Why The News Is So Bad

Why is the news so bad?

I’m not talking about biased news. Yes, there’s bias, and it’s getting worse. But that’s not the issue here.

I’m also not talking about why the news is full of so many evil and horrifying things. Such things have always been around, too, but we often didn’t learn about them. For example, The New York Times covered up Stalin’s mass murder of millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor, just as the news media have covered up other terrible crimes.

Instead, I’m talking about the quality of the news. Even taking bias into account, why is the news so unreliable?

I don’t have all the answers, but I was a newspaper reporter in Washington, DC in the 1990s. I can tell you about an experience I had that seems relevant.

Because I had done computer programming, I covered computer technology in the government.

In one case, a market research firm had published a report. It said that computer firms had complained about a new government technology standard because it allegedly favored one particular company.

It was a plausible story. Things like that happen. But as a reporter, it was my job to look for facts, not to tell readers what I thought was plausible.

The technology standard itself wasn’t much help, so I started talking to people at the computer companies. I knew some of them socially as well as professionally. Every one of them, both on the record and off the record (privately) told me the same thing: As far as they knew, nobody at their companies had made such an accusation.

So I wrote the article. Its first paragraph reported what the market research firm had said. The rest of the article recounted, with direct quotes, what people at computer companies had said — i.e., that the market research firm was wrong.

And that’s what I handed in to the editor.

Because the details matter, let’s review:

  • The market research firm said that
  • Computer companies had said that
  • The government was favoring one company.
  • People at the companies denied saying it.

The editor re-wrote my first paragraph to say that companies had, in fact, accused the government of favoring one company. She provided no evidence that it was true. The rest of my article still consisted of people at the companies saying, “no, we didn’t make that accusation.” So the first paragraph of the article directly contradicted the rest of the article.

That conflict is not rocket science. But it was apparently too subtle for the newspaper’s editor to perceive.

Two weeks later, the editor herself wrote a follow-up article. Her follow-up reported that the original article had said the government was favoring a particular company.

Hello? Any normal person should be able to see the difference between these statements:

  • A market research firm reported that companies said X.
  • Companies did in fact say X.
  • X is true.

Poor news quality results not only from bias, but also from carelessness and incompetence.

In this era of corporate media, people get promoted to editor not because they’re good journalists, but because they’re skillful corporate politicians.

Joseph Pulitzer, after whom the Pulitzer Prize was named, said that the three most important qualities of any news article were “accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy.” Unfortunately, that’s no longer a priority in the news media.

 

Posted in Life, Psychology, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Drug Policy: Good Is Better Than Perfect

American laws about recreational drug use are a mess.

Americans rot in prison for using or selling marijuana, which is relatively harmless. They rot in prison for selling cocaine and heroin, which aren’t harmless but harm mainly heavy users, and which are less harmful than cigarette smoking, which is legal.

Recreational drugs are immensely profitable mainly because they are illegal. The profits tend to corrupt the underpaid staffs of police and other law enforcement agencies. Those law enforcement officials who aren’t taking bribes from drug kingpins choose, instead, to take the Constitutional rights of people who engage in personal drug use.

Can We Do Better?

The correct policy response to the widespread use of psychotropic drugs is not a simple issue. The two extremes of the debate over drug policy seem biased on one hand by ideology and on the other hand by psychology:

  • Libertarianism rejects any legal limitations on personal conduct. This view endorses repeal of all laws against manufacture, sale, or use of psychotropic drugs. Because of their ideology, libertarians minimize or ignore the harm that drug use can cause to users, to other people, and to society.
  • Social conservatism seems preoccupied by sin: in particular, by the sinful conduct of other people. This view supports extensive legal prohibition, iron-fisted enforcement, and merciless punishment of those perceived as sinners. Because of their psychology, social conservatives exaggerate the immorality of drug use and the harm it can cause to users, to other people, and to society.

History can also inform our assessment. It provides arguments for two propositions, each of which leads to a different conclusion about drug policy.

