Are You a Follower?

This test was taken from a free EBook titled the Authoritarians by :

Bob Altemeyer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada

Altemeyer was consulted on the book Conservatives Without a Conscience by John Dean, formerly of the Nixon administration. 

The following test is designed to assess the extent to which a person needs a strong, uncompromising leader to follow. There are no right answers but it is interesting to find out where you lie on some scale that the short test intends to measure.

Instructions


Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement. 
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.


The test:

___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.

___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds

___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.

___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.

___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.

___ 12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.

___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”

___ 16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.

___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.

___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.

___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.

___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

How to score yourself:

First, you can skip your answers to the first two statements. They don’t count.  They’re just “warmups” to give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. Start scoring with No. 3 and continue scoring of 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 in the following way:

If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 9.

Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4 like this:

If you wrote down a “-4" that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 1.

Family Model as the Basis of Political Leanings Part I

Synopsis:
Cognitive Linguistics is a field of study that examines the relationships between language and thinking. Some experts in this field have demonstrated how carefully crafted language can affect the way in which we conceptualize a host of subjects and issues, even our receptivity to a certain point of view.
 
While this might well smack of pretentiousness, further examination can yield insights into otherwise inexplicable behaviors that we observe from certain ideological groups and even explain how ideological differences originate.
 
Linguistics is often at the root of how plausible sounding concepts work their way into the collective myths that significant segments of our society accept as fact. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more about how people can be influenced. Related questions propelled me on a journey of sorts during which I was introduced to the work of George Lakoff.
------------------------

George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, has studied Liberal and Conservative thought and related symbolism, suggesting that an important part of our American mythology is an extrapolation of two distinct family models each with their own collection of morality metaphors. He has identified two corresponding sets of morality metaphors that apply to each model and which typify conservative and liberal thought.

Conservative thought arises from what he calls the "Strict Father” family model. There are certain assumptions inherent in this model:

• The world is a dangerous place
• It is the father's responsibility to support and protect the family
• by being obedient to the father we learn self-discipline
• success is the reward for acting within this moral system so moral rewards given to those who have not earned them is immoral

Associated metaphors for this model are:

• Moral Strength
• Moral Authority
• Resentment towards Illegitimate Moral Authority
• Retribution
• Moral Order
• Integrity
• Consequences
• Moral Purity
• Moral Self-Interest
• Self-Defense

The most striking parts of his analysis describe how wealth is the equivalent of success and therefore morality. Those of differing political persuasions seem divided as to whether this world view is flawed when manifest in ideologies that allow traditional concepts of community to fall between the cracks.

This line of reasoning can be followed further. If people are moral, in a sense the euphemism for success and wealth, then they have what they deserve. The concept of anything given to others who did not get it themselves is immoral. A corollary is that anything held in public trust by those who did not earn it themselves is immoral. Consider the push to privatize entities once held in public trust such as National Parks. The risk is that this would add yet another degree of separation on influence from the voting public and one might reasonably suspect whether this divestment is not shameless self-enrichment and ask whether it is in all cases moral. It is as profound a question as whether or not there should be anything at all held in public trust for the use of all citizens.

Christians in power who internalize these metaphors might favor faith-based initiatives such as the ones by which Bush has managed to channel 2 billion dollars of taxpayer money into primarily Christian churches, eschewing any non-discriminatory requirements that might ensure equal distribution of taxpayer dollars, an actual legality when it comes to government programs. It is almost as if delegating the administration of programs to Christian organizations provides a degree of separation that circumvents certain legalities that government must abide by. To date, the result has been that recipients of benefits which had formerly been administered by government but are now exclusively administered outside of government, away from public scrutiny tend to be Christians themselves or souls to be harvested by benefit administrators. Is this not favoritism? In many cases there was no infrastructure in place to ensure that funds were used for designated purposes. Glowing anecdotes of successful works by churches using the taxpayer dollars revealed that the determination of success had merely been made by an informal phone call to the church to ask them whether they were successful or not. I'll leave it to you to guess what the answer was.

It is not surprising that when these metaphors are carried to their logical extremes it borders on elitism. From these metaphors follow many potentially self-serving conclusions such as "I have more therefore I am better" or "He has less therefore he does not deserve to hold public office whereas I do." It is also easy to understand how an outgrowth of the underlying myth might be a tendency to reward the rich and punish the poor without any consideration for how a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Again, this violates any sense of community and is arguably bad for the nation. There is no prescription that might arise out of these metaphors for providing opportunities for poverty-stricken locales or segments of our society.

