Perfectionism and Mastery (or the lack thereof)

I recently read an article extolling the virtues of mastery – becoming so accomplished at something that one is a recognized master.  And as so often happens after I read an article like this, I became a bit depressed.

 

Mastery and perfectionism are not exact synonyms, but they have elements in common I believe.  It is hard to completely master something without having somewhat of a perfectionist nature.  Mastery also requires a high level of persistence, as one must overcome frustration, boredom, long plateaus and other obstacles to achieve true mastery of something.

 

No one has ever described me as a perfectionist.  When I perform tasks, I generally try to get them done quickly and adequately.  Perfection is rarely if ever my target.  In fact, I will confess to occasionally completing things in a rather slipshod manner.  I have always been eager to check things off my list and get on to the next thing.  Quantity over quality! Sometimes, that leads to a less than ideal end result.

 

When it is clearly important that something be done carefully and with attention to detail, then I do my best to comply, but again, I will only go so far.

 

The fact is that I get bored easily.  I love to do interesting things, and I am especially enchanted by the first period of acquaintance with a new hobby or interest or task, but I lose interest if a long plateau arrives and I make little or no progress for an extended period of time.

 

I have developed a lot of interests and a lot of capabilities in my life.  I am fortunate (or perhaps not?) to have a wide variety of talents and I have spread my passion across many, many things. In my youth and early adulthood, I pursued sports with an almost manic energy.  I have been writing essays and some fiction for many years, including one novel.  I have picked up four different instruments – guitar, piano, banjo and mandolin –  with varying degrees of commitment.  I have written songs and I played in a band for a few years.  I have had periodic bouts of woodworking fervor.  I have studied and obtained reasonable proficiency in German and French, and am working on Spanish.  I have read books at a fairly decent clip my entire life – both fiction and non-fiction.

 

I am reasonably accomplished at most of the above but I would never claim to be a master of any of them. Was I remiss in not pursuing one or two to a truly advanced state?  I had my moments of trying.  I have worked on chords, riffs and scales in guitar and become a reasonably good guitar player, but have never been able to achieve a really high level.  It just doesn’t seem worth the effort and the tedium.

 

In my academic and professional life, I went through various phases of commitment, sometimes just relying on my native intelligence and capabilities to achieve things and other times really applying myself quite assiduously to the work.  But again, never really a true perfectionist.

 

I think the closest I ever came to true mastery was with soccer in my senior year of college. But that was a relatively short-term period of focus.

 

The old expression ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ is one I often use to describe myself, though in moments of self-flattery I am happy to embrace the term ‘renaissance man’.  I suppose I am a renaissance man in the sense of having a very wide range of interests and knowledge in both the sciences and the arts.  But of course many of the classical renaissance men were true masters in some things, so I guess that’s where the comparison might be a bit self-delusional!

 

Would I be more fulfilled if I were a true master of something?  I don’t think I would.  One is never fully self-satisfied if one is honest.  Self-doubt is a very human trait, and one always poses ‘what ifs’ at various times in one’s life.  Generally, I am at peace with the path I took and the ‘breadth versus depth’ nature of my passions.  But of course I cannot help but wonder what it would be like to be a true master.   Perhaps in the next life!

  

Of Cat Women and Population Decline

JD Vance’s much-ridiculed comment about cat women who have no children and the hysteria on the right about the decrease in child-bearing deserve some careful analysis.

First of all, Vance’s comment is a sad reflection on both his intellect and capacity for empathy. It is true in political life that one often exaggerates or makes a statement for dramatic effect.  But his cat women critique was such a cruelly contemptuous statement that it calls into question his character and integrity.

 

People are childless for so many reasons.  Many of those reasons are deeply personal or painful – infertility, miscarriages, failed IVF, lack of a suitable partner, domestic violence, weak financial status, health issues. Vance’s callous disregard for this large segment of childlessness is simply pathetic and contemptible.