All societies forbid some drugs and approve others

All societies throughout history have used psychotropic drugs. As psychiatrist Thomas Szasz documents in his classic book Ceremonial Chemistry (Syracuse University Press, 2003), societies have considered some drugs to be wicked and have persecuted their use. Other drugs, often quite similar, were considered virtuous and their use was encouraged. Often, the same drugs appeared at different times in both categories. This suggests that classifying drugs as sinful or virtuous is irrational, as is persecution of drug use.

Political resistance to drug legalization tends to confirm the role of irrationality in the debate:

Legalization has been a politically weak but intellectually powerful influence in American life for the last decade. Its criticism of the current regime has a great deal of truth in it. … Arrayed against them, but with a curiously weak representation in the academic and intellectual community, are all the forces of political power.
(MacCoun and Reuter, Drug War Heresies, location 114 of ebook. Cambridge UP, 2001)

Henry David Thoreau wrote, accurately, that “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” If using drugs helps people to endure life’s difficulties with a modicum of contentment, then that argues for letting them do it unmolested. Sigmund Freud held the same view of alcohol. Perhaps the most poignant argument for letting people use psychotropic drugs was given, in another context, by the American writer Mark Twain:

Life was not a valuable gift, but death was. Life was a fever-dream made up of joys embittered by sorrows, pleasure poisoned by pain … But death was sweet, death was gentle, death was kind; death healed the bruised spirit and the broken heart, and gave them rest and forgetfulness; death was man’s best friend. When man could endure life no longer, death came and set him free.
(Letters from the Earth, Letter X)

People take psychotropic drugs to “set themselves free” of life’s inevitable sorrows and frustrations. One can argue that they shouldn’t have to die for it.

All societies have scapegoats

At the same time, all societies throughout history have seemed to need scapegoat groups toward which members of the majority direct the anger and frustration of their own lives. Sometimes the scapegoats are religious, sometimes ethnic, sometimes selected by particular practices such as the use of forbidden drugs.

A realistic assessment must consider the possibility that persecuting drug users acts as a social safety valve. Though it is an admitted evil, it might provide a less destructive and less expensive social catharsis than its alternatives, just as Edward Jenner discovered that deliberately infecting people with cowpox (by vaccination) protected them from the much more serious disease of smallpox.

This argues for continued drug prohibition, though the specifics – which drugs, how they are prohibited or discouraged, and what kind of penalties attend their use – make a great deal of difference.

The Libertarian View

The libertarian view has undeniable merits. Mindless drug prohibition does increase crime, both by inducing some users to commit crimes for money to buy drugs and by causing violent resolution of conflicts between people who lack access to the courts. It ruins the lives of people whose only crime is seeking a temporary, drug-induced escape from their problems. It degrades the rule of law and corrupts police.  Like earlier prohibition efforts, it disproportionately affects disfavored minorities. As Booker T. Washington wrote in 1912:

In the agitation of the liquor question incident to the attempt to pass prohibition laws in Georgia, Alabama, and other Southern States, a great deal was said about the relation of strong drink to crime, particularly crime among [forbidden word]s. This is a very important subject, because from two-thirds to three-fourths of prisoners in the penitentiaries, jails, and chain gangs in the South are [forbidden word]s.
(“[Forbidden Word] Crime and Strong Drink,” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 3:3, September 1912, pp. 384-392)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Crime is the same. So is censorship, since we’re now forbidden even to quote words that offend woke sensibilities.

However, the libertarian view is unrealistic because it assumes that people act rationally: a quality that they display inconsistently even under ideal conditions, and which drug use makes more difficult. It also assumes an atomistic view of society in which individuals’ actions do not significantly affect others and in which they have no obligations to others beyond non-aggression.

The Social Conservative View

Apart from its obsession with sin and punishment, the social conservative view is closer to the truth than the libertarian view. Doing nothing about widespread use of psychotropic drugs is not an option. However, what we do should be informed by three considerations:

  • All drugs are not alike. Drugs differ widely in the harm they cause to users, to other people, and to society.
  • All drug users are not alike. As with alcohol, the majority of drug users are casual and occasional users. Only a minority are habitual or addicted users.
  • All legal and social sanctions are not alike. They can range from mild (such as fines or social disapproval) to draconian (such as long prison sentences or execution of drug dealers).