When such an implicit schedule of morality is applied to groups it collides with the sensibilities of those who might not conclude that "all those people" have nothing because they are undeserving and are undeserving because they have nothing. Clearly, someone with significant emotional investment in such a belief system might be less inclined to support any social programs having the goal of creating opportunities "where needed most".

The personal experience that some have of this equation for determining who is and who is not deserving engenders a litany of criticism from the left is often deemed faulty on several counts:

• Resistance towards investment in inner city and impoverished locales has even denied those needing help programs that were not simply handouts and that would require effort by the recipient
• Poverty and ignorance are inherited and a community without an abundant supply of ladders cannot very well blame children for not climbing them if they cannot find a single one
• Many conservatives call themselves Christian yet seem to internalize the metaphors of the "Strict Father Family" model yet see no contradiction with the most basic messages of Christ regarding charity and the poor. Evidently, for some Christians "Strict Father Family" metaphors trump Jesus
• When moral imperative in one area supersedes it in another (i.e. the end justifies the means) there is corruption.

Conservative ideology that internalizes these metaphors either consciously or unconsciously when coupled with religious fundamentalism can create a dangerous mix. Consider a world of uncompromising black and white, demanding unquestioning obedience to a leader. Moral absolutism used by an individual in service or affirmation of their own position authority does not exactly suggest that leadership has to be earned if those who disagree can simply be labeled as being immoral. To me that is a dangerous mix among a long list of things that should never be mixed like alcohol and barbiturates, gasoline and matches etc.

Lakoff delves into each metaphor in depth. In my experience, once one starts looking for examples, the evidence of how these metaphors have become ingrained in our society and government become blatantly obvious. He is clear to point out that these are tendencies and generalizations that were concluded as a result of extensive study of political thought patterns.

The value of Lakoff’s work lies in the roadmap it provides for understanding the basic assumptions of political discourse, not to mention an illumination of how phraseology internalizing these metaphors bears a powerful influence when directed at the appropriate group.

Clearly, both Liberals and Conservatives believe they are moral. How can both be right if there is only a single concept of morality? Are multiple concepts or morality discernable in political thought? And if so then how are they formed?

Deception and the cloaking of true intent and even values abound in politics and at times both parties temper their rhetoric to appeal to one another. Creative compromise is possible to the extent that parties strive to be inclusive and not divisive.

Much of the day-to-day political discourse that we see in the media is concluded in agonizing dead ends that barely scratch the surface while truly constructive discourse reaches a point at which values can be stated and their relative priorities understood. Familiarity does not necessarily breed contempt. Understanding the motives and values of another makes them more understandable, seem more rational, and less intimidating or foolish, even when values may differ. With some degree of trust compromise is possible.

NEXT: "Nurturant Parent" family model from which liberal morality metaphors arise

Family Model as the Basis of Political Leanings Part II

Liberal thought arises from what he calls the "Nurturant Parent” family model. There are certain assumptions inherent in this model:

• The world is filled with evils that can harm
• It is the nurturant parent’s responsibility to protect children from harm
• Open, two-way communication is crucial
• It is the parent’s willingness to entertain questions about their authority that legitimizes it.
• By being respected, nurtured and communicated with children learn to develop respectful, open, caring relationships

Associated metaphors for this model are:

• Morality as empathy
• Morality as nurturance
• Compassion
• Moral Self-Nurturance
• Morality as social nurturance
• Morality is  happiness
• Morality as self-development
• Morality as fair distribution
• Moral growth
• The moral strength to nurture
• Moral self-interest
• Restitution over retribution

There are a multitude of implications deriving from these metaphors as described by Lakoff and summarized below.

The concept of empathy goes even further than the golden rule by saying “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Egocentric empathy, which can go no farther than ones own feelings, is contrasted with absolute empathy which might be characterized as feeling for others with not strings attached. The parent of a child who rejected certain values would still be shown empathy but with accompanying moral instruction.

Lakoff also cites what he calls the “wooden rule” : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you – providing you can afford it easily. This is directly related to an analogy of moral accounting that is common to both nurturant parent and strict father model except that in the nurturant parent model it is charity that accrues “moral credit” and makes one a better person.

With respect to political ideologies, the competition between this ideal and the notion that government can show no favor or require nothing more based on ability, as with graduated tax schedules, is familiar to us all.

