We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

But are they?  And do we really?  Self-evident truths are hard to come by these days and for that matter, glorious as the words may sound, even at the time they were written they were a flight of fancy more than a claim of fact.

Jefferson was writing these lines and the ones to follow at the height of the Enlightenment and they reflected the fairly revolutionary idea that human beings should not be put into categories based on birth or station, and that governments should be created in support of these values. These concepts, already well established among enlightenment illuminati, signaled the eventual end of absolutist monarchy, a fixed aristocracy and a peasant class.  But Jefferson's pithy construction is hardly a definitive description and it raises more questions than it answers.

All men are created equal.  It sounds like it should be true, but is it?  Is it a self-evident truth?  Some men are created with good health, some with infirmities.  Some are gifted with intelligence, some not.  Some are physically talented, some are totally uncoordinated.  Some are born amidst wealth and parental love, some in poverty and abuse.  Not very equal I’m afraid.

 

But perhaps Jefferson didn’t really mean ‘created equal’.  Perhaps he just meant that they should all have the same ‘unalienable rights’, among which are ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.  

 

Since anyone born is by definition living, the right to life is a given.  I suppose that Jefferson meant that one’s life should not be taken.  That is fairly self-evident, yet society takes life from people quite frequently through wars, capital punishment and neglect.  However, there is no doubt that Enlightenment thinking and Jefferson’s claim heralded a more enlightened view of one’s right to live without others controlling that right.

 

The right to liberty is more complex, and I would say, not very self-evident at all.  One man’s liberty may be another’s torment.  If the person in the apartment above me plays ear-splitting music day and night and claims that he should have the liberty to do so, then my liberty to live in tranquility is certainly severely compromised.  Liberty and freedom are continuums with compromises required from all parties to make the whole thing work.  

 

That Jefferson was imagining a liberty from excessive government, taxation, monarchical fiat and other societal rules and controls is clear, but to say that we are born with the right of liberty is a fairly simplistic statement for a rather nuanced concept.

 

But how about the pursuit of happiness?  Is that right self-evident?  Isn’t the pursuit of happiness firmly imprinted in our DNA?  I suspect that Jefferson was saying that our right to pursue happiness should not be unduly constrained or thwarted by external entities such as governments or societies.  But what government believes that is NOT allowing citizens to pursue their happiness?  Pursuit of happiness is simply a subset of liberty, and we know that is not an easy thing to describe in absolute terms.

 

The factory owner who pursues his happiness by keeping wages low for his workers and imposing harsh working conditions and 60 hour work weeks is not contributing to the pursuit of happiness for his or her workers.  Whose pursuit of happiness is more valued?  Pretty quickly we run into the question of larger social compacts, greater good and the calculus of general prosperity.

 

So ultimately, for all of their lofty eloquence, these sacred lines of our declaration of independence are more fluff than substance, more form than content.  They are useful for stimulating our quest for a better world and they provide a romantic aura around our founding principles, but they are hardly a blueprint for government or society.  Nothing in human relations is simple.

The World Cup and the Dive – A Question of Basic Sportsmanship and Ethics

I have been a soccer/football player for most of my life.  Alas, the years of play have eliminated all the cartilage between two bones in my left mid-foot and I can only play infrequently in the future, but the memories linger.

As a former wrestler and a person whose center of gravity is lower to the ground (i.e. short), I was very proud of being physically robust and difficult to knock off the ball.  I also had tremendous speed (he says modestly), which is probably the most desirable natural attribute in soccer.  In my playing days I never ‘took a dive’.  It was a matter of pride to me and also a recognition of basic sportsmanship. I was challenged on the ball many times and sometimes knocked off of it, but unless I truly felt there was a foul, I never feigned being hurt or fouled.

 

A dive is a lie in physical form.  A player is depicting a foul that did not occur, play-acting to deceive the referee and obtain a free kick or penalty.  There may be nuances, but there is no doubt that ‘diving’ is commonplace in the sport today.  There have been efforts to curtail it, but it is, if anything, flourishing, and growing in frequency.