What Should We Do?

Our goal is to minimize the harm that drug use and illegal trafficking cause to users, to other people, and to society. However, we want to avoid remedies that in themselves cause excessive harm, such as degrading the rule of law, violating individual rights, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments for relatively minor transgressions.

Having concluded that “Yes, we are going to do something to regulate psychotropic drug use,” we can now address the question: What should we do?

Domestic and international anti-drug efforts are not mutually exclusive. It’s quite possible to take some measures that reduce drug production in source countries, and take other measures to regulate drug use domestically.

American anti-drug efforts in other drug-producing countries are not very cost-effective, though some are less unhelpful than others. As Kleiman, Caulkins, and Hawken observe in Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2011):

Interdiction has had greater success than crop eradication, which in turn is more likely than alternative development to disrupt availability in final-market countries.

However, they conclude:

[The desire] to get to the root of drug problems by stopping drug production in source countries … is based on the illusion that the drug problem is caused by the drugs – which can be seized and destroyed – rather than by the desire for those drugs and the industry that arises to meet that desire.

It is also true that many drugs can be grown or produced domestically, so attacking their production in other countries has little effect on their availability in the United States. It is also not irrelevant that the U.S. military is already over-extended and the U.S government budget is severely strained. Overall, anti-drug efforts in other countries are a poor choice.

That leaves domestic policy as a tool to reduce drug-related harm.

Thinking Outside the Box for Domestic Policy

Most discussions of drug policy ignore one important alternative. There is a way to reduce drug-related harm that falls between the extremes of doing nothing and doing too much. It’s unfashionable, largely unknown except as a rhetorical device, and little understood in the 21st century, but was a central feature of America’s Constitutional system: Federalism.

Federalism holds that power and decision-making should be decentralized as much as is practical. It holds that if an issue can be handled adequately at the local or state level, then it is not an appropriate concern of the national government.

Some issues are clearly federal concerns: basic civil rights, international commerce, war, crimes that cross state lines, and so forth. However, for both philosophical and practical reasons, many other issues are better left to state or local jurisdictions.

The premier example of such an issue is abortion. The 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, which launched our national frenzy about the issue, is usually misunderstood. It did not legalize abortion, which was already legal in some states and illegal in others. What Roe did (on dubious Constitutional grounds) was to strike down most state laws restricting abortion. That raised what had been a state and local issue to the federal level. From the standpoint of practical politics and social harmony, that change caused most of the problems.

Abortion is a bitterly divisive issue mainly because Americans cannot reach a national consensus on the correct legal solution. However, achieving consensus at the state or local level would be much easier. California, New York, and other majority-liberal states would probably have few if any restrictions. Illinois might have some restrictions on a procedure that was generally legal. Utah might ban abortion completely. On both sides of the debate, zealots would be dissatisfied, but the national acrimony about abortion would be over.

Likewise, a big part of the American problem with illegal drugs comes from the inability to achieve a national consensus. The division of opinion is not geographically divided as much as it is for abortion, but has a geographic component. Achieving consensus would be easier at the state or local level than at the national level, where it is virtually impossible.

A first step, then, would be for the federal government to cede most drug policy choices to the states. Based on majority opinion of its citizens, each state would enact drug policies best suited to its own situation.

What States Might Wisely Do

Of course, that still leaves unanswered the question of what states should do about the use of psychotropic drugs.

We must accept the fact that no solution will be perfect. Regardless of what we do, some people will abuse drugs. Some people will be killed by them. Some minors will get them.

The French philosopher Voltaire wrote that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” By pursuing unattainable perfect solutions and refusing to consider attainable good solutions, U.S. drug policy has done enormous harm both to America and to other countries.