Morality presupposes empathy, has associated rights and duties and as nurturance, extends beyond the family in the sense that the community is a family. Community members have a responsibility to see that people needing help in their community are helped.

Model differences for things held as public trust (i.e. the “ownership society”) and government funds spent for the social good or “where needed most” provide rich and starkly contrasted examples of how “sense of community” plays out.

Unhappy people are not likely to be compassionate so it is right to be as happy as possible as long as it does not harm others. The morality of happiness is a long-standing part of Buddhist tradition, often depicted as a smiling Buddha.

The nurturance of children is done in the service of moral growth, a central idea in religion and law. Sincere evidence of remorse has always been grounds for leniency in our legal system. Moral growth has always been associated more with progressive than conservative politics as exemplified in ideology-linked attitudes to our prison system and rehabilitation.

The nurturant parent must have moral strength since nurturing is hard work. However moral strength, common to both family models, has a much different meaning. It means that one should empathize and be nurturant towards people with different values rather than demonizing them. The notion of internal evils, for which there must be strength to resist, are also much different in the nurturant parent model, consisting of things that interfere with empathy, nurturance etc. Moral strengths include social responsibility, generosity, respect for others regardless of rank and status, openness, community-mindedness and self-respect.

Clearly this model includes an orientation to discipline so classic criticism of being “soft” or lacking toughness due to an unrealistic world-view is often leveled. Strength-with-sensitivity might be a more apt characterization, a merging of anima and animus, if you will.

With the nurturant parent model moral boundaries are not defined by prohibition of specific actions but in terms of prohibitions against actions having anti-nurturant consequences.

There is an inherent complexity in this concept, often a liability when it comes to our thumbnail-sized, sound-bite mode of communication so typical of the mainstream media. It is often much easier to cite a concise egregiously offensive or fearful anecdote to get across a point than to explain the consequences of action.

Parental response to a child’s violation of moral behavior is to require restitution rather than seeking retribution but parents should fiercely protect their children by seeking retribution against those who hurt them such as polluters, drug dealers and manufacturers of dangerous products.

The nurturant parent model minimizes hierarchical relationships because legitimate authority should be a direct consequence of the ability to nurture. There is a belief that interdependence is a non-hierarchical relationship and that authority should not come out of dominance. These tenets are the exact opposite of those in the strict father model.

This aspect of the nurturant parent model differs drastically from the metaphor of moral order implicit in the strict father model. Lakoff expresses this metaphor as:

• God has moral authority over human beings.
• Human beings have moral authority over nature.
• Adults have moral authority over children.
• Men have moral authority over women.

Though even a passing familiarity with these models starts the synapses firing these definitions only bring us to the doorstep of a house full of multi-sided issues from public life, each having markedly different prescriptions from each family model.

Luckily, Lakoff does not stop at the doorstep. He attempts to demonstrate the issues involved and the political ramifications. He is not without value judgment, as he takes great pains to illustrate when each model is suitable and their relative success or failure inasmuch as they are manifest in political prescriptions to a wide variety of social issues.

Lakoff’s writing did not impress me as being didactic or opinionated as he often cites examples inviting the reader to answer the question of “Who’s right?”  However, he is not without his own ideas regarding the effectiveness of liberal or conservative policies.

I found Lakoff’s analysis to be a remarkable and intellectually compelling blend of both research and rhetoric, high on pathos and logos and low on ethos. He both engages and challenges the reader to think but you will find that, depending upon your ideological bent, you will be more or less challenged. Undoubtedly, all will be stimulated to think past the label and engage themselves on crucial issues of the day at a much deeper level than before.

As for myself, social responsibility compels me to do so.

NEXT: The social implications of morality models

Some Call It Progress

A friend recommended two books that were phenomenal. I love it when friends do that. I can think of no better gift. This is also rare because most people are incurious even to the point of myopia in the way they seek out comfort of that closest to them and shun analysis of ostensibly distant events that move them in dark ways so that they'd never suspect or notice that they themselves have changed fundamentally. So this happens much less than, for example, others might tell you about a good restaurant.

First there was Leadership and Self Deception which he described as "life-changing". The friends and family that I passed it along to all rave and tell me that they now look at themselves and their relationships differently in light of the ideas they took from this book.

