosexuals EQUALLY.”

Equal. Treatment.

So I’m asking you to not let the “definition” argument be moved to the venue of the English Dictionary, or the Bible, or any other reference that makes the argument about semantics over justice. Let them have their “definition of marriage”. I am wholly FOR labeling the official union of two gay consenting adults a “civil union” or a “romantic partnership” or a “wajamazoodle” — whatever. As long as it talks, walks and acts like marriage with all the rights and privileges of marriage, then by all means let’s not let that hopeless argument be the hold-up to equal treatment.

Why shouldn’t we care? Because in the future when gay people marry — er, I’m sorry I mean — are bound by a “Civil Union”, they’re going to tell their friends and family “we got married”, and their will be no confusion as to what those words mean, regardless of the listener’s viewpoint.

As with all ubiquitous definitions in the english language, that stupid “definition” of “marriage” will change simply through the common use of the people — even the hold-outs.

Because that’s how language works. 

It’s a scale, not a line.

Racist, misogynist, anti-semite, homophobe, liberal, conservative etc etc.. 

All of these terms have one very sad thing in common. They all assume a line - a border by which we can judge someone as this or that.  We define these terms with the same concrete sensibility as one would if they were to say someone was pregnant or not pregnant. But clearly that’s not the case. 

For the purposes of demonstration I’ll just use the term racist. 

I am a racist. Of course I am. I am a racist - not because of any particular beliefs I have - but because the concept of racism is ubiquitous while the term itself is concrete in our minds.

The term is ‘set’ in each individuals’ mind. So people have this mental construct as to what the difference between racist and not-racist is. And as long as they can approach this magic “line” in their minds without stepping over it, they’re not racist. And in truth, that is a hindrance to racial equality. It has made things harder, not easier. 

So, back to me being a racist. 

I’ve accepted that there are things that I do that have some degree of racism in them. Or misogyny, or conservativeness, or liberalness, or what-have-you. So my concern is now no longer whether or not I am a racist - we know I am.  My concern is now are the racist things I do having a negative impact on the world I wish to live in. 

It’s a much more personal approach. But one that I think will have a greater impact in the long run. So maybe consider this before you forward that off-color joke to me in an email. :)

Teacher, Instructor, Preacher, Pundit

I saw a post the other day wherein the poster made a long self-congratulatory screed about how they were infiltrating crowds of people and “teaching” them about racial inequity. And while I had no problem with the overall sentiment of the poster’s message, their cavalier use of the word “teaching” is what really bothered me.

Here’s why:

People have told me all my life that they think I might make a good teacher. And I thought so too. But in actually attempting it, I realize there is so much more to real “teaching” than I had ever accounted for. And as a result, I have a far greater respect for the word than I did before.

Fine. So not everyone is a “teacher”. Then what does that make everyone else?

When it comes to disseminating our ideas to people, I tend to distribute my actions into the following four categories: Teacher, Instructor, Preacher, and Pundit. 

Teacher
A Teacher is someone who can disseminate an idea or construct  to a student in a way that allows the student to achieve a goal in a way that makes sense to the student. 

Instructor
An Instructor is someone who can disseminate an idea or construct  to a student in a way that makes sense to the Instructor. And hopefully to the student as well.

Preacher 
A Preacher is attempting to persuade you to come around to their religion or ideology. The ideology is a higher construct that even the Preacher himself/herself is bound to and measured by.

Pundit
Same as a Preacher with one exception: While a Preacher preaches and sacrifices for an ideology, a Pundit opines and is only bound to their own opinion. So there is no real sacrifice by the Pundit. 

And me? Well, I’m not really a Teacher. Nor am I an Instructor. Most of the time, I am a Preacher and  the rest of the time I’m usually a Pundit. 

And this little bit of blogging here? You guessed it: Punditry. So screw you if you disagree.  :)

The Paradox of Religious Optimism

I think much of the garden-variety, everyday monotheist’s short answer for God’s existence is tightly coupled to the concept that all the beautiful parts of the world are what proves that there is a God and that He loves us.

On the surface that might seem like an obvious optimism. However, within that construct exists the notion that we humans are sinful awful creatures who, without God’s guidance, would be wallowing in our own decrepitude. Furthermore, all of Nature’s beauty is really a product of a divine intellect and could not POSSIBLY be created from a random spark — no matter how vastly complex or massive the system was.

And from that — from THAT, I conclude that I am the optimist. ME. Because I believe that people have the ability to do good in the world all without a single iota of God’s help.   

Bipolar bad movie experience

This weekend I saw 2012 with my Dad. I love my dad. And that’s why I went to see 2012 with him. It makes me wonder if at some point in your old age, you just stop giving a shit about meaning anymore and just want to see some stuff get blowed up. Anyway, the movie was predictably bad. Half a star rating. The whole movie was special effects (good) and tearful goodbyes (bad). Hack screen-writers who have discovered the formula that will get millions of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers to come watch the movie. I honestly couldn’t have cared less about any of the characters. Just awful awful stuff really.  My father called me jaded. Yes, in regards to this massive piece of shit with plot-holes, bad acting, stale dialogue, and unbelievable stupidity by the characters, YES, I am jaded.

That’s me being an intellectual snob(?)

And then I saw the new Coen brothers movie, A Serious Man. 2 stars (out of 5). The whole movie was a massive shaggy dog. Purposefully. That seemed to be the whole premise of the movie.  And while I respect the mastery of the Coen brothers, this movie seemed like more of a test in what they could get away with and still have critics rave. And why wouldn’t they? Check out the review from Roger Ebert. What an asshole. In fact if you check out any reviews from any critic, they seem like they all want to like the Coen brothers movie, but since it leaves so many unanswered questions, it seems dangerous to point that out as a flaw. Lest ye be banished as a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger. (Seems like some asshole used that exact phrasing earlier. Who was that?)

That’s me being a phillistine(?)

Apparently I’m somewhere in between.

Talkin’ to Nobody

I’m back blogging it looks like. This here blog is for anyone that’s listening. I promise to you, my invisible, non-existent audience that I will endeavor with all my might to make sure that the blogs I give you exclude the most mundane details of my life. I also promise to try to give you something you will want to read.

But no promises..