In summary, here are my recommended “good solutions:”

  • Marijuana and similar drugs: Ignore them except when their use causes other problems, such as driving while intoxicated. Treat them in essentially the same way as alcoholic beverages. Prohibit their sale to minors. They have low addiction potential and are relatively (though not completely) harmless. Most of the harm comes from enforcement efforts.
  • Cocaine, heroin, and similar drugs: Sell them through government dispensaries to addicts and incorrigible heavy users who cannot or will not quit using them. Include medical monitoring. After a speedy (and fair) trial, promptly execute anyone found guilty of selling cocaine or heroin on the black market. Such drugs have high addiction potential and can cause serious physical harm. Current enforcement efforts add to the damage through violence, corruption, and impure street drugs.

Executing cocaine and heroin dealers while providing users with the drugs in a regulated way, would also preserve the function of drug sellers and users as social scapegoats. It would thereby decrease the likelihood of even more serious social and political pathology.

What the Federal Government Can Do

To the extent that it is still functioning in any positive way, the federal government can have a role in discouraging the use of psychotropic drugs. It is limited but, over the long run, it might be more effective than enforcement efforts.

The most obvious role for the federal government is to prosecute interstate crimes that involve drugs, just as it now prosecutes crimes that would otherwise be local if one of the perpetrators hadn’t crossed a state line in committing them. The federal government can also adjudicate disputes between states about drug policy related issues.

However, what might be the federal government’s most powerful role has less immediate effect. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, two-time Nobel laureate, wrote:

Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake, within thirty years, to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the state … Any verbal denial of the mystic doctrine would be made illegal, and obstinate heretics would be ‘frozen’ at the stake. No person who did not enthusiastically accept the official doctrine would be allowed to teach or have any position of power. Only the very highest officials, in their cups, would whisper to each other what rubbish it all is; then they would laugh and drink again.
(Unpopular Essays, Routledge Classics, 2009)

As demonstrated by its terror campaign about Covid-19, the federal government still has enormous power to shape American public opinion. However, in the case of drug policy, it has exercised that power either clumsily or not at all.

An example of successful propaganda is the government’s use of the entertainment industry to promote its military agenda.

Most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Department of Defense has “script approval” rights over the majority of American war movies. Consistent with the First Amendment, the government does not prohibit movies opposing U.S. military actions. However, in exchange for control over movie content, the Pentagon offers “free” use of military aircraft, locations, hardware, and other assistance. As a result, movies that portray government policies in the most positive light are cheaper and more realistic. Moviegoers never realize that they are paying to watch propaganda.

For the most part, Americans are subjected to the opposite kind of propaganda about the sale and use of psychotropic drugs. Popular movies and television shows portray drug dealers in a mostly positive light, and drug use as mostly harmless. Others portray cocaine use as trendy and fashionable, much as popular 1960s television shows featured characters who smoked cigarettes almost non-stop throughout each episode.

The propaganda pendulum has now swung to the opposite extreme for cigarettes. As a result, smoking has become less popular and smokers are seen as social lepers. Movies and television shows must get special permission to show characters smoking cigarettes.

The same thing can be done with drugs that have high risk of causing harm. Along the same lines as its military and Covid-19 propaganda, the federal government could offer incentives for entertainment providers to convey anti-drug messages. It would take time for Hollywood to accept and transmit the message, and more time for public attitudes to change. But changing public attitudes is the best, even if imperfect, thing that the federal government can try to do in drug policy.

In this world, there are no perfect solutions. But American drug policy ignores a lot of good ones.

Posted in Political Science, Psychology, Science, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Don’t Live Thoughtlessly

The American philosopher John Dewey argued that for most people, most of the time, thinking is a last resort. They only think when a problem or obstacle blocks their path.

And he wasn’t wrong. Most of the time, we live on autopilot. We do either:

  • What we’ve done before,
  • What other people are doing,
  • What other people say they’re doing (but really aren’t),
  • Or what some authority told us to do.

That thoughtless approach to life works okay when our actions are helpful or harmless. But when our actions cause harm — especially long-run harm that won’t show up until later — we need to stop and think.

Our degenerate culture boasts many examples, but one of the most obvious is subjecting children to gender ideology, such as the idea that sex is “assigned at birth” rather than a natural biological feature.