But the one I really want to write about is The Cult of Power by Rex Warner which was written during an earlier time but if you hadn't known when it was written you would have thought it was written yesterday. The author has written extensively on allegory and tragedy, particularly Greek since they do this best, he observes. His fictional works rely heavily on allegory in getting its points across. This particular work starts by giving one an idea of what will follow:

The worship of violence, of absolute power, of lawlessness, the setting up of the individual against the universe--all these are old things.

He distills commonality from historical opposition to power by individuals and groups. It all starts with a group of “rugged individualists”,  bold iconoclasts all, admirable in some respects, and united in their goal of shirking off one yoke of oppression or another. This examination of the commonality, framework or mechanisms by which we evolve socially in fits and starts is interesting and it’s my belief that any but the dullest will be hard-pressed not to be startled by how closely it tracks current events…things we’ve all seen happen in the last 40 years or so. I was left with the open-ended question of whether the distinctly American manifestation will end in widespread tragedy for those who are sucked along in the wake of a media-amplified, fervent few.

He describes the role of what he calls the “brilliant and irresponsible individualist” who is “conscious of the pressure of society and convinced of his own ability to break free from it.” He calls this the “philosophy of the self-made man”, noting that the so-called self-made man will usually admit that he has “made” himself at the expense of others. He also notes that in its intellectualized form this philosophy has “never been able to sway great masses of people.” and that the “self-made man” often wins “the grudging admiration of his fellows but seldom their enthusiastic support.” These are, the author claims, arguments for moral anarchy and an irreligious form of individualism signifying “the break-up of a whole social system of values which have, for one reason or another, become too weak to inspire respect or to enforce obedience.” At its heart is the “assertion of the individual combined with a refusal to admit the existence of supra-individual forces…” He adds that these arguments for moral anarchy are an important stage in “the sequence that leads us to the position in which we find ourselves today”, but that was yesterday he wrote about and not today so it’s left as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether there might be parallels with the current time and what those might be.

He examines the sequence of steps by which all the valiant yoke-shirking, hard work in itself, inevitably leads to tragedy. History leaves us with no shortage of examples which bear this out. But is it applicable today? Maybe things are different now. Has he captured something of the essence of human nature that provides insights into the present and future?

Humanity is lifted and moved as if by waves. As individuals it’s easy to get lost in the necessities of life and creature comforts of family and the familiar so that tumultuous change at first seems to to leave everything more or less in place relative to visible markers or reference points. However as subtle and almost imperceptible as it might be, it all happens outside the periphery of the focus of our daily lives so we are unavoidably affected yet understandably hard-pressed to identify the causes. Those who eschew analysis and merely consume the reasons offered by the simplest “common sense” explanations (often all too common and sort on sense) embrace the same narratives that work so well in our insular, day-to-day lives in what becomes an approximate myth to explain what is happening on a much grander and almost infinitely more complex scale. Those simple narratives often fail to pass a basic smell test regardless of how comforting they might be.

Author and psychologist R.D. Laing expresses this impeccably:

The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds.

Alas, we are puny finite beings but it is always within our power to grow, if only just a little…a far cry from the irreligious hubris of the self-made man, one perceiving himself as some minor god…master of the universe. Warner also affirms the inherent puniness of humanity, conjuring up an image of the individual as mindless automata that might make Kierkegaard proud:

What , in our present situation, would strike one as most remarkable, if one had not observed much the same thing happening before in history, is the rapidity with which generally accepted ideals of the early twentieth century such as toleration, kindliness, objective truth, freedom have been replaced in many people’s minds by their exact opposites. More remarkable still is the enthusiasm with which people have accepted the substitution. It is true that we see this process most clearly in fascism and, among fascist states, most clearly of all in Germany; but it would be most unwise to regard it as a process that is wholly alien from ourselves.”

It is the “unwise to regard it as a process that is wholly alien from ourselves” looms larges in that quote and would boldly defy the very spirit of American exceptionalism. But really, we’ve seen these things within our own lifetime, haven’t we? We see people grounded in a capricious “common sense” that just ain’t so with doozies such as “America was founded as a Christian nation” and “the federal government shouldn’t stick its nose into capitalism”. Most firmly believe that their outer world was torn asunder (and even find feet at which to lay blame) while they themselves remained constant when, in reality, it was the other way around with them being both in possession of an ungrounded “common sense” that goes whichever way the winds blow and active participants in the destruction of tradition and all they claim to protect. Today the waves of change occur more frequently but this only increases our alienation from ourselves and our extreme thirst for something to believe in, so aptly described by R.D. Laing:

We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.

