The Fundamental Attribution Error

So, there was an interesting, albeit biased, discussion on Reddit that took place in the slums of the political forums. To quote a small bit,

One of the things I noticed after working fairly closely with Republicans on Capitol Hill is that many of them earnestly believe every terrible thing they've ever heard about the dark side of politics and seem to derive justification for some of their more despicable actions on account of the fact that they believe Democrats are doing it, too. Turnabout is fair play, right?
To some of these people, the notion of people who enter politics with the aim of establishing good government for the common citizen is nothing more than a fig leaf for the pursuit of liberal power. They honestly seemed to believe, at least the ones I went out drinking with, that there was no one on the Democratic side who sincerely wanted to help poor people, it was all just a big vote-grab through entitlement programs. At best, if there was in fact anyone who was trying to help the poor, they were just seen as unwitting dupes who were nothing more than useful idiots for the shadowy "liberal elite." None of the so-called "bleeding heart" types could possibly have any real power within the Democratic Party.

Now, I'm not so naive as to think there aren't Democrats playing politics for power and wealth. Nor am I so naive to think that there aren't Democrats who genuinely want to help people, but have been seduced by the allure of that same power.
The same holds true with Republicans. There are those who legitimately believe that what they do is justifiable for the greater good of the nation.

But the focus of this post is about the buried assumption that rests inside this thought process; the Fundamental Attribution Error. It's a psychological principle of the West that posits that people have the tendency to assume that others act due to some certain traits that define who they are. Not only that, but the flip side of this coin is that they assume their own actions are purely a result of circumstance. This is the kind of cognitive dissonance that results in people voicing the position that their abortion is acceptable, but the abortions of any others are immoral at their core. It's the belief that absolute evil exists, while simultaneously holding that you yourself are not absolute good or absolute evil. You're willing to define yourself in terms of ethical gray areas, but you are not willing to extend the same favor to those with whom you disagree.

It is acceptable to fight pure evil using somewhat contemptible means. It is not worth arguing with pure evil because they cannot say anything that is right or good. Pure evil is simple; black and white; clear. Pure evil is a foe in every possible universe.

Fundamental Attribution Error is the reason we're able to call other drivers 'assholes' when they make mistakes, while maintaining that when we make the mistake, there's an excuse and a qualifier to go with it.

The cold, hard reality, however, is that very rarely is there ever a driver on the road with a tweedly mustache and monocle cackling madly as he cuts you off. "Yes, this will surely inconvenience that person who has done me no wrong- Bwahahahahahaha!"
Cartoonish supervillainy just doesn't actually exist like that with the tentative exception for people who literally lack the capacity to empathize with others and have developed antisocial tendencies as a result. Barring that, people don't act simply because it causes misfortune unto others. Things aren't nearly that simple. But humans really want them to be.

We're a species that loves to other. We want schema; groups; identifications; barriers; teams. We don't like gray areas. We don't like ambiguity. We don't like uncertainty.
This has been the great philosophical debate between modernism and post-modernism. Objectivism vs. Subjectivism. It's incredibly easy to deal with people when you write off all their behavior as something inherent to who or what they are. You don't need to know anything else about them. If someone cuts you off, they're an asshole. If they're an asshole, logically, they will continue to be an asshole in all they do.
Or so the idea goes. It certainly removes a lot of the troubling complexities out of life.
Unfortunately, with that goes nuance, care, consideration, and empathy.


People are more than their actions; even if their actions say something about them.

Thoughts on "The Debate"

Alright, so we've all been talking about the infamous debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on young earth creationism vs. actual science.
I'm not going to hide my bias in this and I will flat-out say that I think Ken ham was entirely full of crap.

With that said, I don't think Bill Nye has sat down and really considered the fundamental differences between evolution and creationism. His debate structure focused on trying to "prove" the validity of science via the methods that scientists value and favor, asking "how else would you explain it?" with relative frequency.

Ham, being a professional smooth talker, has practiced having this argument many times, and he knew what points were easiest to attack and what defenses he could adequately rely on.

Nye struck the heart of the issue a single time that I heard near the end when he declared that science simply had the far more compelling explanation of the two systems. Scientific explanations are more robust, nuanced, and accountable than those of the bible. Unfortunately, he spent little time on this general principle, and instead focused on a number of very specific phenomena that laypersons know little about. Ham had counters to the vast majority of these arguments, and while some of them weren't satisfying intellectually, they were consistent with his set of beliefs.