 

There seem to be three general reasons why the right is so concerned with a declining birthrate.  The first is what is generally known as ‘replacement theory’.  Since it is the white population where birthrate decline is the fastest, conservatives fear that the US population will rapidly become non-white.  This is an unsettling thought for many both for political and cultural reasons.  However, it is also a lost cause, as there is no practical way to stop the growth of diverse racial and ethnic populations in our country.  As one of my coaches used to say about almost everything - "get used to it"! 

 

The second reason is a religious one.  Conservative Christians believe that God commanded us to be ‘fruitful and multiply’, and the choice to have fewer or no children is almost sinful in their worldview.  This ties into their general fear of the breakdown of the traditional family and their horror at what they see as its attendant modern expressions – premarital sex, abortion, gay relationships and marriage, gender issues, mixed families.  This is also a lost cause short of implementing Handmaid's Tale types of laws and forcing women to give up careers.

 

The third reason is economic.  A rapid decrease in population can have serious consequences on a nation’s economy.  There can be a mismatch between the number of older citizens who are drawing down social security and Medicare and younger workers who are funding these things. 

 

Additionally, the growth of GDP will slow with slowing population growth and could even potentially decline once the overall population actually begins to get smaller.  This could make paying off the national debt more difficult among other things, if this occurs too rapidly.

 

This third reason is actually a reasonable concern.  But the basic question is whether it is desirable for the USA, and indeed the world, to continue to increase its population.  If one believes, as I do, that ultimately the earth needs to have a smaller population that can thrive in harmony with the rest of nature, then the transition to that smaller population must be very slow and steady so as not to cause major economic disruptions.  

 

Ironically, the best way for the USA to manage this transition is to throttle immigration up and down to very slowly reduce the population.  But this is such a fraught political issue and the immigration surges brought on by world events and climate change make this type of fine tuning extremely challenging. 

 

In the end, people evolve, cultures evolve.  We will never again become like the farm families of yesteryear with 6-9 children in each household (not to mention the several that would die before they reached adulthood).  Public policy should not try to fight a rear-guard action against the modern cultural forces. Instead, we must acknowledge them, adapt to them and find ways to mitigate any negative effects through positive social and economic policies.

The Corrosive Psychological Effects of Power and Wealth

Is there a better example anywhere of the old adage that ‘power corrupts’ than Elon Musk?  He may be an entrepreneurial and technical genius, but he has also clearly become a horrible human being. Or perhaps he always was and it just took a little time to fully blossom.  

And he’s not the only one.  There is an ever-growing cesspool of tech and finance billionaires who feel justified in forcing their political and personal foibles on the world through their immense wealth and connections. 

 

There are many historical examples of similarly nasty characters whose wealth and power gave them license to propagate their paranoid, deviant or delusional fantasies – Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, to name a few.  And if one looks closely at almost every super-rich person one can find an astonishing sense of entitlement and superiority.  

 

Not surprisingly, fantastic wealth and power are associated with a set of inter-linked psychological traits that psychologists have called the ‘dark triad’ – Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism.  Studies have demonstrated that the rich and powerful exhibit these traits much more often than other groups. 

 

Someone who is Machiavellian uses manipulation and deceit to gain power or control.  This trait allows one to rationalize amoral or less-than-ethical means to achieve goals.  A psychopath is a person who lacks empathy, is callous and egocentric, but who may mask these traits by superficial charm and an outward appearance of normalcy.  A narcissist is a person who is extremely self-centered and has a persistent and exaggerated sense of self-importance.

 

Whether these traits are ‘nature or nurture’ is not entirely known.  It could be that these are simply the traits that enable these people to acquire riches and power and that they were at least partially present from birth.  But there is no doubt that being surrounded by massive wealth and by sycophants who provide a continuous stream of praise and adulation plays havoc with one’s version of reality.

 

There are counter-examples of course – Warren Buffett comes to mind, and Bill Gates may have mastered his inner demons in recent years and become one as well.  But these appear to be few and far between.  I would also guess that the appearance of humility or quasi-normal behavior in almost any super-rich person is a façade.    