Laing goes even further, suggesting that there is only a thin line between so-called normal is nothing of the sort citing ones acculturation including the madness of war

We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our true selves, to one another, and to the spiritual and material world—mad, even, from an ideal standpoint we can glimpse but not adopt. 

Normality highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100, 000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.

Laing gazed back upon a different 50-year period than we do today so this 100,000 number must be adjusted upwards by more than a factor of 10 given advancements in military technology...which seems to make it all the more important to take care with the truth.


I would never spoil it by telling those who might be curious how it ends but to me the remainder of The Cult of Power is a credibly applicable account of where America might be headed. Decide for yourself. I’d not suggest anyone do otherwise.

On Blogging

I finished a couple of books on writing. No they didn't help, but they were interesting. Despite blogging being to writing as sugar is to food, we can fantasize about Poet Laureate, Pulitzer Prizes... being sexual Bodhisattvas, Wonder Woman, heavyweight champion, firemen and astronauts, can't we?

Reading On Writing by Stephen King I thought I was really on a roll until he asked why anyone would read a book on writing instead of spending the time writing.

Becoming a Writer by Dorothea Brande is a timeless book written in the 30's that describes qualities of successful writers and idiosyncracies that are impediments to writing. Given all the whining, me included, about bloggers block this is relevant here. But's let's not delude ourselves by calling it writers block.

She speaks about learning to see with the intensity of interest that a sensitive child feels of his expanding world and how we sometimes lose this ability as we become wrapped in our personal problems. The true neurotic may be engrossed in a problem so deeply buried in his being that he could not tell you what it is that he is comtemplating...the sign of this neurosis being ineffectiveness. Even the most normal among us are insulated by habit.

The dullness of apprehension to which we spinelessly submit is a danger to a writer. As long as there is a blockage in the flow of daily observations, fresh sensations and new ideas there is no alternative save salvaging material from a job or early life and rewriting endlessly of these things.

A writer is characterized as one more versatile, more sympathetic, more studious than those around him, more universal in his taste and less at the mercy of the crowd, either in his susceptibility to its influences or his cynicism and condescension towards it.

I've referred to compartmental thinking by which various perspectives can be maintained. Assuming a perspective or entering a compartment provides an observation point of sorts from which the view is uniquely different from what would be had from another. Brande refers to being multi-faceted.

How could one investing all their psychic energy in projecting an unwavering image of a hands down winner, not just winning but winning effortlessly, write evenly or believably about competition? The fear of losing that supplies the motivation to win? How could anyone who is him or herself  challenged in demonstrating sympathy, walking through life with nerve endings perpetually guarded give adequate treatment to the sensitivity of characters or even make them appear likeable? How could one investing their energy in mocking the earnestness and innocence of others maintain an emotional innocence of their own and a freshness of response that is so vital to an author's talent?

Brande handily addresses all the questions in a book I highly recommend for would-be writers, bloggers, laureates, super heroes and heroines etc. etc.

some thoughts on writing and the facades that we inevitably carry around with us which server not only as defensive barriers from others but from ourselves

Foray Verboten

DISCLAIMER: I wandered onto this site despite knowing that I shouldn't. My curiosity got the best of me. It was pure rubbernecking on the Internet Superhighway. I just couldn't help myself or resist taking a look at how the other half, or maybe 3-4% lived. After a couple of encounters like these I thought I'd fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole and quickly skeedaddled from that strange place which was definitely not for me, lacking most signs of intelligent and even empathetic life.
 
 

...6:44am...

After being pinged by HotYoungSexyThang274 (hmm...that thang thing, maybe southern), a 22 year old female, curiosity got the best of me.

SixFootGlass1: Hi. Wazzappenin'? You rang?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Hi there sexy.

SixFootGlass1: That I am. What's on your mind?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Some hot action, that's what.

SixFootGlass1: and what kind of action might that be?

SixFootGlass1: wait, don't answer...I think I already know. Cam girl, right?

HotYoungSexyThang274: I'll be honest with you. I'm a cam girl but for the next 3 days we have a special running. With signup you can get unlimited access for 3 days. Your membership then goes month-to-month but you may cancel at any time.

SixFootGlass1: That sounds interesting. You are young right?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Uh-huh, I am 22 and I have a really hot, tight, little body that is just aching to be seen by you.

SixFootGlass1: Oh, I am sure your body is really nice but I was just wondering.