The structure of the debate and Nye opting to play pretty strictly by the rules kept him from addressing counter-arguments with any specificity, which was the real shame of the debate. Instead, Nye appeared to Scramble over dozens of scattered points that had little to no connection with each other in an attempt to cast a wide net of doubt. Without driving deep towards any of the specific problems that were uncontested, Nye missed a golden opportunity.

Why aren't there kangaroo fossils anywhere except Australia? Surely one of them must have died during the journey from the Middle East to Australia?
What about instances of observable evolution in species with shorter life spans and high birth rates? Insects that have objectively changed to better suit their environment?

Nye never picked an issue to hammer home except the notion of predictions. The problem with that is that Ham did address predictions. It wasn't a satisfying explanation, but he addressed the concern. Nye did not address his counterclaims, leaving the issue feeling as though the two were talking over each others' heads rather than carrying a conversation.

Such is the nature of the entire discussion though, and Nye should have had the foresight to avoid going into it at all.

To switch gears and berate Ham for a minute, there's an argument that I really hate within Creationism; the idea that because humans are here and intelligent, and that the laws of the universe are consistent, it's proof that there's an Authority.

Hold up. There's something you're missing about the very basis of existence; if humans were not intelligent, we wouldn't have the understanding to grasp the issues of creation. Therefore, the conversation wouldn't even exist in the first place. If the the concept of origination can only be understood or discussed by .000000001% of organisms in the universe, then of course the ones who can understand it will discuss it and the ones who can't won't. It's a goddamn tautology.

The laws of the universe are consistent because a universe with inconsistent laws wouldn't function. Humans, by necessity, wouldn't have time to develop because the universe wouldn't be able to keep anything going for any extended period of time, since the rules change. In that event, there wouldn't be humans to discuss whether or not the universe is consistent.

So, the universe has to be consistent if organisms are to survive, which they have.

Humans (or comparable creatures) have to exist. There is not a possible situation where intelligent life forms don't exist but the question of creation and origin is still relevant.
Likewise, the question of creation and origin only exists because there are intelligent life forms to raise it.
Even if the odds of intelligent life existing are .00000000000000000000000000000000000001%, the rest of that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% doesn't have the mental capacity to entertain the thoughts about intelligent life existing. As a result, the only place where this discussion can occur is a place that fits that .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% threshold. (Moreover, blah blah blah, statistical likelihood of anything above 0% has near certainty of occurring if the space in which you're examining is infinite or near infinite)









(I really wish I was intelligent enough to get my thoughts out in a coherent pattern on this issue, but I don't believe that I am, so I hope this explanation suffices)

Also REALLY? Survival of those who survive?! That IS survival of the fittest. Those who survive are, on average, those who are better suited to the environment; those who have better adapted to their surroundings. It's actually a really fantastic tautology, and I have no idea why it's difficult to grasp. The things that survive are the things that are more capable of survival. That is what it means to be more fit in evolutionary biology.

This whole thing went about as well as I expected it would, and it made me exactly as frustrated as I thought it might. The big upset for me was that Nye didn't talk to the audience as though they were students interested in learning (and in fairness, many of them weren't interested). He talked to them like he'd already given up on them. He spoke hopefully only to the people watching online. He spoke as though we all had the same wealth of knowledge that he has at the ready. I'd have loved to have seen him debate as though it had been an episode of his show. The passion was there, but not the confidence that his audience would care.

Blargh. I hate creationism, but I don't think Nye had much of an idea how to debate a creationist before this.

On the Way Down

This is going to be a selfish and whiny blogpost. This is your chance to duck out now, before your eyes are assaulted by emotions and reflections.

Today marks the first day in months wherein the depressive symptoms have resurfaced. Not in full force, mind you, but they're definitely noticeable in that, again, for the first time in months, I kind of just want to crawl into bed and be sad. My heart is beating faster and harder than normal, with some significant discomfort. Feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and all around fatigue have begun their encore presentation. I'm not sure to what I can attribute this unwelcome circumstance, if indeed there's a triggering factor, but it's predominantly an issue of self-worth, as has been the trend for the past years.
I imagine those around me having a total indifference as to whether or not I'm around. Even in the case of those who aren't indifferent, there's some base shame I have for not having someone in my life who's happiest to see me. Because I define my value as a person with how much I impact those around me, not feeling particularly important to anyone (whether true or not) is jabbing my heart in the feels.