 

Many of the most talented players are known for their dive histrionics – Cristiano Ronaldo comes immediately to mind.   But there are also players that almost never dive.  Lionel Messi is one such player and this is one of the reasons (they are numerous) why he represents for me the best of all qualities in a player.

 

Sports commentators and journalists tend to smile and joke about dives when they occur.  They seem to accept it as ‘part of the game’, just as they accept holding and other subtle and not-so-subtle fouls as ‘part of the game’.  This has always astonished me.  Any game is all the worse for every lie, every falsity and every element of conscious bad faith that occurs.  

 

We all know that the stakes are high in the World Cup.  We all know that a lot of money and prestige are on the line.  It is human nature to push and test the boundaries of what is permissible in achieving a win or a goal.  But when we outright sanction the dive or the hold in the name of winning and beating the opponent, then we are abandoning our ethical principles and becoming lesser human beings.  It may not seem a big thing, but I am certain that it truly is.

 

 

A Few Thoughts on Porn

Pornography is a click away these days.  There appears to be no way to accurately assess just how much of Internet traffic is porn-related, with estimates ranging from 10 to 70%, but there is little doubt that porn sites are visited frequently.

Is pornography a healthy way for men and women to learn about sex and fantasize or is it a pathway to sexual addiction, violence, perversion and disfunction?  The answer is most likely complicated.

 

Religious groups have mounted an almost hysterical campaign against pornography and brandish frightening statistics about the amount of viewing, the impact on children, the exploitation of women, the endorsement of sexual violence and extreme practices, and the effect on family life.  They portray pornography as one of the key components in a perceived moral decline of our society.

 

On the other hand, many psychologists and sexual health workers feel that this portrayal is highly exaggerated and that pornography on some level is a healthy outlet for our sexual curiosity and desires.  

 

The subject is rather complex and multi-faceted.  Here is a list of some questions I would pose:

 

1.     Is exposure to pornography a problem for children?  Does it hamper or distort their natural progress into the sexual awakening of adolescence and adulthood?  Does it create an early addiction in vulnerable minds.

2.     Does the porn industry’s focus on sexuality without relationship and/or love contribute to the growth of purely recreational sex?  Is that a problem for society?

3.     Are women in the porn industry generally exploited or are they simply sex workers who have chosen this path for a variety of legitimate reasons?

4.     Does pornography encourage more extreme forms of sexual interaction and lead to increasingly risky or violent behavior?

5.     When is pornography viewing harmful?  At what point does it become an addiction or an illness?

 

A series of Netflix documentaries have painted a rather disturbing portrait of the porn industry.  The most well-known – Hot Girls Wanted – is a grim chronicle of day-to-day life as a novice female porn video performer.  I watched the series and came away feeling rather disheartened about the whole affair.  What saddened me is that young women (typically recruited soon after their 18^th birthday) chose this path with the exciting prospect of getting views and followers on social media or porn sites and escaping what they perceive as their hollow or depressing existence in their home towns. 

 

Regardless of their motivations for signing up, their lives as porn stars struck me as horribly shabby and soul-sucking.  This may be partially my own bias and somewhat sexist, but I felt so sorry for these young women. I could not shake the feeling that their involvement was a desperate cry for a better life that would never meet expectations and only lead to longer term disappointment for most of them.

 

There was no profile of the men involved in the sex industry.  Would I feel similarly about their lives?  Are they exploited or reveling in their opportunity to earn money having sex?  Are men fundamentally different from women in their sexual nature?  Am I perpetuating a double standard by viewing women as victims and men as untroubled participants?

Even if we come to the conclusion that the porn industry has many negative implications, how can it be regulated?  Censorship is a fool's errand and is generally doomed to failure unless draconian steps are taken.  Even the task of preventing impressionable youth from accessing porn seems daunting and unlikely to succeed, given the current state of personal technology that almost every child possesses.