HotYoungSexyThang274: Oh, it is. Wondering what?

SixFootGlass1: Well, with your dancing, cam work or things that it entails are you skilled?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Yes I am. And I have a really hot body. Would you like to see?

SixFootGlass1: There might be time for that later. I'm sure your body is very nice. With your line of work do you find that you get better with more experience?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Why yes, as a matter of fact.

SixFootGlass1: That's true about most things in life. I have a cam too. We could video-conference, right?

HotYoungSexyThang274: Sure. We could do that.

SixFootGlass1: I'm just worried about one thing.

HotYoungSexyThang274: What's that.

SixFootGlass1: Well, I'm a little older and more experienced so you might enjoy it more than I.

HotYoungSexyThang274: Your joking.

SixFootGlass1: Well not really. In 23 more years you will catch up in experience and be even better.

HotYoungSexyThang274: But I'm a professional.

SixFootGlass1: and that is supposed to mean what? Good Housekeeping seal of approval?

HotYoungSexyThang274: I am a professional

SixFootGlass1: But I have more experience and if you enjoyed it then I might have to charge you.

HotYoungSexyThang274: I have a hot body.

SixFootGlass1: Well, so do I actually. No extra charge for super-sizing it either.

HotYoungSexyThang274: You aren't serious, are you?

SixFootGlass1: I am completely serious that...

HotYoungSexyThang274: that what?

SixFootGlass1: I am friends with your parents

HotYoungSexyThang274 has ended the chat session



...11:43am...

I am again interrupted from my plaintive musings and writing by one FindMe86x, a 23 year-old male who according to his profile (one does have to take a quick peek for some context, right?) lives 3 miles from me, is gay and is looking for older men.

Oh me oh my. Well, he'll never go away unless I explain. This is the 10th ping I've gotten from him. Besides, I fancy myself an open-minded, urbane, sophisticated and worldly-wise male, I should be able to chat with anyone. I'd actually traded 3 lines with him one morning as I was rushing off to work. Just long enough to explain that, while I would chat with anyone, I am not gay but rather hopelessly...frustratedly heterosexual.

FindMe86x: hi

SixFootGlass1: Hi dude, howzitgoin?

FindMe86x: Need someone to be with tonight?

SixFootGlass1: Thanks but no thanks, but if I were in the market you'd be the first I'd call on.

FindMe86x: whats wrong don't you like me?

SixFootGlass1: No, it's not that.

FindMe86x: what is it. are you playing games with me?

SixFootGlass1: No. I don't play games. Well hardly, not without making the ground rules clear.

FindMe86x: i don't understand

SixFootGlass1: I'm not gay. I explained that the other day. Have you even read my profile? Where does it say I'm gay or even bi-curious?

FindMe86x: but your profile say you cried at movies. your writing is so sensitive. You indicated that you were a man's man.

SixFootGlass1: It did but if you just scrolled down a little bit more to the fact sheet you would read "straight." You'd also read up at the top about "Women, Groups or Couples (2 women) for Discreet Relationship or Erotic Chat or Email."

SixFootGlass1: My eyes do well up sometimes but I don't bawl! C'mon, even if you are gay you have to understand this. Didn't you cry in "Old Yeller" when they had to put Ol' Yeller down? I think every male got a little misty eyed over that. Besides women like men who are in touch with their emotions. The man's man reference does not mean...like, for sex. It means being bro's, goin' to titty bars (though I prefer calling them Gentlemen's Clubs) for booze and lap dances, boasting about sexual conquests with women, watching the Man Show, UFC and the military channel, tractor pull and NASCAR (if you live in the south)...that sort of shit.

FindMe86x: oh

SixFootGlass1: C'mon there cupcake don't be so crestfallen. There's someone for you out there. You'll find 'em.

FindMe86x: I know but it's just so hard sometimes.

SixFootGlass1: Buck up and be a trooper. If I meet any nice gay guys I'll send 'em your way.

FindMe86x: you will?

SixFootGlass1: You betcha. However, I am curious about one thing.

FindMe86x: yes

SixFootGlass1: Have you ever considered someone more your age? This older man thing just seems like it has the potential for confusion regarding parental authority. Has this been going on long? I mean is there something that happened way back being acted out?

FindMe86x has ended the chat session.


Poor FindMe. I actually felt a little sorry for him. I'm afraid that my attempts to mentor or disentangle alll of his undercurrents of unknown origin might be misconstrued. Sadly everyone cannot be saved.

I do hope he finds himself though, whatever that may be.

I'm conflicted. There's a fine line to walk between honesty and enablement. I'm not trying to be mean. It's an emotional wasteland out there and empathy is a rare commodity.

Should I try to be more caring and empathetic? It's all a matter of opinion though, isn't it? Who really wants help or even think they need it? How can sensitivity be shown when so much remains hidden and is not out on the table?

I'm drained. Maybe some TV...

Epistemological

This should be filed under metaphysics or perhaps epistemology (how we know what we think we know). Which is a "whole 'nother topic" unto itself that deserves closer examination which can be a pain in the ass because that would be self-examination, something rare and much more difficult than absorbing the prejudices of those around us and letting it pass for truth. There's truth in numbers, you know...or was that strength? In any case, the much sought after feeliing of being amongst vast number of the like-minded is so consoling that we grow ornery when that good feeling is threatened in any way. It is easier to blame another than to revise one's thinking or to assimilate new ideas into one's world view.


Given that the great debate healthcare has reduced many to hysterically screeching hyenas and has resulted in a lot of verbal feces hurling it might also be good to take a look at how to argue intelligently, a primer of sorts.

This is a basic breakdown of the ways in which disagreement can be expressed and the relative merits of each from low to high. I submit that the lower levels mark the speaker more than the subject of the speech but like venting, hurling verbal feces feels good and if one gets in the last word...well, doesn't everyone know that makes you right? Ok, just kidding about that last one.

Anyway the levels are:

1. Name calling
2. Ad Hominem
3. Responding to Tone
4. Contradiction
5. Counterargument
6. Refutation
7. Refuting the Central Point

The idea is that the lower forms are cruder and the higher ones are more compelling and effective.

This topic on how to disagree leads to questions of "What is true?" since we all believe what we believe is true. Oh sure, we sometimes admit an element of faith, belief, or that something is right for us and "to each their own", but such attitudes seem more and more rare today.

Too bad it eludes us most of the time.


From British Playwright Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize Lecture:

In 1958 I wrote the following:

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?

Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it but the search for it is compulsive. The search is clearly what drives the endeavour. The search is your task. More often than not you stumble upon the truth in the dark, colliding with it or just glimpsing an image or a shape which seems to correspond to the truth, often without realising that you have done so. But the real truth is that there never is any such thing as one truth to be found in dramatic art. There are many. These truths challenge each other, recoil from each other, reflect each other, ignore each other, tease each other, are blind to each other. Sometimes you feel you have the truth of a moment in your hand, then it slips through your fingers and is lost.

It goes on and on and is quite a read. In any event I was impressed...

People arrive at conclusions of the same relative degree of veracity in a variety of ways. Some latch on to some idea or another in a desperate emotional leap, others reason within themselves, others try to seek confirmation or some demonstrable affirmation of sensibility from others or from various sources outside themselves while still others recognize that for some things there is an inability to really "know" in some perfect, divine, absolute or god-like way and (sensibly in my opinion) call it faith. This doesn't mean that people arriving at what they would insist on calling truth do it similarly. In the end it is just one person saying something is true.

I am increasingly impressed by the tribal nature of truth. At times we hardly seem more civilized than the fearful villagers with pitchforks and other implements of destruction, trying to get the courage to march up to that twisted Dr. Frankenstein's castle on a stormy night. Then when we get our courage up by reinforcing one another we are like a hasty, wild west posse so certain and equally wrong that innocent strangers riding in off the prairie would be luckier if they rode on to the next town.

There is a smug satisfaction derived from the feeling of being in a community of the like-minded. It has nothing to do with making smart decisions. It has more to do with feeling that one fits in. There have been times and places where the conventional wisdom was just wrong...or at least in retrospect, years later it was widely recognized to have been so. But as we live it in realtime, almost in slow motion, rarely do we see any ugliness in ourselves or think that our actions might be species or culture-limiting.

John Cleese, captures our essential obliviousness quite well. His vid likens us to junkies or addicts to projection, self-righteousness, deflection and a host of other techniques we use to distance ourselves from any recognition of responsibility for our actions or actions made in our name which we somehow find a way to endorse. While we need a sense of local and "fitting in" we serve the darker sides of our nature by creating our own mythical evil-doers and boogeymen in the form of ethnic, nationalistic, demographic and ideological pettiness because it makes us feel better about ourselves.