Yes, I know we’re supposed to say “gender” instead of “sex” to keep the alphabet people from throwing a tantrum. But “gender” as applied to humans is a misleading anti-concept that’s used to obscure the legitimate concept of biological sex. It’s easier to deceive and manipulate people when no one can be sure of what anyone else is talking about.

But I digress. It’s hard for people to recognize insanities of their own societies because they themselves live in the insane asylum.

Therefore, to clarify, consider an example from China. Harvard historian John King Fairbank reported his observations:

“When my wife and I lived in Beijing in the early 1930s, all women of middle age or over had bound feet, stumping about awkwardly on their heels as though the front sections of their feet had been amputated …

Imagine yourself a girl child who — for some six to ten long years, beginning at age 5 to 8 and lasting until 13 or 15, the years of your childhood and getting your growth — has her feet always bound in long strips of  cloth night and day with no letup in order to deform them …

Under this constant pressure your arches have gradually been broken and bowed upward so only the back edge of your heels can support your weight … The result is that you will never run again and can walk on the base of your heels only with difficulty. Even standing will be uncomfortable.” (China: A New History, Chapter 8; Harvard University Press, 2002)

Mothers had suffered through it as children, so they did it to their own daughters because it was just “the thing to do.” They didn’t think about it, any more than many Americans think about the cruelties and insanities that they embrace as normal or at least acceptable.

By the 20th century, China had abolished foot-binding. But the Chinese now look back with shame and horror at a practice that their society once considered sane and normal.

How will people in the year 2100 view our own era? Will they gasp in horror at the atrocities we were willing to commit for wokeness and its unholy trinity of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE)?

We don’t have to wait until 2100 to find out. We can start thinking now.

We can insist on clarity and proof. We can question authority. We don’t have to believe whatever we’re told by people on television just because they’ve got expensive suits and bodyguards. We don’t have to let social media giants manipulate us.

Let’s not, in our old age, look back in shame that we failed to reject the evils of our era.

Let’s instead look back with pride that we fearlessly sought the truth, and then acted on it.

Posted in Life, Political Science, Psychology, Society | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beware of “Exceptions” to Freedom

Yale University historian Timothy Snyder wrote a short book called On Tyranny that’s quite good. Each of its 20 chapters explains a way to preserve freedom and civilized society in the face of attacks by tyrannical government.

The book came out in 2017, so it’s clearly meant as a warning about The Devil Trump. But apart from the author’s political partisanship, the content is valid. And it’s a quick read.

None of it is about 2021, of course, but a lot of it could be:

  • “Do not obey in advance.”
  • “Be wary of paramilitaries.”
  • “Believe in truth.”
  • “Investigate.”
  • “Make eye contact and small talk.”
  • “Be a patriot.”

Chapter 17 isn’t about 2021, but almost sounds like it is:

“The most intelligent of the Nazis, legal theorist Carl Schmitt, explained fascist government. The way to destroy all rules, he explained, was to focus on the idea of the exception. A Nazi leader outmaneuvers his opponents by manufacturing a general conviction that the present moment is exceptional, and then transforming that state into a permanent emergency. Citizens will then trade real freedom for fake safety.”

That sounds uncomfortably recent and familiar. It’s worth pondering.

Posted in Political Science, Psychology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

For The Chinese, Context Is Everything

It ain’t much, but it’s the first story I’ve written in Chinese.

I’d wanted to write about Chinese political philosophy, but I found that my vocabulary was too limited to do it. Surprisingly, some Chinese ideas about governmental legitimacy are the same as those of our Western tradition, just dressed up in different language.

My story is kind of pointless, but it’s what I could write at my current skill level:

“Yesterday evening, I bought a new truck. I drove it to the airport. There, I discovered a party. I met Mr. Fish. I said to him, ‘Excuse me, do you have a business card?’”

As television host Johnny Carson used to say when his audience didn’t laugh, “These are the jokes, folks. I get paid either way.”

Literally translated, my story says:

“Yesterday evening, I buy (the verb is followed by a completed action marker) one unit new of truck.

