Checking in With A Thought

It seems I'm pretty busy this week. I'm still working on finding work to support my work, so that's keeping things exciting. I'm also working on a newsletter article for this month, and making sure I don't miss any birthdays (apparently, I know a LOT of people who were born in July). I've also been working on follow-up for the last few Incoming Insights articles, which may still take a little while.

In the meantime, I want to make sure that I'm clear about the reason we are looking in to the nature of human cognition, the effects of suppression, and the impact these things have on education and development. Ultimately, it is about building relationships. Not just relationships between ourselves and the people we work with, but how they relate with each other and other (often more aggressive and powerful) cultures around them. It is about identifying what goes wrong in relationships, and how to change things to make it right. All too often, organization or individuals will attempt to intervene in what is clearly a bad situation, only to find that their intervention has had its own set of negative consequences. Sometimes, the overall situation will still be improved, but occasionally, the intervention sets off a series of cultural events that ultimately makes things worse. There has been a lot of work that has gone into understanding what has happened in these cases, and more work focused on how to prevent similar issues in the future. We are focused on the latter. IRI wants to help people understand themselves and the world they live in so that they can build relationships and initiate works that are appropriate to their context. Our goal is to bring clarity and self-development to all areas of life: personal, social, economic, spiritual, educational, and whatever else may be affected. Much of what we have seen tells us that most people want to do good and be good people, but they often have disconnects about what is really good for themselves, their communities, and their environments. Our goal is not to correct them, but to give them the tools to figure out for themselves how to deal with their relationships.

That's all for now.

Q A (Question Answered - there's only the one)

During my last splurge of Incoming Insight posts, someone sent me a question about the potential benefits of suppression. Discounting the (in my opinion short-sighted) view that there are several benefits for the oppressor, it does leave an interesting question about when and where enforcement of will is appropriate. Superficially, law enforcement "suppresses" criminals, by refusing to allow them to do bad things to other people (and occasionally themselves). Likewise, parents could be said to "suppress" children, by disallowing certain activities - or only permitting them under special circumstances or after certain criteria have been met.

I think, however, there are two distinctions between these examples and the example I gave of cultural suppression. The first is intent: the intent of the suppressor in my examples was to keep themselves in power and the suppressed population...well, suppressed. In the case of my illustration, the intent was the acquisition and maintenance of power--at the expense of the suppressed culture. In the examples above, you have two very different motivations, namely protection (in the case of law enforcement) and protection/education (in the case of parents). I think many cases of abuse of power by these groups is often identified, in no small part, by their intent. If the cop pulls you over because you were speeding, that's keeping people safe, and (while annoying) a general good. If the cop pulls you over to shake you down, however, that's utilizing power to promote the officer at your expense, and that is suppression. Thus, intent has a substantial role in identifying cases of systematic suppression and their possible impact.

Of course, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The fact that you want to protect/help people is only marginally useful as a defense if what you have actually been doing is inflicting various degrees of psychological/social/economic trauma on them. the second difference between suppression and these other examples is proper application of power. Namely, that those who hold power are diligent in analyzing the impact of their actions, and willing and able to change their approach in the event that the results do not match with their intent. (Someone is always going to hold power, by the way - we don't get to actually live in a "balanced" or power-neutral world.)

The area of intent is where you get your "moral monsters" - those who walk over other people or cultures to get what they want. They are the obvious examples of terrible things, and everyone can name at least one Terrible Person who has willfully harmed others to advance themselves. The area of application, however, is where I think the most harm actually gets done. We like to feel good about ourselves, and often make the mistake of believing that because we have good ideas or intentions, that we are helping others. As a friend of mine says, we front-load our help, looking at how our plans should benefit people, without taking a hard look at what those actions are really doing. One example I have heard personal testimony about are the education of Native American tribes. While, ostensibly, the goal was to help the tribes "get up to speed" with Western culture,* the actual effect of much of this education was to separate the tribal culture from their language and heritage, causing substantial fractures in their identity and sense of ability. The government may have thought it was doing good, but the actually effect was really quite terrible.

So to sum up, I do believe that controlling persons or groups is necessary for social order and development, but it has to be done very carefully. With this in mind, allow me to clarify my concept of cultural suppression. Cultural suppression is the control of one culture by another culture in such a way as to suppress the identity and ability of the controlled culture, resulting in fractured identity, loss of perceived ability and worth, and dependence on the suppressing culture. This does not necessarily overlap with other definitions of suppression (suppressing fire, suppression of crime, fire suppression, etc.). Yes, this is a complicated concept, but since when was life actually simple? As noted, our drive for simplistic explanations and actions are part of the reason we see so much damage in our global society today.

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 5: Recovery (?)

Previous Article - Stage 4: Rebellion

Stage 5:

Freedom!!! The Culture has achieved freedom from The Suppressor, and is now back to managing its own affairs. Now the recovery can begin...or can it? As you may have noticed, the illustration for Stage 4 and Stage 5 is identical. The problem with habits is that they are stubborn. They are born not of reason, but of action, and like it or not, the actions of The Culture for a long time now have been actions of suppression. Thus, the habits of The Culture, conscious or unconscious, physical of mental, are still habits of suppression. While The Culture is free, they remain suppressed. This creates an incredible tension in The Culture. The expectation is freedom, but it doesn't take long for The Culture to realize that suppression is still ongoing. Since The Culture still has habits of suppression, it still feels suppressed, which may feed the resentment for The Suppressor that is already (justifiably) feels. Thus, one of the most frequent outcomes of ending suppression is...more suppression, as The Culture proceeds to suppress The Suppressor, out of feelings of anger, resentment, vengeance, and the lingering sense of suppression felt by The Culture.

Note that The Culture feels suppressed because, in terms of habits (mental and perhaps physical) it still is suppressed. This does not mean The Suppressor is still suppressing The Culture - it may still be doing so (after all, The Suppressor will have gained habits of being a suppressor as The Culture gained habits of being suppressed), but that isn't required. The Suppressor may want The Culture to develop - but no matter what they do, The Suppressor and The Culture seem to quickly fall back into old patterns. Thus, the two groups find reconciliation and a true end to the cycle of suppression incredibly hard to find. The truth is, they are both trapped, and the chances of escape are minimal until the underlying habits of suppression (for both sides) are addressed. Only then can each side reestablish an identity free from suppression and begin to live at peace - both with each other, and with themselves.

This change, however, is not easy - habits are often hard to identify as such, especially mental habits, and even harder to change. In order for The Culture (and The Suppressor, for that matter) to truly find its way out of suppression, it must first regain its ability to think through and understand its situation (A). Unfortunately, at this point, The Culture's thinking has become strongly based on action (traditions, for example) and established relationships (BC), and comprehension (A) has nearly been lost (they are currently BC...a, as noted previously). To overcome the legacy of suppression, then, The Culture must recover its understanding (A), and apply that understanding to its situation in a way that allows old habits to be discovered and addressed, and new habits to be built not on suppression, but freedom and understanding, without resentment or old pain clouding their judgement.

This is how IRI attempts to help people - by providing that (A) that allows them to recover their identity and understanding, and create a new habit of life free from the old habits of suppression, fear, and pain. We do this because it is needed - the world cannot become a better place is people are stuck in destructive habits. We do it because we believe God wants people to become the best they can, and desires servants who understand what they are doing instead of following blindly. Most of all, though, we do it because it is the right thing to do.

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 4: Rebellion

Previous Article - Stage 3: The Culture of Dependence

Stage 4:

Well, it seems The Culture is finally fed up with being suppressed. Can't blame them - being suppressed is really bad for you (as is suppressing others, but that's a different discussion). Thus, The Culture rebels, driving The Suppressor out, and taking back their culture/city/homeland/etc. In most cases, remnants of The Suppressor are, themselves, suppressed (which is bad - more on that next time), and control of The Culture is rightly placed back in the hands of The Culture. Unfortunately, habits being what they are, The Culture has not escaped unscathed. With the exception of throwing off obedience, it still has all the habits that were introduced while under suppression, including the surrender of its identity. The Suppressor, however, is no longer there to provide the ceded identity and understanding, so The Culture now has no identity to speak of - it is adrift, and no longer understands its place in the world. In response, The Culture is likely to fall back to known traditions and relationships within the culture, even while its understanding continues to dwindle (BC...a).

Next Up - Stage 5: Recovery (?)

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 3: The Culture of Dependence

Previous Article - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Stage 3:

At this point, the suppression of The Culture is complete. Obedience to The Suppressor has become habit, and The Culture is now dependent on The Suppressor for its identity, purpose, and direction. This is true even if The Culture hates The Suppressor and everything The Suppressor is doing. Habits are not reasonable - they do not require justification, only repetition, to establish. The repeated pattern of (forced) obedience creates a tendency toward obedience, even while The Culture seethes with resentment over the treatment it is receiving. This is a nasty situation, and one that eventually will blow up for The Suppressor. In the meantime, however, The Culture has, intentionally or not, ceded its understanding and identity to The Suppressor, and is now running mostly on obedience, tradition, and relationships (BCa).

Next Up - Stage 4: Rebellion

Insight Into Suppression - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Previous Article: Insight Into Suppression

Stage 2:

Now the suppression of The Culture is truly underway. With local resistance and troublesome traditions (at least temporarily) eliminated, The Suppressor now controls the understanding and the actions of The Culture. At this point, the only internally initiated actions taken by The Culture are some of the surviving traditions (if The Suppressor didn't wipe out all of them), and the relationships within The Culture. At this point, The Culture is resigned to suppression - it may not be good, but it is just how life is. The Culture begins to lose its understanding of itself, as this is being overshadowed by The Suppressor's culture and understanding. Thus, The Culture's cognition slips from ABC to BaC, with the commands and requirements of The Suppressor coming first, and reason only being used to justify the commands. This stage is transitory, however, as acceptance quickly turns into habit.

Next Up: The Culture of Dependence

Insight Into Suppression: The TLDR Version

So my last post on suppression was a rather long story. While I enjoyed writing it, I wanted to make a more illustrated explanation of the impact of suppression, as we at IRI currently understand it. To make this a bit easier to digest, I am going to spread the illustrations out over the course of this week - one post a day, Monday-Friday. Since I also have a pre-suppression stage, today will be a double-long post.

Stage 0: Pre-Suppression

This is the culture before it is suppressed. In this case, we will assume the culture is a conceptually advanced, independent, self-directing culture. It's a healthy community that is growing and developing and perfectly capable of managing itself. It has a direct connection between what it understands about itself and it's activities and relationships. Good stuff.

Stage 1: Introduction of Suppression

Now we have a new player enter the picture. This group (which I will call The Suppressor from now on) takes over the general operation (including education) of the suppressed group (which I will call The Culture henceforward). The Culture still retains its old understanding of itself, but is now forced to comply with the wishes of The Suppressor. This means The Culture's identity will also be impacted, since part of that identity has changed from an independent culture to a subordinate one. The Suppressor may initiate additional changes to The Culture's identity, since The Suppressor is now in charge of The Culture's education to a large degree.

Next Up - Stage 2: Establishing a Culture of Suppression

Insight Into Identity, Agency, and The Impact of Suppression

In previous posts, I have discussed the difference between direct and indirect identity, the impact it has on our understanding, sense of agency, and associated responsibilities. To sum up: the more directly I understand myself (as opposed to understanding through outside sources), the greater my overall sense of agency, control, and associated responsibility. This is one reason why socially or economically struggling peoples tend to have lower levels of perceived agency and responsibility. What I want to look at today is how the process of suppression (in particular, cultural suppression) contributes to the dissolution of agency, direct identity, and sense of responsibility. At IRI, we have found that this is very widespread (going far beyond even the more obvious manifestations of cultural or personal suppression), and the harm it has caused cannot be understated.

So, let's take a look at an example culture to see how this process works. I will refer to these fictional people as "Targetians" - please note that as far as I know, the Targetians have no direct real-world analogue, though you may see some substantial similarities between them and various cultures you may have encountered. I want to illustrate this phenomenon without getting to personal for anyone who is from such a culture - it can be rough to relive if you have experienced it.

We'll start the Targetians off as a fairly stable, solid, creative culture. They have a strong direct identity, with a strong sense of self-understanding, agency, and responsibility. They have a stable civilization that is comfortably advanced and are generally satisfied with how things are progressing in their society. This is a best-case scenario, as most cultures have some general level of internal dissatisfaction, but this is a fictional example, and the Targetians will serve their purpose by being one of those annoyingly ideal civilizations.

Now the Targetians encounter another civilization we will call the "Largeese." This civilization is substantially larger than the Targetians, with superior economic and military might. They come into the Targetians lands and proceed to set up shop. This, the Largeese decide, requires the Targetians to surrender their territory, resources, and general autonomy to the Largeese. Being bigger, richer, and stronger, it isn't hard for the Largeese to take over. The Targetians are now a second-class people in their own homeland.

In this situation, the Targetians agency is, to a large degree, damaged by the Largeese. This loss of agency is at odds with the Targetians direct identity and it's strong expectations of agency. There are a number of responses from the local population. First, there are those who resist the loss of agency. These are the rebels - whether violent insurgents or non-violent protesters, they attempt to regain their agency from the Largeese. Second, there are the traumatized. These Targetians are unable to reconcile their expectations with the imposed loss of agency, and this tension manifests itself in mental instabilities of various kinds (depression, anxiety, delusion, etc.). The third group Gives in and accepts the Largeesian rule. Real life is much more complex, of course, and there is a lot of overlatp between these groups, but this will suffice for our illustration. The main point here is that, over time, this situation changes the Targetian society.

The first group, who rebel, ultimately end up getting knocked down. The Largeese will have nothing to do with such opposition, and simply squashed this group to the best of its ability. Thus, those who have held on to their identity most strongly get removed from the society. The group that experiences cognitive tension will receive help to work through their problems (it turns out the Largeese, while not interested in accommodating rebels, will help those with mental trauma), but since the Largeese control the therapy, this group will ultimately be "helped" by being encouraged to conform to their new social situation. The last group will get by fairly well, but their cognitive habits will change dramatically, and that's where I want to focus here.

Without the rebels, the two remaining groups must adjust their cognitive system to adapt to the change in agency afforded by the Largeese. In this new system, independent thinking and reasoning (A), which might lead back to a direct identity is strongly discouraged. It either creates more rebels, or mental trauma, and so is seen as negative - at first by the Largeese, but eventually it may be seen negatively by the Targetians as well, since such people would be, as a rule, a disruptive force in an otherwise "normal" society.  It isn't that the Targetians that remain LIKE their second-class status, in fact, many strongly resent it, but why dwell on things you can't change? Instead, the focus becomes daily survival and social obedience (i.e. "not rocking the boat"), which emphasizes the B aspect of cognition. In addition, social cohesion and interdependence will probably increase (C) since "the only ones we can count on are each other. Thus, the Targetians move from an ABC cognitive pattern with an associated direct identity, to a BCA cognitive pattern, where their identity comes from their status as a second class people, given to them by the Largeese (an indirect identity).

Now two important things have happened. First, the Targetians have lost their direct identity. Since the Largeese are now the source of their identity, the Targetians will tend to see the Largeese as the ones responsible for the Targetians lives. Thus, responsibility gets shifted tot he Largeese, and the Targetians lose their sense of agency and responsibility, as well as their identity. Second, since A has been deprioritized, the tool which the Targetians would use to rediscover their identity, agency, and responsibility has atrophied significantly.

This suppression by the Largeese, however, can only last for so long, and eventually (after several generations), the Targetians rise up and push the Largeese out of their homeland. Now the Targetians must start the process of rebuilding. Unfortunately, for generations, the critical, analytic, conceptual part of their thinking has been suppressed by both the Largeese, but also by the Targetians themselves. Thus, the toolset needed to recover the Targetians identity and agency is extremely rusty - and rusty tools often break. As a result, the Targetians find, to their dismay, that they are unable to recover their civilization even to the level of their ancestors, and they can't figure out why. After all, they have preserved all the cultural traditions (B) they could, and they understand that they should stick together (C), so why can't they pull things together? Are they really as dumb and ineffective as the Largeese claimed? Are they really failures?

Well, no. The problem is that the Targetians have lost the conceptual/analytical aspect of their thinking to a large enough degree that they don't realize any more what they have lost. Other, more conceptual, outsiders look at them and see a "primitive" or "traditional" people, and assume that because they have been this way for generations, it is simply how their culture works. Not wanting to interfere with the Targetians any more, the outsiders refrain from interacting with them too much. While noble, this means that the aspect of the Targetian culture that is lacking and needs to be restored (A) will be long in coming, since rebuilding an entire history of philosophy, reason, and analysis is much harder than it sounds. Learning programs, by and large, focus on facts and specific operational training (B), not restoring conceptual/analytic faculties (A). In fact, education programs that assume A, but don't focus on teaching it (like many western teaching programs) will probably not only fail, but only serve to reinforce the existing thinking pattern of BCA, since the program assumes A, but uses B to teach. This means that any cultural recovery for the Targetians will be a long, uphill struggle, especially if critical thinking and reasoning (A) is seen as a Largeese cultural trait - in that case, critical thinking may even be demonized, as it is seen as a cultural artifact of the enemy.

So yeah, this is a terrible situation. Cultural recovery can only occur through internal development, which can only occur through conceptual redevelopment (A), but the tool needed for such redevelopment has been lost and perhaps even demonized because of prior misuse by the suppressing culture. This is what IRI has been working to remedy. Through our programs, we seek to reintroduce A elements of thinking with a minimum of cultural baggage (there cannot be no baggage - it simply isn't possible to think or act without any reference to your native culture). We focus on developing conceptual/analytical tools, and encouraging nationals to engage with and develop their own direct identity. We have found that with a recovery of direct identity, there is a corresponding recovery of agency and responsibility. We do not need to initiate social programs in the places we work - the nationals do that, once they start to recover their identity and the A-aspect of their thinking.

Once the nationals take back the initiative in their development, then we can come in and help - if they need our help (often, they need less help than they previously thought they did - frequently, they don't need any help at all, other than to have a level playing field to develop on). My co-worker Al frequently tells people that "I work for the nationals" - which is, in the case of the work we are now doing in Mozambique, literally true. It is amazing and wonderful to behold - seeing people groups we were told were "lazy" or "ignorant" accomplishing projects and programs themselves that outside organizations have failed to achieve for decades.

This is what I do, and I love doing it.

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

In the last article, I explained some of the discoveries we have made at IRI about learning. I want to expand a bit on that and talk about how the ideas of direct and indirect understanding impact self-identity. We have found this is important when helping others improve themselves.

As I covered in the previous post, people tend to learn things in one of two ways – directly, through personal comprehension of an idea, or indirectly, by learning someone else’s ideas. In general, we learn indirectly at first, but our ultimate goal should be direct understanding. This is especially true when we are learning about our own personal identity.

If someone points out that we learn about ourselves from others, many of us would understand what was meant. I learn about who I am initially from my parents, my siblings, my extended family, and my friends. They tell me my name, that I am a human, what ethnic group I belong to, and other interesting things about me. Eventually, however, I start to formulate my own ideas about things: blue is a prettier color than other colors, science is more interesting than art (or vice versa), cauliflower is yucky, and so on. Over time, I understand that I am myself, and other people are not me. In a healthy environment, I also understand that I am responsible for myself. Ideally, I develop a direct self-identity; I am me, and I know who I am.

In reality, however, the final parts of this are a bit easier said than done. Most of us constantly struggle with other people’s perceptions of us. Sometimes this is good, as others can help me see things about myself that are valuable or need developing that I had missed. All too often, however, this is a negative experience, as others see me as too short, too fat, too ugly, or otherwise inferior or deficient. We struggle between understanding ourselves directly (having a strong internal sense of who I am), and understanding ourselves indirectly (seeing ourselves as others see us) for most of our lives. We want to use what we learn from others (indirectly) to form a correct direct understanding of ourselves. We don’t always succeed, but we know understand our goal.

Unfortunately, the ideal sometimes gives way to the terrible. In some situations, our ability to develop our own direct understanding of ourselves is stifled or suppressed. There are many scenarios where this can happen: abusive families, overbearing teachers or supervisors who will only accept their understanding of things, and nearly every case of slavery or broad cultural oppression. In these cases, our ability to form a direct understanding of ourselves is squashed in favor of a second person’s understanding. We are told someone else already knows everything there is to know about us (or at least everything important). Our identity is forged by proxy, and we develop an indirect identity.

This indirect identity creates a sense of dependency—I now need this second person, because it is through that person that I understand myself. I suppose this could be acceptable if the other person understood me perfectly, but that’s not possible (other people are no more perfect than I am, after all). As a result, I become dependent on this second person for my identity, and the associated sense of well-being and security that goes along with having a sense of self.

This is a dangerous situation. We have discovered that this dependent sense of self seems tied to a displaced sense of responsibility. One of the issues we have encountered among suppressed people groups is a sense that they are not in charge of their lives. Not simply that they are being controlled, but that they really aren't responsible for what happens to them. Our theory is that since their identity is tied up in their suppressor, it causes them to identify their suppressor as the one responsible for their lives. Thus, I am not responsible for what happens to me—the person I depend is responsible. This displaced sense of responsibility makes it difficult for people to act on their own behalf in areas of importance. Even more tragically, since long-term changes are out of their control, their only sense of agency tends to come from self-gratification.

Ironically, as long as the suppressor remains, this situation is livable. I can get along in life, as long as I have this second person (who is responsible for me) telling me what to do. I may not like that they are in charge, but I am accustomed to it, and have learned to live within the arrangement to the best of my ability. Once the suppressor is removed, however (whether by an external liberator, or by my own rebellion), things get tough. Now I discover that I don’t know who I am. In addition, I am accustomed to having a suppressor, and all my habits are oriented around that end. It makes a tragic sense, then, that many people from abusive relationships return to their abuser or end up in similarly abusive situations later. On a large scale, it means that a suppressed culture will have a tendency to look for a new “substitute” for their old oppressor. This is not necessarily a conscious decision—it is a consequence of habit.

This is a tragic cycle--one that is self-reinforcing once started. Impressions and repeated behavior, over time, become habits. These habits, over time, spread throughout the culture. Habits repeated throughout the culture are eventually seen as normative. Thus, the culture itself can serve to reinforce this sense of helplessness and displaced identity. The people of such a culture may lament their position, or think it perfectly acceptable, but at the end of the day, it is just the way things are.

Fortunately, these issues can be addressed. I'll discuss how we have been working to break these cycles next month.

Away Longer Than I Thought

Well...so much for two posts in December.

This is only technically a post in January, so I have to admit to having effectively missed another month. In my defense, I was busy in December and January: December was a trip to Spokane, WA and January included a trip to Manhattan, KS. In addition, I had fall semester wrap-up and spring semester start-up and Christmas in between. So I was busy, but I still feel like I should have gotten another post in.

In order to keep this from being entirely an apology post, I will take a bit of space to discuss part of IRI's theories on cognition and learning. Specifically, the difference between what we refer to as "Direct" and "Indirect" understanding. I don't claim these ideas are new - I have seen allusions to them in several places - but they are a pretty core part of what we've been working on, and I think it is interesting stuff.

Essentially, direct understanding is grasping an idea, and understanding it in a way that makes it "yours." That is, you are comfortable enough with the concept that you can examine, review, critique, and modify the concept based on how it relates to other ideas without having to resort to asking others what to do with it. Indirect understanding, on the other hand, is grasping an idea through an intermediary - a teacher, a book, a blog, etc. Initially, all our understanding is indirect, but our goal is a direct understanding of any important concepts we work with.

One of the problems we have run into in our work is that most teaching (nearly all, really), emphasizes indirect understanding. That is, we learn through others - I give you information, and then we're done. In some contexts, this is necessary (like this blog, where I am limited in how I can engage you, the learner), and often isn't a real problem. Often, the data alone is sufficient to our purpose.

Unfortunately, there are many cases where ideas need to be internalized to use them successfully - as in the case of any scenarios that require manipulating the ideas to form new conclusions (analysis, problem solving, etc.). In these cases, the learner needs to form a direct understanding of key concepts in order to develop new ideas, but, all too often, our educational system simply leaves them with an indirect understanding. This can drastically hinder the process of innovation and adaptation in both an individual and a culture. A lot of our work at IRI goes into figuring out ways to help people move from indirect to direct understanding in areas critical for their development.

Fortunately, there are ways to do this, and once we get people thinking about how to make that transition, they start to develop their own systems in addition to what we have come up with - a kind of learning snowball effect. Developing direct understanding, however, is often a slow, time consuming process, at least at first. This is one reason why IRI's programs seemed to only progress slowly in the first few years, and then we suddenly started talking about the multiple business start-ups, new training programs in the works, etc. The initial start is a slow burn, but once the project gets going, well...there is a reason we don't feel that we need to be in Mozambique all the time now. The Mozambicans, having developed a direct understanding of several key principles of development, are now developing themselves like crazy.

It's amazing, and there is much more I can say (and probably will later), but I think I have a long enough post for today. Have a great new year, and thanks for your interest!

Ideas From The Seminar: Generalizations

January’s Insight Seminar was a lot of fun for me (and, I hope, for the participants). During the sessions, we would get into various discussions about some of the concepts and ideas we are exploring. Even relatively simple ideas like generalization can generate some interesting ideas. One such idea was the idea that governments, by necessity, are generalists. That is, at the governmental level, things tend to be handled in terms of “big numbers” as opposed to dealing with individuals. There are a number of implications of this phenomenon, and I recently found one particular article that serves as a good example of the difference between thinking generally and thinking in terms of specific individuals.

Check it out here.

To sum up, the article talks about government efforts to use “crime prediction software” to determine the level of supervision a particular prisoner should have upon probation or parole. By analyzing the prisoner’s environment, history, and other factors the crime-prediction software creates a statistical probability of that person committing a crime.

From the government’s general perspective, this is a great idea—it saves time and expenses by allowing parole officers to focus on the more likely cases of criminal relapse. It is easy to see how a government would love such a system. From the perspective of an individual, however, this can represent a terrible system, as an individual is being judged, not by the type of person he or she is, nor by the actions that person takes, but by environmental and social factors that may be outside of his or her control. Thus, the system becomes, from the perspective of an individual, an example of profiling which demeans the individual by taking the sentence the government has required and adding conditions to it on the word of a computer.

Ultimately, questions regarding the appropriateness of such software focus on finding a balance between the government’s need to manage by numbers (where all citizens are, by necessity, regarded as statistics), and the need to maintain the dignity of the individual. At the heart of this debate is a very simple concept: generalizations are generally true (but by no means universal in application). This is the major struggle we see in many debates about policy—to make governing easier for the government, or to make life more free for the governed.

My Enemy: The Internet?

When I started writing these blogs, I had the idea that they would account some of the more interesting parts of my adventures in working for Insight Resources (then Safari Insight Mission). Recently, the entries have been more along the lines of news shorts and not insights into what is going on. So here's a change back to my original idea - explaining why, despite evidence to the contrary, the Internet does NOT hate me.

The story begins when I received word that the donation buttons on our main website were not working. This caused slightly more concern than had I found out the website had crashed completely - after all, no donation buttons means no donations...something vital for our nonprofit organization. Our previous webmaster, Doug Berry, had just passed away, and he had asked for a memorial donation to be set up, so this was even worse than normal - lack of donations plus a PR mess, as there were many people who were visiting the site to donate.

I did some checking, and found that PayPal (who we use to handle our donations) had a very simple setup for installing donation buttons. The site had pre-generated code that would tweak itself based on our account information. Thus, all I had to do was copy the code and paste it into the appropriate part of our website - easy!

Or...not so easy, as it turned out. I copied the code as instructed, only to find that my administrative interface for the website would delete the newly-imported code as soon as I published the change to the internet. So I could copy the code all I wanted, and it would paste normally, but when I hit "save" part of the code disappeared, causing the buttons to malfunction. Clearly, I was doing something wrong - time to call the experts.

I contacted our web page provider, who also doubles as my impromptu tech support for all things internet. Amy, who helps us with our webpage troubles, politely explained that the solution was quite simple...and then walked me through the exact same series of actions I had been performing. I explained that I had tried this, so she tried it herself. It worked. After much consternation, discussion, and head-banging, we discovered that while I could not paste the needed code without it imploding, Amy could do so without trouble. Clearly, there was something in my interface (read, my Firefox browser) that was messing up the code. No problem - I could switch to another browser and make the changes that way, instead. So I switched to another browser and tried again...and failed.

To make an already long story short, it turned out that every time Amy updated the code, it saved without trouble. Whenever I added the code, however, part of the code would delete. This persisted across multiple browsers and even multiple computers! Eventually, Amy just updated the page for me and we called it done, but the experience left me with an odd feeling...the feeling the Internet (or at least, my website) was out to get me.

I'm sure this is a pretty common occurrence for many of us - something bad happens, and some part of us gravitates toward the idea that, somehow, it is a conspiracy by something to cause us frustration. In our seminar, we address this issue as an example of a type of poor thinking.* Still, habits are what they are - even though I know that the internet is not alive, intelligent, or vindictively trying to make me look like an idiot, I still tend to think like it is. This led me to wonder why we do this...if I know the universe isn't out to get me, why do I sometimes want to think it does?

This is an important question for me, because I routinely interact with cultures whose belief systems do hold that personal forces in our universe are constantly guiding, manipulating, or even disrupting our lives. Note that I am not talking about God causing a miracle - I'm a Christian, I believe that can happen. Miracles are a disruption of the natural order, which otherwise functions in a predictable way (that's why we recognize them as miracles - they don't fit the pattern). What I am talking about is the idea that some kind of power - be it gods, demons, angels, or CIA conspiracies - exert control over everything we do. Because of this, we do not have any real control over our lives - we just spend our lives being manipulated by others. If I am going to claim that the universe is an understandable, predicable, controllable environment, it is not unreasonable to ask why we sometimes act as if it is a person (who is often out to get us).

I think the main reason for this feeling stems from two primary factors: 1) we are intelligent, thinking beings and 2) we all, to some degree, desire justice. Item 1 contributes to this phenomenon through the process of personification - attributing human characteristics (e.g. personhood) to non-human things. We do this all the time: we talk about our dogs, cars, computers, corporations, and other non-human things as if they were persons. We assign them personal thoughts and motives, because we ourselves have such thoughts and motives, and it helps us connect with them. Nevertheless, this is a mistake. Even in the case of animals, treating them as people is a mistake that can harm both the animals and ourselves (read some literature on animal psychology or just go listen to the Dog Whisperer talk to learn more). Most of the time, however, this is harmless - but it gets us into the habit of thinking of non-human things as personal, which contributes to my sense that the internet is out to get me (a personal goal), even though it really cannot have such a goal.

On to item 2. Now by "justice" I simply mean we want to see retribution for evil done - especially when that evil is done to us. We like to see the "bad guy" get "what's coming to him" in stories. We like it when criminals are caught and punished. I am not going to make any statement here about why we have this feeling or even if it is right - I only point out that we do, in fact, feel this way. Given that this is a fairly common desire, it makes sense that we would want to think of the universe as a person - people can do evil and be punished, where simple causal forces do not have any intent - evil or otherwise - and are not something we "punish." Punishment requires the person being punished understand they are being punished (otherwise it can never rise above cruelty). An impersonal reality cannot understand punishment (or anything else, for that matter). Thus, thinking of reality as personal helps us cope with trouble by giving us "someone" to blame and direct our desire for justice upon, even though we are really only dealing with natural cause-and-effect.**

These two factors together are enough, I think, to explain why we tend to personalize the universe - be it the universe in general, or specific items like computers or cars. One last note needs to be made here - I am not arguing against the existence of spiritual forces (as a Christian that would be a bit inconsistent), but simply noting that, under normal circumstances, the universe just is a place of cause-and-effect relationships unless something acts to interfere with that process (like God or us). In all cases, I believe that the first avenue of investigating any event is to check for natural causes, unless there is immediate evidence that the cause is personal (for example, if someone leaves a note). This does lead to a third reason that we may personalize impersonal things in the universe, however - if we believe that personal but invisible forces really do exist, then there is a question of possible intent even if there is no human responsible. For me, however, this is similar to the difference between knowing that the CIA exists, and believing that they are at the core of a global conspiracy that controls everything I do. Yes, the CIA can (and will) act in certain cases, but that does not mean everything that happens is an act of the CIA.***

I don't know if this has been helpful to anyone - it has probably enraged someone - but I thought I would actually start adding my observations to this blog, like I said I would some time ago. This was related to the work we are doing, so it seemed a good place to start.

Oh, and our donation buttons are working now - but you should go test them to make sure.

---------------------------------------------------------
* The seminar emphasizes the causal nature of our universe and our need to investigate causes for events, not simply jump to investigating persons who we think are responsible
** Note that this argument doesn't necessarily apply to animals, as they do seem to understand punishment in some sense - how and to what degree are a matter of debate, and not something I will get into here
*** Given the number of times I've used CIA, I can't shake the feeling that someone at the agency will eventually end up reading this...