I don't know if I need validation or unconditional love, or if there's something else specific. I really want a cat or a dog. Someone who would cuddle with me and legitimately need me around. But I'm not in a place where I can get an animal friend.
I'm not in a place where I love myself enough to be with another person romantically.
And I do not have the confidence or motivation to seek the help of others. Nor am I certain that what I could obtain from friends is something that would solve my current dilemma.

This is all very troublesome since I'm:
1. Hoping to be rid of my depressive symptoms

2. Philosophically opposed to extreme dependency.

Of course, if my last blog post reminded me of anything, it's that my emotions and my philosophies don't always get along. My daemon and I are quite different despite our similarities, so to speak.

It doesn't help that I understand that moping and hiding myself away from others will not help me at all, and it will not solve any of my problems. This understanding does not conquer the rather primal nature of the swamp my mind is temporarily mired in.

I want to defeat this; I do. However, my anti-anxiety medication has thus far not eliminated my obsessiveness. Instead, it has only made me so fatigued that I yawn constantly, and with each one, my body is paralyzed with tremors. I want to defeat this because my goal for 2014 is to let nothing on this earth keep me from having a spectacular year. To that end, I've done a lot of work that I wouldn't have otherwise done. Far more than I had done in any given month of 2013. But, it's not enough, and I find myself tugged back to old thoughts and hold haunts.

I still obsess over the woman I fell for who didn't try.
I still obsess over my ex not being willing to communicate.
I still obsess over people not liking me.
I still obsess over the idea that I'm not interesting.
I still obsess over the first woman I fell in love with.
I still obsess over little things that don't matter; people who don't care enough to respect my thoughts; whether or not the people in my life should respect my thoughts; whether or not my thoughts have any value or merit at all in the first place.
I still obsess over whether or not I'm actually a terrible person or just someone who teases relentlessly, or if there's even a difference.
I still obsess over whether I'm seen as equal or lesser.
I still obsess over whether people are just humoring my notions of philosophy, psychology, balance, and mechanics.
I still obsess over how completely pompous I must present myself to people.
I still obsess over whether or not people I care about are hiding things from me; lying to me; what they really think about me; what kind of mark I'm leaving on them, if one at all.

I obsess over the feelings of guilt for wanting to post a blog post that is purely self-centered and a desperate plea for help, despite the number of friends I have who I could just openly ask for some validation from.

For the first time in months, I just want to stop. I just want everything to stop.

Just... Stop.
Please.

Emotion vs. Cognition

Both of my readers know my position on humans; they're complicated. In an almost uncountable number of ways, with layers upon layers of complex interactions seeking to affect individual parts of your life simultaneously. Unfortunately, sometimes this turns up as a super contradictory jumble of goop.

The main thing I'm talking about is the constant struggle between emotions and logical cognition that your mind carries out every day. The emotions that run through us like a river vary based on context, mood, and immediate situational changes. These emotions tell us how to react to the situations that happen within our lives.
When something goes wrong, we are typically told to be sad, tired, defeated, hopeless.
When something goes well, we are typically told to feel happy, proud, exhilarated, etc.

However, these emotions tell us how to react independent of our logical cognition, which tells us how we ought to react or how we'd like to react. It makes sense to feel happy for our friends' success. We want to feel happy for them, but emotionally, we have the propensity to feel paranoid, scared, jealous, or even angry at them.

Imagine two independent people walking down the sidewalk, parallel to each other. They can walk in any direction they want as long as they are moving forward at a constant speed as well. A lot of the time, there's no problem between these two people. However, in some circumstances, one may cross over towards the other, and when they run into each other, they're completely stuck, attempting to force their way past the other in vain, given their constant and equal speeds. A stalemate occurs. A painful and uncomfortable standstill that cannot be resolved until one or both of the people back down. However, since both are demanding that the body react in a certain way to a situation, without getting that reaction out, it's almost like you've failed to meet the prerequisite for going to the next step (which would be getting over that reaction). Instead, you're stuck constantly trying to have those conflicting reactions.

Emotionally, when there's someone that I want to stop thinking about, I block, ignore, or cut them out of my life.
Cognitively, I don't want to have to do that in order to be able to move on with my life. I think I should be mature enough to acknowledge that I don't always get my way, accept the things I cannot change, and make peace with the reality that is offered to me.

One has to give way to the other, for better or for worse. I think, however, what's important is not necessarily having the ideal or correct reaction, but rather, being aware of the conflict, deciding which reaction you believe is the more beneficial/healthy one, and actively trying to strengthen that reaction until it wins the standoff.
Like lifting weights, it's not being at the apex of the lift that matters, but the continuous process that is truly strengthening you.