I drove to go (“go” was omitted, so it’s in red) airplane field. I at that location (I had put “at that location” in the wrong place, so it’s crossed out and re-inserted) discovered one unit of evening meeting (i.e., a party).

I meet Fish Mister (the context indicates that I did it in the past). I say to him, “Please may I ask (I had omitted the little square in the middle of the character for “ask”), you have name card (yes/no question marker)?”

It wasn’t until I studied Chinese that I realized how similar all Western languages are. English, French, Spanish, German, and even Russian and Hebrew all do the same things in basically the same ways. Not Chinese:

  • The most obvious difference in spoken Chinese is that pitch changes indicate the meanings of words, so speaking Chinese is a little like singing. We English speakers tend not to hear the pitch changes because we don’t expect them and don’t listen for them. It takes practice to do it.
  • Written Chinese is not phonetic. From the way a word is pronounced, you can’t tell how it’s written, and from the way it’s written, you can’t tell how it’s pronounced. Depending on the context, the same written word’s meaning or pronunciation can change a lot. You simply must learn all the different meanings, pronunciations, and when to use them.
  • Chinese verbs do not have tenses for past, present, or future. The context shows when the action occurred. Sometimes, a completed action marker follows the verb, but often not. You just have to know the context.
  • Chinese nouns are usually preceded by “measure words” that indicate what type of object is under discussion. For a car, it’s lee-ahng; for a party, tzi; for a person, ge, and so on. My “concise dictionary” has a seven-page list of measure words for different kinds of things. Heaven knows how long the list is in dictionaries that aren’t “concise.”

The bottom line is that if they work at it, most people can learn to read and understand some Chinese. But to speak or write it correctly takes much more knowledge. I’m slowly getting there.

If I were to draw one lesson from studying the Chinese language, it’s that for the Chinese, context is everything. Nothing is seen in isolation. Even the word for “nothing” can mean half a dozen other things, depending on the context.

Whether as our ally or adversary (probably a little of both), China is going to be a player on the world stage. The more we know about it, the better we can play.


Check out my book Why Sane People Believe Crazy Things: How Belief Can Help or Hurt Social Peace. Kirkus reviews called it an “impressively nuanced analysis.”

Posted in Life, Psychology | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Character Is Destiny — For Nations, Too

China is our geopolitical adversary, but the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius had some advice that might help us in these difficult times. He said:

“Only after a person has demeaned himself will others demean him. Only after a great family has destroyed itself will others destroy it. And only after a country has torn itself down will others tear it down. The T’ai Chia says:

‘Ruin from Heaven,
We can weather.
Ruin from ourselves,
We never survive.'”

To survive, let alone to recover, our country must regain its sanity and self-respect.

As American Founder George Washington said, “Labor to keep alive in yourself that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

Posted in Philosophy, Political Science | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kathy Shaidle, R.I.P.

Blogger Kathy Shaidle died yesterday, but she lived long enough to write her own obituary. It’s a classic of class. R.I.P., Kathy. I hope to meet you someday (but not too soon):

“Kathy Shaidle 1964 – 2021

Following a tedious rendezvous with ovarian cancer, Kathy Shaidle has died, wishing she’d spent more time at the office.

Her tombstone reads: GET OFF MY LAWN!

She is relieved she won’t have to update her LinkedIn profile, shave her legs, or hear ‘Creep’ by Radiohead ever again. Some may even be jealous that she’s getting out of enduring a Biden presidency.

Kathy was a writer, author, columnist and blogging pioneer, as proud of her first book’s Governor General’s Award nomination as of her stint as ‘Ed Anger’ for The Weekly World News.*

A target for cancel culture before the term was coined, she was denounced by all the best people, sometimes for contradictory reasons.

Kathy did not lead a particularly ‘full life,’ her existence having been composed mostly of a series of unpleasant surprises. Her favorite corporeal pleasure was saying, ‘I told you so,’ which she was able to utter with justification multiple times a day. A bookish movie-buff and agoraphobic homebody, as a child Kathy ‘always preferred the little couch ride on the merry-go-round.’ Yet Kathy managed to acquire a reputation for mouthiness, a side effect of her bullshit allergy.

