You young people out there may be puzzled why oldsters pass opinions early and often on any subject that comes up.  I know I was, and didn’t feel comfortable chiming in myself until relatively late.

Partially, it was because I couldn’t get a word in edgewise around family and friends.  More importantly, I was under the impression you ought to be awful sure of your facts before you uttered some pronouncement.  And, the more you know about anything, the more you know how much you don’t know.

Can this lead to a Hamlet syndrome of never doin’ nothin’?  Certainly.  Seems to me that’s far better, though, than the current trend, which is the childhood game of Gossip run amok.

Here’s an exercise for you:  survey several shows on several channels over a few days as a new “story” breaks.  (To make it less painful, you can substitute sports for news–the same syndrome applies.)   You’ll notice groupthink set in as one show after another starts repeating the same speculation, and using the same phrases.  You’ll watch “conventional wisdom” shift from one extreme to another, and probably back again.  Months later, an aside will reveal the truth was something  never mentioned.

I’d blame Big Media, but there would be no supply if there was no demand.  The buck stops with each of us; and the Gossip chain does too.

Not only is elementary propaganda as effective as ever on our population, we’re backsliding on our collective ability to weigh the relative merits of information.  Gossip, like other pathogens, thrives on human populations.  We all remember from elementary school how messages get twisted in a round of Gossip, the game; we’d do well to be a bit skeptical of everything we hear.

Science and philosophy use the term “first principles” to fundamental assumptions that can’t be derived from others.  Still, they’re assumptions–and can be proven incorrect or incomplete over time.  Researchers weigh information by its “source” level; primary sources are far more valuable than secondary ones, secondary sources are always verified multiple times, and even then are second-class.  Sourcing is an inexact science, to be sure, but useful as a primary filter for any communications we receive.

Journalism pays attention to sourcing in theory, but is often (usually, historically speaking?) corrupted by corporate or other vested interests.  If one is actively using electronic media these days, you’re usually in the realm of tertiary sources; as the name implies, the equivalent of gossip in the amount of influence one should give it. Perhaps it has developed innocently enough, given the quest to fill 24 hours a day on so many channels; after all, how much is there to say that’s truly news?  A survey of multiple channels over a couple of days reveals the Gossip game at play; people repeating each other’s “happy talk” until they all come to the same “conventional wisdom.”

It’s up to you, the consumers of information, to demand better quality of your suppliers.  Challenging as many of your own assumptions as possible–let alone information items heard–is hard, requires diligence, and asking “how do you know that?” repeatedly may be downright dangerous around some people, but it’s got to be done.  Anything that’s real will bear the scrutiny.

Leaving aside the braying nabobs that pollute the media, I have no doubt these individuals are sincere in their beliefs, and the factors they mention would lead one to the conclusions they’ve drawn–IF the picture is complete.  Like the old showbiz saying, “if you buy the premise, you’ll buy the bit.”

Despite our body of collective knowledge, it seems to be easier than ever for the loud and obnoxious to sway masses of people with elementary propaganda techniques.  Sides dig in ever deeper, as they reinforce each other and never allow themselves opportunities to encounter alternate experiences.  Most of us are aware of the selective facts involved in the sales process (where ethics are as bad as ever); I’m not sure we recognize that similar tactics are being used on us in many other areas.  If we can’t even agree on what “rational” is, we’re little more than inarticulate beasts, with violence the only conflict resolver.

All the hubbub about assertiveness the last 40 years has done us a disservice, one of which is suppressing self-doubt to a fault.  Seems to me an awfully weak belief system that can’t handle frequent re-examination; after all, if it’s true, no amount of contact with the contrary will invalidate it.  If (and when) new evidence emerges to challenge one’s world view, one would be a coward not to work on accommodating it. This is not easy, however, and takes a type of strength not valued by many people.

If we can at least agree that the human brain is a marvel–perhaps the greatest in what we currently know of the universe–we owe it to the creative force responsible for it to push it to ever greater heights.

Leaving aside the Golden Rule, in our “outta my way, I’m getting mine” weekday lives we seem to be ever quicker at categorizing and dismissing others we don’t instantly understand.  It certainly is harder on a body trying not to jump to conclusions.

It’s too easy to fall into the sort of mental dyspepsia so widespread on (hate-) talk radio and TV:  spit out an opinion first, think later.  Forget walking a mile in someone’s shoes, most of us haven’t tried another style of footwear in years.

By “compassion,” we’re really talking about understanding:  why do others do as they do, and is there anything about them we can incorporate to better our lives.  Show the simple respect of first assuming they have a reason for how they are; when you truly have evidence to make a judgment, then by all means (just remember your house is closer to glass than you think).

The dirty little secret here–it takes real strength.  If you’re truly secure in what you believe, then how can you be hurt by being open to another of God’s creatures?  Jesus was always hanging out with the “great unwashed,” not being a yes-man to the hoi polloi.  (Just between you and me–real people are far more interesting, anyway.)

People with damage to the prefrontal cortex cannot understand sarcasm.

Aha!  50% of the people I’ve ever talked to have brain damage!  They’re “humor-blind”!

Evidence seems overwhelming that there are different basic brain types.  Many of us live in a world of black and white and two dimensions.  Others see multiple dimensions, multiple shades of gray.  These worlds intersect in precious few areas, and only hard work on both sides can keep the inter-dimensional rift open.

Some seem born to be decisive, take-charge leaders; others, who perceive the subtleties that may need to mollify such decisiveness, are important too.

Until we accept inherent differences–that no amount of argument, bribery, or physical violence will alter–we’re doomed to the sorts of conflicts that have plagued homo sapiens since day one.  That’s not to say we all can’t try harder to work on stuff we don’t “get”–a mind is a terrible thing to waste, after all, and it’s just sitting there (getting into trouble, left to its own devices).

It’s too late for “affirmative action.”  The term has been drug through the mud, rode hard, and put away wet so long that hardly anyone can remember the initial impetus and good intentions of (let alone actual progress made by) the concept.

So now it seems most people sneer at “political correctness,” as well.  What is there not to like about the idea of treating people nicely?  What’s wrong with applying the Golden Rule?  Is it just too much to ask to give up some crass humor at others’ expense, or purge a few words from our water-cooler speech?

The impetus behind the concept seems to lie in correcting some lazy habits in society, which have perpetuated for generations just because the some couldn’t handle the “other-ness” of smaller segments of that society.  The term itself probably was invented by a sneer-er, but there’s so much mis-information out on the internet by rabid fringers it’s hard to tell.

The struggle is like so many others America has faced.  Smoking is perhaps the most recent dramatic example of societal change.  Today, the vast majority of us think it’s a bad thing, and understand certain addictive personalities haven’t yet quit.  For generations, though, the feeling was militantly opposite, and no one could have envisioned the completeness of the turnaround.  Early warners were villified, slandered, and more.  Still, the facts and information trickled out, like water eroding a mountain.

Maybe the resentment builds from the idea of good intentions being reinforced by the legal system.  Many see this as top-down, imposed morality; agreed, not the optimal way to achieve the goal.  On the other hand–it took hundreds of years, and a war, to get rid of slavery, and another hundred years to overcome detestable obstruction to make something even approaching equal opportunity available to all our citizens.  We wouldn’t need laws if all of us “got” the same concepts.

Of course, much of the “PC” noise has originated in academia.  For all the conspiracy nuts who rail at the “liberalism” therein, here’s a radical thought:  just because people who know a lot tend to hold a certain view, it may not be that they’re biased–it could just be they’re correct.  There are wackos of every stripe with tenure, and, while teachers can have a charismatic effect of a handful of their students, it does no harm to be open to the world; otherwise, you just have the flip side of all those doctrinaire Islamic schools you’re complaining about.

In spite of ourselves, those you might consider “scolds” have slowly had some impact.  The fact enough progress was made that a backlash developed must mean we’re on the right track.   Yes, the application of schoolmarm-ish tactics by some is heavy-handed and counter-productive.  But again, the greater good–can’t we agree on the goal, and discuss the tactics?

At one time, we just assumed we would fix anything that went wrong with our property–in or out of the house–ourselves.  We would no more think of hiring people for repairs than flying to the moon.

This hasn’t been a majority view for decades, but we still know people who live it.  Perhaps a holdover from pioneer days, it’s still held onto by those without much disposable income, farmers, and stubbornly self-reliant contrarians.

Of course, the attitude can be taken to extremes, a facet of machismo run amok–or sheer stubbornness.

Its demise can be traced to things like the built-in obsolescence theory (where fewer and fewer things can be repaired, let alone by a normal person–let’s hear it for that amoral-at-best entity which is the corporation).   Then there’s the rise of the leisure class; so many of us now have enough income that we hire out for everything–including the install of a “new one” at the first sign of trouble.

I’ve inherited the ol’ self-reliance gene somehow; our family just always operated that way, and I can’t help but feel a bit of a failure if I can’t solve a household problem. I experienced the tail-end of an era where many things could be kept going with baling wire and duct tape.  But then I got into computers, and I’ve seen the circuit board (for practical purposes, unrepairable) has made the repairman an all but forgotten profession.

The universe I can reasonably operate on shrinks every year.  Car repairs have gone the way of the dodo; just as I was gaining some skill, that industry’s made it impossible (and too expensive to make mistakes).  Still, there’s electrical, plumbing, drywall, painting, landscaping….  Of course, you have to weigh each project versus the cost if you screw up.  And, being self-employed by day, I know first-hand how dicey it is should you need to test your healthcare coverage (let’s just say the odds aren’t in your favor, and the hassle is worse than the injury).

Still, I persevere with DIY.  It’s a way of life, for me.  I’ve tried to analyze why:  certainly early family life was an influence, then reinforced by periodic “bust” cycles–not many “booms,” but plenty of busts.

Fundamentally, though, I guess it’s part of my endless quest to know how stuff works.  The applied side of the search for the meaning of life, you might say.  I’m always on prowl for new skills, finding out what everyone else’s job is.

And–hey; it’s fun to find excuses to buy more tools.

This version of the American Dream, as I understand it, is that if we just turn loose the benevolent dictators of business, they will generate jobs and opportunities aplenty to make us all rich.  Unfortunately, time and again the dream proves to be  something like another opiate for the masses; only a few benefit, for a wide variety of reasons.  We can rarely have a reasonable discussion on the subject, however–true believers never believe they’re unfettered enough, and have an ugly habit of blaming all sorts of things when the utopia never arrives.

Is this world view any less naive than, say, the stereotypical (and largely mythical) ideals they attribute to the “hippies” of the ’60s?  They believe so, confident they’re the worldly voices of reason.  Where more traditional Utopian “wackos” dream of a future, this sort is always harkening back to a past, a rose-colored sense of good old days.  As near as I can pin it down, these periods were when robber barons strode the earth, and the other 99% of us fought for their scraps.  That is, the vision seems no more realistic.

Coincidentally, this crowd talks of religion a lot, and tends to regard Darwin as something stuck to the bottom of one’s shoe.  Yet they think society should be organized around The Market, and really believe in social Darwinism.  All of life is marketing, and you namby-pambys should be hustling sales 24/7.

Since this world view centers around competition, I’m surprised it seems to forget how humans react to this activity.  A few may remember and implement their Sunday School lessons; others will throw tantrums, many more will do anything to “win.”  Ethics tend to become situational, an “all’s fair…” sort of thing.  Then there’s always the temptation (usually taken) to “game the system”:  see myriad high finance scandals, Savings & Loan debacles of the ’80s, current mortgage and investment bank fiascoes, etc.

I’d like to think I’m a reasonable fella, and I’m just trying to figure this all out.  I believe in capitalism, albeit like Churchill believed in democracy–it seems to be the best we can do, but it can always be better.   I don’t mind trying my hand at the private sector game, I just want fair rules evenly enforced.  I don’t play board games with hotheads who pull fast ones, and I resent CEOs who are rewarded for the same thing.

Yes, Virginia, there is a role for government; there’s just no way of avoiding institutional referees to keep the system honest.   The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth; like an insistent toddler, business rushes out the door, insisting “I can do it myself.”  Soon enough, they’re forced back to the comforting arms of government when they’ve proven they can’t quite trust the other children to play nicely.  The enabling regulators, on the other hand, can easily be persuaded to forget we just went through this and relax their rules.  With business safely reined in, sometimes they can’t help but over-regulate; not as often as folks claim, but ossified institutions are no good either.

I’ve run a small business for years, and I’m alternately amused and exasperated at the cycles (”fool me once…”).

In an attempt to get some of that “easy money” people keep going on about, I looked at one of many new trading markets out there:  Forex (a way to play the value of one foreign currency off another).  I’m amazed at the number and size of such things, where tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people are betting with computers.  And it’s truly the Wild West in some of these–they’re so new there’s virtually no oversight, and crooks and idiots abound.

The point is, fairly quickly on I discovered a vital fact:  as with most markets, it made no sense.  Developments that should objectively provide impetus for a move one way could easily result in just the opposite.  I was discouraged that no matter how much I “knew,” this game was probably always going to evade me.

A market is individuals, making decisions based on many things–but detached reason is not actually chief among them.  Each attempts to anticipate the others, in a compounding wave of behavior that can make lemmings look reasonable.   See “chaos theory,” etc.  My, humans can invent endless ways to play with numbers.

In such a milieu, a few prosper, many break even, more yet lose their shirt.  Of those that “win,” a tide eventually comes along they don’t handle, and they too go under.  If you’re fortunate enough to win for awhile–congrats, enjoy it while it lasts.   To ascribe more to it than that–as some do, fashioning political movements or quasi-religions–is surely making your silk purse from a sow’s ear.

More than ever, any inference that the emperor has no clothes seems to incite the wrath of the rabble, so I choose my words carefully. The great thing about the “democratization” of communication–which the internet has expanded exponentially–is that anyone can say anything. The downside–anyone can say anything.

Most blogs are no more than a personal diary. Throughout history, the odd diary has been an influential publication–but I challenge you to name more than a handful. Thus, the sudden sprouting of millions of diaries worldwide seems like the worst of vanity press; if a blog appears in a forest, does anyone notice?

Well, we’ll see if this media lasts. I’m aiming for more of a series of mini-essays, so here goes nothing….

– Dan Langhoff