It's not an easy or straightforward conflict, but being sure to push back rather than to try to win each time is going to remind you that progression in life isn't like a switch. You don't go from being bad at something to being good at it; there's a continuum that you travel along so long as you work at it.

You and your subconscious are teammates in this fight. Your emotional reactions are sometimes appropriate, and your logical reactions are sometimes appropriate. The goal, I think, is to get to a compromise between these conflicting natures, wherein neither is "leading" or "running" the show, but the two trade-off regularly to maintain a sense of balance and fluidity.

But I might just be completely talking out of my ass. I did write this in like twenty minutes without much prior thought, so.....

A Hundred In....

This is my 100th blog post!

I should put on some festive music and dance or something.

For seriousies, thanks to both of my readers and anyone who's offered suggestions, discussions, or inspirations for these posts. It's a weird time in my life, and I'm glad I have an outlet for my thoughts, whether it's an empty room, or packed full of the people I love.


I know I'm a pretty difficult-to-deal-with manbaby (see image below), so I appreciate everyone who's stuck around despite my shortcomings.

My philosophies are unorthodox at best, and alienating and frustrating for others at worst. What's more, I stick to my philosophies like an adhesive medical strip, so people are pretty much stuck dealing with my opinions when they're around me. It's kinda' like I started a bad religion and I won't stop talking about it to my friends.

I do it because I never want to see anyone I care about submit to complacency, and if I'm going to have to be that annoying creature lurking over your shoulder, forever buzzing in your ear to remind you of the improvements that can yet be made, then that is what I shall do, even if people are annoyed by it.

And I do apologize for causing that irritation. And I thank you for putting up with it.



So just for a minute, I'd like to sit back and enjoy an intimate moment with my readers (read: stalkers).

Let's all share in a traditional Victory Screech.

To another hundred posts, eh?

-
Waddles

The Stress of Communication

So, I think it's about time I made my umpteenth blogpost on communication, since the last time I beat this dead horse, it didn't come back to life. (Figured, why not try again, you know?)

Communication stresses me the hell out. For like... eight reasons.
[Actually, that's good, let's run with that:]

1. Humans are fallible. Most importantly, humans make mistakes, lie, cheat, steal, and avoid. Confrontation is stressful, so we worm our way out of doing it through justifications, procrastinations, and cathartic release.

2. Words are inadequate. We can express so much with language, but still so much is left unsaid. Emotions that don't have words. Ideas that cannot be expressed.

3. I don't take charge. I hate feeling like I have to own up and be the initiator of communication or else ensure that things will be swept under the rug. I suck at taking the reins, though I suppose it's good that I learn how at some point.

4. Stuff slips through the cracks. Inevitably, in any conversation, and especially the ones in which few words are exchanged, information tends to fall by the wayside, only to be forgotten. We can forget to tell someone something important. We might forget a piece of information ourselves. Combined with the imperfection of words and the fallibility of humans, information gets miscommunicated (if communicated at all) with relative frequency.

5. Sometimes we have to accept a lack of closure. Given the above elements, there are things that cannot or will not be communicated, no matter how much you need or want it. These items wherein we cannot obtain closure or finality are specters that loom over us, making us doubt ourselves. We have to let these things go. Even though it hurts like balls, and even though closure appears right around the corner, constantly taunting us.

6. Thoughts are complicated. We have so much on our mind; logic that conflicts with emotion, emotions that conflict with the emotions we want to feel, instincts that are based on nothing. With all that piling up along with our constant stream of life experiences, there's little we can do except hope that we're appropriately conveying the thoughts we wish to convey. We are predisposed to err between our thoughts and our words given the complexity of thought and motivation itself.

7. People don't want to communicate. It's not worth the strain. Even if we weren't prone to communicating improperly, we would still tend to avoid the communication itself. Saying what you feel is difficult and the potential rewards are not something we can accurately measure. So, in lieu of extremely convoluted cost-benefit analyses, we just walk away from the problem.

8. We are frail. With our mixed bag of emotions, inability to communicate effectively, propensity to miss details or avoid details, it makes active discourse nothing short of dangerous for us. We feel bad when we hurt others, and we want to avoid being hurt ourselves, so the easiest way to stave off these twin problems is to avoid their surface cause; communication.


Together, this adds up to people ignoring each other, lying and avoiding conflict (either with good intentions or bad), miscommunicating, hurting each other, not getting the closure we need, and overall feeling inadequate about ourselves.

This is the curse and blessing of human intelligence, and I'm trying to at least own up to my end of the communicative hassle. It's difficult and it sucks, but I think this is how to grow.
Unfortunately, this is not a sentiment shared by everyone, so my need for communication may be at odds with someone else's need to avoid the stress of communication.
For this, I don't have a solution. A compromise is the best option, but many people are not willing to entertain that much work for gains that are imperceptible. I cannot blame them. My decisions are only mine, and I have no right to control how others live their lives.

This shit is complicated...

-
Waddles

Selfishness (Read: Kids are jerks) [But it's not their fault]

Alright, I promised controversial, so I suppose I have to give it.

Harkening back to a topic idea suggested by a dear friend however many months ago, I'd like to discuss children and their propensity to be assholes.

Now, this immediately gets into tricky territory since we haven't adequately defined what a jerk is or what it is that makes someone a jerk.
Nor do I actually intend to define it; largely because any definition I use would be meaningless (I attribute this to a lack of skill in wordplay on my part rather than philosophical possibility).

Kids are and are not jerks. And that's the short and skinny of a very complicated question regarding human nature.
Firstly, we're examining two separate things, and I should go right ahead and differentiate them;

Intention

Behavior (consequences)

In this case, the intent of behavior is most usually totally unrelated to the consequences or outcome; not because kids don't care, but because they haven't developed a sufficient understanding of empathy to this point to be able to shift perspectives easily.

The behavior, on the other hand, is that which produces measurable effects; the consequences of a child's actions regardless of his/her intent with those actions.

Adults are far better at pairing appropriate intentions with appropriate actions than kids, but even we mess it up with a fair amount of frequency. See back-handed compliments, jokes that cross the line, accidentally hurting your friends, etc.

Rarely do our bad intentions lead to good outcomes, but often do our good intentions go awry. Hence the old adage, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
This is partially because our actions are based off of assumptions that we have, which are in turn based on prior knowledge of cause and effect. We assume that in order to create outcome A, we must perform action B, since something similar has worked for us in the past.
Problem is, humans are all unique, and their problems are individualized too. As a result, we can't just go around generalizing solutions for everyone; Doesn't work very well.
This results in a rather frequent phenomenon in which we misinterpret what actions will yield what consequences given our intentions.

"I want my significant other to be happy, so I'll be them flowers. Flowers made my last SO happy!"
"I'm allergic to roses! I told you that!"

Turbo cliche example, but it fits.

Now kids? They're missing a step in this process. They don't have much prior experience, and what little they have is constantly building off of new experiences. As a result, there's a lot more that goes into the "assumption" part of the transaction, and a lot less thought that goes into the "intention" part.

"I like it when I make people laugh. Throwing sand at this person makes people laugh."

The assumption here is limited to an inherently selfish tendency- the tendency to do what makes you happy in order to elicit positive feelings. There's little to no consideration for the "victim" in events that involve children because there is virtually no prior experience in the field of empathy. There is no cost-benefit analysis being performed; it's more like a scientific experiment to attempt to recreate circumstances and data in an incredibly rudimentary sense.
Kids are rarely malicious, they're just more curious than they are aware of the people around them. All people and all things are a means to an end because children have not developed the sense of pleasure derived from making others happy in nearly the same capacity as adults (sometimes) do. Which, yes, ultimately means that there's some sense of selfishness within our empathy and our desire to help others. It makes us feel good. We derive a satisfying sense of accomplishment knowing that our actions have potentially lifted up another. Sometimes, we feed into this so much that it becomes our very reason for living.
Sometimes, on the other hand, we never develop this sense at all. Some people have a strict lack of empathy that carries with them for their entire lives.
Others have the sense of empathy crushed and pushed out from them by a world and a culture that encourages psychopathy and cruelty.

Kids do not act because they lack the empathy, they act because their empathy has not been nourished yet. This is why it's so important for good role models to deliberately make it a point to remind children that every human is valuable to their own end, and that each desire we have is matched by an equivalent desire in each other person; an infinitely complicated and interconnected web of similarities and equivalencies can be drawn through every human being on the planet. It is a difficult perspective to swallow, and not one that we can wrap our minds around without assistance for a long time- especially for kids.

So kids are assholes, but it's not their fault.
Not to say that excuses their behavior. ;D