Contrary to cliche, Kathy did not conduct herself with particular ‘grace,’ ‘dignity’ or ‘courage’ in her final months. She didn’t ‘bravely fight on’ after her cancer was pronounced terminal. All she did was (barely) cope, and then only with assistance from her generous employer, and some energetic and selfless friends whom she’d somehow managed to acquire over the years, much to her astonishment. Of course, the greatest of these was her stalwart beloved of over 20 years, Arnie, with whom she is now in the ultimate long distance relationship. They can all finally catch up on their sleep.

Donations can be made to the Dorothy Ley Hospice, Toronto.”

  • The Weekly World News was a parody newspaper, similar to The Babylon Bee or The New York Times. “Ed Anger” was a perpetually enraged columnist for the newspaper.
Posted in Life | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t “Other” Other People

Most people aren’t familiar with the idea of “othering,” but they are familiar with what it is. They’ve seen it. They’ve done it to other people, and they’ve had it done to them.

To “other” a group of people is to devalue their lives, welfare, and concerns. It’s not new, nor is it done only by humans. In their own way, lower animals do it too.

The reason it’s so common is that it’s hard-wired into our biology by evolution. Animals tend to help their genetic relatives, and they tend to fight or flee non-relatives. They use group membership as one way to identify their genetic relatives.

As a result, animals tend to help members of their group and to fight or flee non-members. Whether the animals are beetles, bats, chimps, or humans, it works the same.

The difference of humans is that we can recognize and understand what we’re doing. Unlike lower animals, we can choose not to do it.

You might think that bias applies only to groups like race or political party, but it can apply to any kind of group. As Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson observed in The Social Conquest of Earth:

“Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong. Even when experimenters created the groups arbitrarily … participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their ‘opponents’ to be less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, less competent.”

Now do a thought-experiment: Think of a group you dislike. It can be a political party, another race, another nation, or another religion. How do you feel about them?

Do you rate them as “less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, and less competent”? That’s your group bias talking: you have “othered” them. It prevents you from seeing them as they really are and from taking their concerns seriously. Even worse, it prevents members of different groups from cooperating for mutual benefit. Instead, they vilify and fight each other when rational people could make peace and work together.

Yes, some people actually are unfair, untrustworthy, and incompetent. But if you’ve othered all the members of their group, you won’t be able to distinguish the good from the bad. You will see only “the other.”

Othering people is especially dangerous when minds are clouded by misinformation and anger. It can lead to violence and can destroy good societies. We face that situation right now.

I don’t care which “side” you think you’re on. Don’t let your emotions overwhelm your reason. Stop and think.

Do you really believe that members of opposing group X are all homicidal maniacs who must be destroyed before they destroy you? That there’s no way to live in peace — or even better, to cooperate for mutual benefit?

That kind of grim situation doesn’t happen nearly as often as people lead themselves to believe — right before they embark on their own sprees of mindless destruction.

Stop and think. Please. You’re a human being. Don’t act like you’re just a stupid animal that can only hate and fight because that’s what its instincts tell it to do.

Don’t “other” other people.

Posted in Human Relations, Life, Political Science, Psychology, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Be a Winner in 2021

Life is like a game of chess.

I was going to say “life is like a box of chocolates,” but apparently someone else has used that already.

In high school and college, I played a lot of chess. A chess game can end in two ways:

  • One player wins and the other loses. The winner gets 1 point. The loser gets none.
  • Nobody wins or loses, called a “draw.” Both players get one-half of a point. Draws occur when neither player can force checkmate, and in a few other situations.

Over the years, I discovered that there were two kinds of chess players.

The first kind of player wants to win. The late Bobby Fischer (1943-2008) was like that. He was fiercely aggressive on the chessboard. He once said “I like the moment when I break a man’s ego.” As you might guess, he was not a very nice guy. But he was one of the greatest chess players who ever lived.