 

We are still struggling as a human race to come to terms with our sexuality.  It is clear that a repressed, guilt-ridden view of sexuality is neither healthy nor practical.  But is it ‘healthy’ for sex to become just another form of recreation with no holds barred?  As in much of life, there are no easy answers.  If sex, like any other part of our lives, becomes an obsession, then it is unlikely to provide positive experiences.  But drawing a line or making ‘rules’ is also tremendously difficult and likely to fail in its intent.  We are, as always, faced with ambiguity and the challenge of finding the best path possible in a changing world.                                               

A Skeptic’s Thoughts About Crypto

Disclaimer:  I am no expert on crypto currency or the blockchain technology underlying it, but I do have 45 years of experience in a world driven by technological change and hype.

Part of the early allure of crypto currencies like bitcoin was the idea that they could replace and improve upon the existing financial world of banks, currency exchanges, and other financial service components that were seen as bureaucratic, costly and archaic.  Blockchain technology offered the tantalizing prospect of money flowing in the world without third party inconvenience and control.  The technology would allow two entities to exchange funds directly with an assured chain of custody and security that would be impervious to fraud, theft or scrutiny.

 

To me this type of perfect world hypothetical is reminiscent of so many of the software technologies that I saw come and go over the last 30 years.  And like so many of its predecessors, the blockchain technology that launched the crypto coin world does indeed have some very attractive features.  It promises to allow transactions to be conducted in complete security with an impenetrable and unalterable ‘ledger’ or chain of custody.

 

But the immediate application of this super-hyped technology to a form of currency unleashed a torrent of speculation and get-rich schemes evangelized by messianic tech wizzes and, later, various famous talking heads.

 

A currency utilizing blockchain technology and avoiding standard banking and financial markets may seem blissful to many stick-it-to-the-man types, but it doesn’t take a lot of insight to realize that there is a reason for financial markets and regulating organizations.  When there is no referee at all, the game becomes wildly chaotic and is easy prey for the most unscrupulous characters – the drug gangs, the scam experts, the tax-cheats, the porn industry, the con artists.  It also becomes one huge pyramid or ponzi scheme.

 

The human notion of 'value' is strange and abstract in many ways.  Gold and art are traded as 'fungible' items but their value is purely a construct of human imagination.  Food, shelter and clothing have value that is at last partly based on actual utility.  Currencies are also constructs, but they have utility as a means of facilitating commerce and exchange.  When they change radically it is typically because the country associated with that currency (and guaranteeing it) is experiencing economic problems.

How in the world can one believe that a currency rising and falling as wildly as cryptocurrency can become a trusted means for normal commerce?  While it is true that all currencies, and for that matter all things that we put a price on, have a value that is tied to a perceived worth, the world currencies at least have a basis for their valuations – the economic and political systems that back them up.  A crypto currency has nothing but the lemming-like tributes from true believers and a pseudo-techie aura of inevitability.  And FOMO can only go so far in sustaining a fad or a movement.  At some point reason must prevail.

Is there a role for blockchain technology?  Definitely!  There are many transactions that would benefit from being conducted through blockchain.  And there is definitely money to be made in a more traditional sense by investing in the technology itself and earning real world profits as it finds means to provide a service.

 

But in my view, using blockchain to move money would create more problems than it would solve.  We already have rapidly growing inequality of wealth and income in the world.  Crypto currency would make financial dealings and wealth accumulation even more opaque than they are now, making it significantly more difficult for nations and municipalities to tax and monitor the situation.  We may all hate the bureaucracy and intrusive nature of taxes, but imagine a world that no longer has the ability to monitor and redistribute wealth for purposes of social progress, infrastructure development, education and healthcare.

 

Technological bandwagons are very seductive, because they lend an air of sophistication to their promoters and create a fervent desire for others to become part of the in-crowd.  It is so easy to compare each new idea to past technologies that made millions for those who were courageous and wise enough to embrace them.  Toss in a lot of technobabble and concepts that most people don’t really understand, and you have a perfect scenario for conning millions out of their hard-earned savings.  

 

And like all pyramid schemes, the stories of fantastic earnings by the few at the top of the pyramid are enough to pull in the hordes at the bottom.  But at some point, the magic fades and the music stops.  It is only a matter of time. 

 

 

 

 

The World Needs More Imposter Syndrome

There are two psychological terms to describe the opposite traits of lack of confidence and over-confidence.  If people question their abilities or accomplishments and worry that they do not deserve credit or accolades, then they may have ‘Imposter Syndrome’.  If, on the other hand, they are over-confident and consider their accomplishments to be extraordinary and their talents to be under-rated, then that is termed a ‘Dunning-Kruger Syndrome’.  

Most people have experienced the imposter syndrome at some time in their lives.  When you receive compliments or an award you may humbly accept the accolade but feel secretly that you are really not so special and that you are a bit of an imposter.  You may feel that you were lucky or had the benefit of some set of circumstances that enabled the achievement – that you should really not be singled out for praise.

 

This type of reaction can become pathological in some cases, reflecting a general inferiority complex, and this is why there is much written about women and minorities having the imposter complex and thus limiting their achievements or success because of self-doubt.  This is an unfortunate occurrence and society should make every effort to affirm any achievement in a healthy manner.

 

But I believe there is a more pernicious tendency in this realm.  Once people begin to gain recognition, success or wealth they may initially be surprised and delighted.  In this early phase, they may have moments of imposter syndrome as they realistically appraise the nature of their achievements.  

 

But as their success grows, the steady drumbeat of reward and adulation has a corrupting influence.  They begin to believe what they hear as others gush over their accomplishments.  The lens through which they see the world and themselves begins to warp and the image of their prowess begins to dominate their view.  They forget that success has a large component of good fortune and that wealth begets more wealth and fame begets more fame.

 

Soon they believe that they have a unique gift or unerring intuition. They begin to imagine that their success implies a much broader genius at work than the domain in which their achievements lie.  They are soon convinced that they are simply more capable than the rest of humanity.  They grow weary of the folly of lesser beings.  They yearn to impose their brilliant thinking on the world in ever greater ways.

 

This ever-expanding self-aggrandizement is the opposite pathology of the imposter syndrome, and it is much more dangerous to humanity.  The Trumps and Putins and Musks of this world no longer experience the braking effect of self-doubt, and the juggernaut of their egotism goes unchecked.

 

But it is not only the most notorious cases of out-of-control vanity that trouble our world.  The increasing centralization of wealth in finance and technology has launched a thousand ships of freighter-sized egos.  Being suddenly bloated with hundreds of millions of dollars, an entourage of sycophants and endless social media adulation is a short path to narcissism and a conviction that the world simply must benefit from one’s genius.  We see these people everywhere and they wield their wealth and prestige in ways that roil our society, exacerbate tensions and waste valuable resources.

 

Yes, the world would be a much better place if every hedge fund mogul, real estate tycoon and  tech titan were to fall prey to the imposter syndrome and abandon their master-of-the-world fantasy.  There is something very healthy and cathartic in recognizing that one is at least partly an imposter. We are all only human after all, even those most showered with wealth and fame.  A little (or a lot) of humility is in order.

Risk and Reward

Life is full of risks.  A risk, by definition, is an exposure to danger, harm or loss.  There are financial risks, transportation and travel risks, adventure risks, health risks and many others.  When one speaks of a risk, there must be uncertainty in an outcome of some event or behavior.  There must be some probability that a bad outcome could occur.  The level of risk is based on how high the probability is of that bad outcome.

A risk is typically undertaken because there is some expected reward associated with the event or behavior if things go well.  The reward may have significant monetary, psychological or experiential advantages, or it may simply be the completion of an ordinary but necessary task in one’s life.

 

Some people are described as risk-takers.  They are not afraid of taking ‘chances’ with their money or their health or even their lives.  Others are described as risk-averse.  It is interesting to contemplate what these descriptions really mean and what is the thought process involved in taking or avoiding risk.  

 

When I drive a car each day, I am taking a risk.  If I ride a bicycle on a street with cars, I am taking a risk.  If I clean the gutters on my roof, I am taking a risk. Do we internally calculate or otherwise estimate the probability of being hurt in these activities? 

 

Is driving a car an acceptable risk because it has a low probability of producing an accident with injuries, or is it simply something we do without thinking about the risk?  If I were to be paralyzed in a car accident, would driving all those years have been an acceptable risk?  I cannot imagine anyone blithely conceding that point.  Something is an acceptable risk only before a bad outcome occurs.  In most cases we use the term acceptable risk to describe a risk that is low enough to feel reasonably secure that the bad outcome will never happen.

 

Mountain climbers or hang-gliders who consider their death-defying acts as acceptable risks are also making the assumption that they will not die.  They love the activity of mountain climbing enough to take the risk, but it is doubtful they would say in retrospect that the risk was worth it if they are horribly maimed in an accident.  It seems the risk was only acceptable when nothing bad happened.

 

Men gleefully enlist and march off to war for the reward of unique experiences and perhaps a chance for exhibiting their courage.  But if they lose a leg or two, I highly doubt they will say that the risk was an acceptable one or that the experience or possibility of an award for valor was worth the lifetime of suffering they will now endure.

 

Financial investments and employment changes are also interesting versions of risk-taking.    The many well-publicized rags-to-riches stories make financial risk-taking seem very exotic and exciting.  But one wonders how many financial failures and hard-luck tales there are for every successful entrepreneur or investor.  Did the failures consider their doomed exploits to have been a ‘reasonable risk’?

 

Risk-taking may also be somewhat age dependent.  I know I was much more of a risk-taker in terms of physical challenges in earlier years.  And I capriciously experimented with drugs in my teens and early twenties in a way that I would never do today.  As age progresses our awareness of the consequences of our actions is better informed and applies the brakes to certain types of risky activity.

 

For the most part I doubt there is a way to quantify or even comprehend risk when one embarks on a new venture of any type.  There may be a gut feeling or an instinctual sense that the activity is worth doing.  The risk-takers are those who seem to have either no fear of failure and retain that feeling of youthful immortality, or are so driven by the need for change, recognition or wealth that they are compelled to choose the path of higher risk. The risk-averse are either more peacefully content with their lot or more sensitively aware of the potential for true damage, harm or loss.

 

There are extremes on both ends of the risk scale.  Wingsuit base jumping and free soloing would certainly seem to be examples of risk-taking that border on suicidal behavior.  And there are lots of people who timidly avoid any risk and thus severely limit their life experiences.

 

In the end, it seems that risk-taking is primarily a personality trait that has little analysis behind it.  It is difficult to say what kind of effect one’s willingness to take risks has on quality of life or one’s sense of fulfillment.  We are all unique creatures and must find the balance of risk and reward that makes sense for us and not feel compelled to emulate others.

 

 

On the Absurdity of Relying on Polls and Other Election Nonsense

Despite all the recent election evidence that polls are more or less worthless we seem to make them the basis of our political machinations.  Let’s explore why they have so little value.  And while we’re at it, let’s look at whether TV or Internet ads are a good use of money.

Number one, a poll with a relatively small number of respondents compared to the total population is statistically weak, and most polls fall into this category.  It only can be accurate if you believe that the respondents are strongly representative of the total population.  This brings us to the second point, that the people who respond to polls are most likely not even close to being a representative group of the general electorate.

 

Think about it!  Who answers their phone at all unless it’s a number they recognize?  In this time of spam, botmails, robocalls, and endless attempts to gain our attention, not to mention malicious attacks, scams, viruses and phishing, there is a totally understandable reluctance to engage with unknown entities.

 

And who has the time to respond to a survey?  What with Facebook, Insta, TikTok, YouTube and a thousand other claims to our precious time weighing heavily on us, who is going to be willing to submit to the drudgery of taking a survey?  This is clearly a self-selecting group, not a random collection of voters.  I’m not exactly sure what defines this group, but it must be a rather strange and motley crew.

 

Given the amount of money spent on polls and the consultants who make up the political money machine, I am sure there is a wealth of quasi-scientific efforts to justify poll-taking.  But I don’t buy it.  They are rubbish.

 

And of course, the polls then feed into the whole machinery of opinion influencing – the attack ads, the mailbox fillers, the TV portrayals, the mind-numbing drivel on social media, the even more outrageous YouTube slander and outright falsehoods.

 

Let’s face it, our election process is a colossal waste of time, money and good will.  Probably 99% of people make up their minds based on opinions and biases that are unaffected by the billions and billions of dollars spent.  We would be better served as a nation to dismantle the whole political process and start over again.