 

I have often criticized the billionaire class.  The ultra-rich would accuse me of 'class envy', the term that they often invoke to demean those who suggest that their wealth is both unmerited and unhealthy.  But the increasingly blatant use of wealth and power by the super-rich to push their own political agendas or ideology is deeply troubling.  It is clearly in lock-step with the over-accumulation of the world’s riches by ever-fewer people.  We are returning to a primitive world where tyrants and despots pull the strings and orchestrate our political and economic life rather than allowing the collective wisdom of the people and their representatives guide us.  If this obscene imbalance of income and wealth is not corrected the future will be rather grim.

The Dilemma of Government Regulation

One of the most significant differences between conservatives and liberals is their approach to government regulation.  Regulation affects numerous aspects of industry, finance, healthcare and the environment.  Put simply, conservatives deplore regulation in almost any form and liberals champion regulation as a curb against a host of societal ills.  

What does the government attempt to regulate?  The goals of government regulation are generally to ensure that the public welfare is safeguarded, that business is conducted fairly, that everyone has equal opportunity in the marketplace, that environmental and climate conditions are protected and that the economy does not experience dramatic ups and downs.

 

Conservatives despise regulation because they believe it is costly to implement, interferes with the normal flow of business and commerce, and places excessive restrictions on enterprises. They believe it contradicts and damages the basic tenet of capitalism, the free market.  Conservatives trust in the long-term good intentions of businesses and society to self-govern and moderate their behavior to achieve the same goals that government regulation targets.

 

Liberals point to numerous historical events – stock market bubbles, monopolies, pollution, banking and investment fraud, recessions, extreme income and wealth inequality, and other societal ills – as proof that government regulation is necessary to curb the excesses and injustices that naturally occur as a result of human behavior.

 

No one loves regulation.  We all chafe at having someone else tell us what we can or can’t do.  But it is clear to any serious student of political reality that some level of government regulation is necessary in a society.  The question is how much.  It is the duty and challenge of our elected officials to determine how much government regulation to enact.

 

A reasonable approach to this issue would be for government officials to make use of independent expertise and the massive amount of available data and history to determine how to proceed.  But instead, most of our representatives seem locked into rigid, pre-conceived notions and are heavily influenced by powerful, well-funded interest groups.  

 

In the current political environment, if a politician wants to keep his or her position, then he or she must find significant financial support, and that support generally comes from wealthy donors or political action committees that have a very specific agenda.  This makes it difficult for elected officials to make decisions based on reason and data.

 

In an ideal world, we would task working groups of independent experts to propose the best possible set of regulations that would strike a balance between the protection of society and the freedom of the marketplace.  But sadly, in today’s partisan politics, even the mere selection of any group of experts would become a savage battle that would no doubt end in paralysis and a waste of time.

 

And there is the fact that most of these issues are multi-variable and complex.  The concepts have elements of science and mathematics, but they are not physics or chemistry.  They are subject to interpretation and when human beings interpret, they bring all of their prejudices to bear.

 

So, what we end up with is a seesaw battle of regulation and cancellation of regulation in successive administrations and congresses, as each group attempts to correct what it portrays as excessive meddling by the other side.  It is no doubt a colossal waste of money and effort, but probably inevitable.  Such is the contradictory nature of human society.

Veneration of our Elders – No Longer in Vogue?

There was a time when it made sense for the young to venerate their elders.  In centuries past, the elders were typically not all that old anyway – maybe between 40 and 60 for the most part.  But they possessed knowledge and life experiences that they could pass on to the young.  The world changed very slowly in those days, if at all.  The skills and experience that one developed over a lifetime were relevant to the next generation.  The young could sit at the feet of the masters and learn.

The modern world is quite different.  The pace of change has become so rapid that even ten years can be enough to make skills or experience obsolete.  Just take a look at an AARP magazine today and the painful efforts it makes to explain technology to aging souls or explain how they can avoid the hackers and phishing expeditions that victimize the hapless oldsters.

 

Physical aging has always diminished the elderly, but the raging juggernaut of today’s technological change is rendering the experience of older adults more or less useless and giving the appearance of mental or intellectual fragility as well. Gen X, Y and Z’ers roll their eyes as boomers or greatest gens attempt to keep up with the latest social media apps or tech devices. It takes about 5 seconds of us tapping clumsily on our virtual keyboards until they grab our smart phones and do the job for us.

 

And even if older adults have non-technology experience that might be valuable - business acumen, negotiating skills, emotional intelligence, etc. – their embarrassingly pathetic skills in technology diminish their stature in the eyes of the young and they may find any other possible expertise they have discounted as well.  Moreover, the style of business and the skills necessary to conduct it are changing in concert with the technology.

 

In 1987 I was running the development, computer and media departments at a rapidly growing Habitat for Humanity.  We had volunteers of all ages coming in to do various tasks either in the office or out on the construction site.

 

One of the volunteers was a late-fifties man who had been a Navy pilot in the Vietnam War and was now retired.  I thought he might enjoy doing some of the computer work. I explained the process to him but he had no experience with computers and was completely perplexed.  I tried working with him but very quickly his self-confidence was shot and he found it impossible to master the techniques.  He was embarrassed and very uncomfortable.

 

Here was a man who had flown bombing missions over Vietnam in a very sophisticated aircraft, one of the most demanding and challenging things one can imagine.  Naval aviators are a very confident and capable group. But the computer world was alien to him and had left him behind.

 

I realized then how easily the changing circumstances of our lives can strip away the veneer of worldliness, competence or sophistication that we pretend to have.  And the last 35 years have confirmed that realization.  

 

Perhaps that is why older adults today are starting to more often cling to their professional lives and put off retirement.  The lure of world travel and weekday golfing may be tempting, but the recognition that one loses one’s relevancy and dignity in the bargain gives one pause.  With retirement likely to last twenty, thirty or even forty years, the thought of sliding further and further into insignificance in the eyes of much of the world is sobering.  Becoming a walking boomer meme and object of eye-rolling amusement is not what we envisioned when we contemplated our golden years.  

 

I know this lament is a bit exaggerated.  Families still generally adore their senior members and children eagerly anticipate visits by or to their grandparents.  Longevity itself has a certain intrinsic value that most people respect or at least appreciate.  The old can fill in the details of the ever-increasing treasure trove of family photos and videos (though the stories may get repeated a bit too often . . .).   The oldest generation provides a sense of continuity and a linkage to the past.  We have a place of some honor in society by virtue of having gone before and made our contributions to family, friends, community and workplace.  We can enjoy our final phase of life even if the technical world laps us several times.

 

 

Artificial Intelligence – The Good and (Mostly) the Bad

It is accepted wisdom that all technological advances have their pros and cons.  It is my goal in this thought piece to analyze the potential impact of AI over the coming years and to predict both the benefits and the possible negative consequences that will one might expect.

The last few years have heralded the arrival of AI with incredible fanfare, and there has been a fierce competition to see who can most dramatically proclaim its future impact – “bigger than the computer”, “bigger than the transistor”, “bigger than the steam engine”, “bigger than fire”!  

 

The progress made in recent years in AI has indeed been remarkable, particularly in electric vehicles and in generative AI applications like chatGPT.   The technology is still in its infancy, but has already proven itself a rather precocious toddler.  We are only just starting to investigate the possible applications of this technology and if, like other technologies, it has the exponential growth in power and scope that one might expect, then it will indeed change the world in ways that we cannot even imagine now.

 

AI will probably be employed on a professional, industrial and personal level to save time and labor, much like earlier technologies.  There are many jobs that can be completely eliminated by AI devices or applications and there are others where AI will augment or assist.  Giving people more free time is seen as a worthy goal for technology, and certainly the march of human progress in technology has freed people from much of the drudgery of the past.

 

But is there a point at which displacing human labor, effort and creativity becomes detrimental? In the early industrial revolution, the replacement of skilled trades by machines sparked the Luddite movement, whose members protested and destroyed machines as they saw their wages decrease and their skills become obsolete.

 

We may view the replacement of assembly line workers by robots as a salutary advance because assembly line work is mind-numbing, but will more engaging, so-called ‘knowledge jobs’ actually be created?  Won’t AI actually be able to do much of that knowledge work with little guidance or input from humans?

 

And if one argues that AI will simply reduce the overall amount of human work necessary to produce the things we need, there are two interesting questions that arise.  One, will society prove capable of dividing up the remaining work in a way that allows everyone to participate and receive their share of the benefits?

 

And two, once we are relieved of the burden of working for 30 or 40 hours a week and perhaps need only show up for 5 or 10, what shall we do with our free time?  If the last 30 years are any indication, the great mass of humanity is unlikely to burst into creative enterprise and find ever more enlightening ways to express itself.  Binge-watching Netflix series, playing Minecraft and interminably scrolling Instagram reels are the more likely activities, and one wonders what kind of society will evolve from this pseudo-Eden of no more work.

 

In past technology revolutions one can argue that the jobs eliminated were more than compensated for by the creation of new jobs that supported or were corollary to the new technology.  But AI may be different, in that it is not merely a device or a piece of software, but rather combines both a task and the human intelligence necessary to create, maintain and modify itself.

To the extent that AI can assist human beings in performing tasks or creating things and NOT replace them entirely, then one can hope that the benefits will outweigh the dangers.  But I don’t think it is hyperbole to contemplate the more extreme outcome of partially or even totally sidelining much of human endeavor.  

It may be that humans need to have meaningful work, and not just activity, and that by reducing or eliminating that need we are attempting to short-circuit evolution.  It is common for retired people to fight depression when they face endless days of free time.  The societal instability that arose out of the Great Depression or other periods of large scale unemployment may have been partly or even mainly due to desperate need and poverty, but as the old saying goes - idle hands are the devil's playground.  

 

The use of AI in the military sphere is nightmarish to imagine.  And there is absolutely no doubt that it will swiftly inhabit every aspect of that world.  Terminator type scenarios are probably a decade or two off, but AI use in drones, combat vehicles, weaponry and decision-making is already upon us and will no doubt increase exponentially in the next few years.  The overwhelming amount of information, sensor data and tactical options in warfare have increasingly become almost impossible for humans to process.  AI may already be taking over command.

 

In the world of social media and the arts, AI is being hyped and sold as a boon for creators, but will it soon re-define what creativity is and make it a cheap commodity?  If I can ask chatGPT to write a poem for me, tweak it a bit, and then parade it as my own creation, will AI soon lead to the Walmartization of culture?  And why learn how to write if my AI app can do it for me?  Are we gleefully welcoming our own obsolescence?

 

And we all know what bots, deep fakes and other early forms of AI have done to civil discourse and politics, not to mention the incredible harm that tiktok, Instagram, YouTube, discord, facebook and other social media have done to the vulnerable teenage psyche.  Are more advanced forms of AI likely to wreak even more havoc?

Another concern is what impact AI will have on education.  We have already seen that newer generations have lost the ability of map orientation, cursive writing and mental math.  Why learn algebra or calculus if AI can do it faster?  No need to master grammar, AI will make sure anything you write is correct.  When every fact and concept can be accessed immediately through vocal interactions with Siri or her brethren, why study history or political science or literature?

 

I have been using chatGPT’s mia for practicing my French and German.  I say something and mia responds appropriately, posing questions to push the conversation along and correcting me if I ask her to do so.  It is not yet quite the same as speaking to a language teacher, but it is close.  And it takes away all the nervousness and shyness that one normally needs to overcome to conduct a conversation.  How seductive is that?  But is it a slippery slope to isolation and social disintegration?  Will we all choose to inhabit a world of AI-produced acquaintances, friends and lovers.  None of the messiness of real human relationships – what could be better? 

 

Yes, AI is upon us and there may be some wondrous things that make our lives better.  But beware, all that glitters is not gold.  The tech billionaires who argue for unfettered development of AI see the world through a lens focused on corporate profits and unimaginably high valuations of AI startups.  Their short-sighted arrogance needs to be tempered by more sober analysis before Pandora’s box is entirely open.

The Insidious Nature of Today’s Neo-Fascism

The word fascism is tossed around with gusto by both sides of the American political landscape these days. The historical memory of the fascist regimes of the 20^th century – Germany, Italy, Spain, and to some extent Japan – provides strong images evoking ruthless dictators and police states.

A definition of fascism typically mentions the following: extreme nationalism, a narcissistic, aggrieved dictator, an autocratic, all-powerful state, state-controlled media, the elimination of political opposition, a focus on enemies of the state, a militaristic foreign policy and some sort of secret police and informant infrastructure.

 

In recent years right wing pundits and news sources in the USA and in other nations have claimed that fascism is a characteristic of the left.  They note that the Nazi party’s name was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party and that both Hitler and Mussolini were, in their early days, associated with socialist groups.  They also point to the Stalin and Mao dictatorships and the personality cults and police states that surrounded these megalomaniacs.  They depict the so-called cancel culture and woke political movement as forms of ‘thought control’ and a threat to free speech.  They consider current government spending an indication of an all-powerful state and they believe that religious freedom is under attack.

 

It is true that dictators and police states have emerged from both sides of the political spectrum.  Revolutions that have been precipitated by communist or socialist movements have been just as likely to create horribly cruel and repressive states as the ones created by the true fascists.  These regimes, whether originating from right or left, end up becoming a type of fascism. 

 

However, the historical truth is that fascism was diametrically opposed to socialism and communism, and that the pitched battles of the 1920’s and 1930’s were fought between those two political ideologies.  Socialism’s focus is on the worker, international cooperation and a more egalitarian society.  Fascism promotes nationalism and the state.

 

What is clear in the history is that repressive regimes, whether fascist, Marxist, Stalinist or any other ideology, have similar characteristics:  a personality cult centered around a narcissistic leader; a tendency to reject or eliminate credible media and create a world view oriented around the leader’s political agenda; a habit of accusing political opponents of doing the things that it is guilty of; extreme nationalism; a continual state of alarm over external and internal enemies; and a rigidly controlled society.

 

Given these criteria, the MAGA world of Donald Trump would seem to have a strong potential to veer toward this kind of autocratic rule, which one may define as neo-fascist.  There is no more narcissistic, aggrieved political figure in the world today than Donald Trump. He has transformed immigrants as well as many minority groups within the country into enemies of the state.  He alienates our allies and disparages the UN and efforts by the global community to solve international problems such as climate change.  Although he does not control it directly, the right-wing news media has many of the characteristics of a fascist, state-controlled media, in that it has limited interest in seeking out truth and reports everything through a very Trump-friendly lens.  He demands and obtains absolute allegiance from his party.  He has also promised to seek out and eliminate political opponents and to take revenge on a variety of groups if he is reelected, a classic fascist tactic.

 

The depiction of woke and cancel culture as fascist has been effective on the right, but it is a perspective that doesn’t pass scrutiny.  Most of the culture war has played out in social media and very little has passed into law or any sort of forced behavior.  No one is forced to ponder or acknowledge the legacy of racism; no one is forced to be gay or transgender; no one is denied the right to worship, pray or espouse fundamentalist religious views; no one is forced to have an abortion; no woman is forced to work outside the home; no one is forced to be sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and refugees.  The so-called radical left has not even been able to increase taxes on the wealthy to help slow the vast and growing disparities in wealth and income.

 

The latest accusation of fascism from the right focuses on the Trump legal cases and the supposed weaponization of the justice department.  The fact that both the defamation and hush money cases were tried in state courts with no relationship to the federal justice department makes a mockery of this accusation.  Add to that the fact that all of the election fraud cases from 2020 that were brought before various jurisdictions were found to be without merit and it is abundantly clear that the right’s arguments in this sphere have absolutely no basis in fact or reality.

 

The clearest path to fascism is a growing allegiance or obeisance to a dangerously unpredictable and vengeful leader.  The quasi-religious personality cult around Donald Trump is striking in its similarities to past demagogues and tyrants. The craven acquiescence of many tech, finance, political and business leaders and other former anti-Trumpers is also depressingly similar to the insidious capitulation and miscalculation of the 20’s and 30’s.   Trump may not have an army of storm troopers yet, but the radical fringe of his supporters has shown itself ready to answer the call.

 

America still has a strong economy and a history of weathering highly partisan political times, but I don’t believe it is hyperbole to say that a second term of Donald Trump could herald the arrival of neo-fascism to the home of the brave and the land of the free.