The second kind of player hates to lose. That player takes a more passive approach to avoid losing. If it looks risky to try for a win, he won’t take the risk. He’ll try for a stalemate or some other way to get a draw.

Neither approach is right or wrong. Aggressive players like Fischer get most of the attention because they’re more interesting. Their moves are sometimes brilliant and unexpected. But many grandmasters have played passively and still won tournaments. They’re called “drawing masters” because they draw so many games.

Each player’s style reflects his or her own personality and values. One element of chess strategy is to force your opponent to play in ways with which he’s uncomfortable. You try to make an aggressive player defend, and you try to make a passive player attack.

And chess is like life. Some people want to win. Others hate to lose. Most are probably in the middle. It affects how they live.

My view of life matches my view of chess: “Not losing” doesn’t equal “winning.” Likewise, not dying isn’t the same thing as living.

But I can’t tell you the right approach for your life, any more than I can tell you the right approach for you to play chess. That depends on what you think and how you feel. How I feel only applies to me.

In 2021, you should live in the way that your heart tells you is right.

If you do that, then you’ll be a winner.

Note: Chess grandmaster Reuben Fine (1914-1993), who was also a psychoanalyst, wrote a good book on The Psychology of the Chess Player. It’s still in print.


Check out my book Why Sane People Believe Crazy Things: How Belief Can Help or Hurt Social Peace. Kirkus Reviews called it an “impressively nuanced analysis.”

Posted in Life, Psychology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Christmas Conundrum

(The photo shows the Japanese pop music group E-girls, which disbanded in 2020 but reunited for a Christmas farewell video.)

At Christmas, it’s natural to think of Jesus, whose life and example inspired the Christian faith. Christians believe that in addition to being a great man and moral teacher, Jesus was also God in human form.

That’s the most obvious disagreement between Christianity and Judaism. Personally, I think it’s much ado about a metaphor, since both faiths say that God is beyond human understanding. Would the “Sermon on the Mount” be any less true if its preacher were merely a great man with a noble vision? Hardly.

But there’s another difference that has more practical impact. It’s a difference in emphasis: What, exactly, does “the Golden Rule” tell us to do?

The version that most people know comes from the Christian Gospel of Matthew 7:12. Phrased in modern English, it’s “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

It refers to “others,” that is, to everyone. And it tells us to do good things.

Most people, including Jews, don’t know that Judaism has a slightly different version. It comes from the Talmud, in which the ancient Rabbi Hillel was challenged to define Judaism concisely. He replied, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary.”

Hillel’s version refers not to “others” in general, but to our neighbors. And it tells us to refrain from doing bad things.

It’s obvious that each faith has one half of the complete answer.

Christianity is universalistic. It emerged in an ancient world of competing religions and needed to attract members. It believes that everyone can be Christian and everyone should be Christian. It affirms our moral duties to all people, no matter what their religion, group, or nation.

Judaism is particularistic. It evolved in a small nation that was constantly in danger of annihilation by more powerful countries such as Babylonia and Rome. It does not seek converts. Like Christianity, it affirms our moral duties to all people. But it adds a proviso: We have a greater duty to “our neighbors” — family, community, and country — than we have to strangers on the other side of the planet.

Similarly, it’s not enough to do good things: we must avoid doing bad things. And it’s not enough to avoid doing bad things: duty often requires us to do good things.

So if you put it all together, you get the full answer:

  • Everyone’s welfare counts. Other things being equal, we should do good things for people and avoid doing bad things to them.
  • When people are connected to us by family, community, or in some other way, then other things are not equal. We might have a greater duty to them than to people in general — though we still owe the same basic respect and consideration to everyone.

Yes, everyone’s welfare counts: But if the welfare of your family doesn’t matter more to you than the welfare of total strangers, then I think there’s something wrong with you.

The Japanese do a pretty good job with both sides. They are welcoming to strangers, but fiercely loyal to their own people. And though few Japanese are Christian, they celebrate Christmas as a universalistic holiday. So did the E-girls. So do I.

Merry Christmas!

Posted in Christianity, Judaism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment