Walking in Someone Else's Shoes

There is an old Native American (I think) proverb that says “don’t judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes”. Our human nature, however, is to judge, in particular the poor if we are not one of them. Far from imagining what it would be like in their shoes, we tend to look at their circumstances from our own point of view and assigning our own sets of priorities. We see people making decisions that to us seem incomprehensible and too often attribute them to character flaws; old ladies using their social Security money on slot machines; victims of Katrina wasting the couple hundred or maybe thousand dollars they received on the riverboat casinos; people who barely have enough to eat, smoking; barns and farmhouses in shambles; garbage strewn in the streets; the list goes on. We think “how can they? I would never live like that. I wouldn’t gamble what little money I have away and give up smoking and fix my barn and not allow garbage to accumulate in the street. There has to be something wrong with these people”. We think about what we would like to do in a given situation, but in reality, in that circumstance, most likely we would do something totally different. Given our genes, culture, experience and in particular, circumstance, we put thing in a particular order of importance. Our judgment of others assumes they have the same set of priorities, are in our settings and benefit from our experiences. The fact of the matter is that not only do they not, but our own priorities, settings and experiences are constantly changing. A child is born, we lose a job, win a lottery, become ill, we grow wiser or become more cynical. In reality as we go through life and as our surroundings and experiences change, so do our priorities. Things once thought to be of utmost importance can become trivial. Unfortunately we can never walk in someone else’s shoes. We cannot have an identical makeup or experience and even if we did, we cannot occupy the same space in time. The best we can do is try to imagine what might be important to someone given their set of circumstances. But even that is a poor approximation of a stroll in their shoes. The other day I read a piece in the Huffington Post by Linda Tirado who in the most eloquent way, tries to explain the thought process of a very poor person. From the article I think one can get a peek into their priorities and decisions, which from our perspective may have seemed lousy, but now start to be a little more understandable. Below is a link to that article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-tirado/why-poor-peoples-bad-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html

Leadership

There are a few characteristics of a good leader. Among them are; courage, judgment and experience. To explain this I often used the “scraping of window panes” metaphor. Here the leader is on the inside of a room and there is something going on outside that they need to act on quickly. In front of them is a window with a number of panes all painted opaque. Were they clear, the scene would be apparent and the action obvious. A good leader starts by scraping a bit of the paint off of one pane and gets a glimpse of the scene. That small segment suggests they may want to scrape another bit of a pane at the far end. There is starting to appear a hint of an image. They scrape a bit of another pane, go back to the first and scrape a little more and then, though without a full picture, they see enough to make a decision. In the example above the leader exhibited a characteristic essential to good leadership. First and foremost they were willing to take a risk and make a decision without waiting for all the pieces of the puzzle to be in place. I have seen very capable people continue scraping each pane clear and see the entire scene before taking action. They are afraid of being wrong, whereas the leader above was willing to chance and make the decision. At this point I might add that for different actions there are different degrees of probability that are prudent. A surgeon need a very high probability and would be justified to scrape much of the window clear but most of us are in positions where we can afford to be wrong and often inaction is more consequential than wrong action. Another attribute required to make a decision with minimal scraping is experience. With experience one has seen many scenes outside the window and seeing only a few key pieces can imagine the full picture. People without the experience, though brave, need to clear a larger portion of the window to see the same amount of the scene to make a decision. The third attribute is judgment. As they scrape small segments of a pane and catch a glimpse of the scene, they need to decide where might there be another segment that will most probably lead them quickly to the whole picture. Someone, courageous and experienced but without good judgment, unable to figuring out where the most probable bit of a scene lies that will help form enough of a picture will need to scrape a large portion of many panes. Without the courage, judgment and experience, no matter how bright the individual, they will spend too much time gathering information or if not, see the wrong picture and though in positions of leadership, will not be followed.

The "Real" America

Sarah Palin spoke of the “real America”. The Governor while running for vice president, when visiting a rural area said it was good to be in the real America. I believe in all sincerity she sees the real America as the sum of the white and Christian rural parts of the country. A couple of weeks ago I went to the Registry of Motor Vehicles in an industrial urban city and there I saw, what I think is another real America. There were about one hundred people there of many ethnicities, races and socio-economic groups. There were Puerto Ricans and Latinos from Central and South American and Brazilians, some speaking fluent English others Spanish and Portuguese. There were African Americans and more recent arrivals from Africa. There were people of different European ancestries and people from the Middle East and Asia. There were laborers, students and businessmen in suits. Siting there waiting for my turn, Sarah Palin came to mind and I thought that had she been in this room, she would not have acknowledged this as America. I think one of our fundamental divides is between the urban and the rural. Each with different political interests and cultures and I think, like Sarah Palin, we don’t understand or recognize each other. I live in the suburbs, an area that doesn’t quite fit either the urban or rural, pretty much am isolated from both Sarah Palin’s and the America I saw at the Registry. I was fortunate to have had opportunities to live, though most of it in the suburbs, in my early years in very rural areas and my teenage years in a city. I first became conscious of this divide when I took a train from San Jose to San Francisco fifteen years ago, sharing it with a large variety of people. Based on that refreshing experience, more recently, when I had to go on business to San Francisco, I decided to fly into Oakland and instead of hiring a car, I took a bus to the train station and then a train across the Bay. Though brief, the exposure to the variety of races, ethnicities and cultures was enlightening. I propose that we all take an opportunity to spend time in an environment with people we are not accustomed to being around. Furthermore, when evaluating a politician running for an office where they will represent a diverse group, we should look at their record of time spent with the range of their future constituencies. Whatever you may think about our current president Barak Obama, he would have an impressive record on this dimension having been brought up by grandparents in the rural Midwest, spending time in Hawaii and Indonesia and working in the inner Chicago city. I find it interesting that people on the extreme right make fun of his work as a “community organizer” in the inner city. Better he should have been insulated in the real (business) world. Spending time with different people allows us to recognize their humanity on a more visceral level and become empathetic with their wants and fears. Not having had the firsthand experience, we tend to use our imaginations, with liberals exaggerating the plight and conservatives the lack of dignity. At the start of the first war with Iraq, I went to India on business for a few days. As I was accustomed, I went for an early morning walk and came across a group of squatters (I think they were “Untouchables”) living in shacks on the grounds of what appeared to be a government building of some sort. As I walked past, I saw two young people (I don’t recall if they were two men or a man and woman) squatting on the sidewalk, brushing their teeth and spitting the rinsing water into the gutter. My first reaction was to feel sorry for them, seeing the conditions they lived in. But as I approached them, they were talking and laughing with such gusto that I became jealous of them. I couldn’t remember the last time I laughed so heartily.

A Military Without War

Recently the Senate passed an amendment that reduced funds for the National Science Foundation completely eliminating funding for any political science projects with two exceptions. They would continue funding these if they were shown to advances the military or our economy. This prompted me to get back to a subject I have often pondered and discussed. Is there a benefit to a military, other than fighting a war and how can we exploit it? George Orwell wrote a novel about ongoing battles against an imaginary enemy somewhere “over there”. The ruling government used the threat of an invasion to more easily control its population. More recently, Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate writing for the New York Times, in an interview talked about the economic boom brought about by the Second World War. With tongue in cheek, he suggested we should proclaim an impending invasion from outer space and preparing for it would get us out of these economic doldrums. I think he was only half kidding. So how could we benefit from a military with no war? Conservatives have been reluctant to support government funded development but have shown a willingness to spend large sums of money on defense. With the ever increasing rate of technological innovation and global competition, it is imperative that we stay ahead of the curve. Basic research is not something suitable for private enterprises and in recent years, large companies such as IBM, known for their applied research and development in the past have been shrinking their scientific staff and facilities and looking outside, not only IBM, but outside the US. In the past science and development for the military was also of interest to the private sector. Some examples are: Development in material science of carbon nano-fibers has the promise of stronger and more lightweight armament for the military and lightweight vehicles with lower fuel consumption for the private sector. The military uses lasers for target designation and shooting down enemy missiles and in the private arena lasers are used in hundreds of applications from bar-code scanners and surgery to toys. Space science has always been closely affiliated with the military but has brought about civilian benefits like GPS and weather satellites. Of course there is the internet. As demonstrated by the amendment the Senate just passed, the Republicans, ever suspicious of science, are reluctant to spend on any development that is not of interest to our military particularly that whose aim is of benefit primarily for our poorest citizens who in many of their minds are only “takers”. Since almost anything can be argued to be of significance to the military, with Republican support we should increase the military budget and move more science into defense. A defense department in a non-war setting could be the hub of research and development and as the research is defense related we could more easily keep it within our borders giving an advantage to our industries Another thought, though much more farfetched, is to implement universal service as is the case in Israel and use the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to work on projects not well suited to the private sector but would be of benefit to our society as a whole. This could serve a number of purposes. The draft could be arranged so that once someone, man or woman, reaches a certain age, if they are not in school, they would need to serve in the military for two or three years. Attending school would not release them from the obligation but only postpone it. The potential benefits, as I see them, are many. The number of idle young would be greatly reduced. Part of the service would include education and training constantly adjusted to the needs of industry as these change. The discipline which unfortunately is too lacking in too many of our homes can be taught and thus better prepare the young for the workplace they will enter upon completion of their service. One of the problems we face that will only increase with the growing income gap is that people are becoming more and more separated and with this separation more suspicious of each other. I found that when I was a new recruit in the army, with everyone wearing the same clothing and haircuts a lot of what we use to prejudge people based on our ignorance or prejudice is greatly reduced. Individuals from different races, religions and classes can come to better know each other and become more empathetic to a wider range of humanity. (This smells a bit of social engineering and I would keep this benefit under wraps.) A lot of our cities are falling apart. This force could be used to clean up vacant lots and demolish abandoned buildings. They could beautify our parks and other recreation areas. Instead of low cost “guest” workers, farm labor could be provided by these soldiers. In fact as part of the preparation for the outside world, I would have rural kids working on inner city projects and city kids on rural ones. The older and better educated individuals could spend time working in facilities providing assistance, including medical, to the poor. There is a strong desire on the part of conservatives to secure our border. A portion of the soldiers could be deployed there. The recent decade has seen an increase in catastrophic climatic events which are expected to not only continue but to increase. The military could be used to build levies and other barriers against the rising sea levels and be deployed to areas that have been hit by tornados, hurricanes, blizzards and tsunamis. Of course a segment of the military population would continue to prepare for battle, whatever form that may take in the future. Our potential enemies would be overwhelmed by the size of our military and may be reluctant to confront us and in the event of an unavoidable conflict, we could easily and quickly shift to a wartime footing. (This could be a selling point for the right.) And finally, with this much of the labor force taken out of the labor market, wages would increase and after completing the service, young people would return to a better place in better shape to contribute to keeping it that way. Also, since the low wage work would be done by the military, there would be less to attract unskilled immigrants. I don’t believe there is a snowball’s chance in hell that any of this could, or for that matter maybe should, be implemented. But such thinking out of the box could encourage others to also do so and contribute to the development of policies to help us succeed in the volatile future.

Multitasking is Like Plate Spinning

The place where I worked used our product engineers as the hub for satisfying a customer’s needs. They were the sales people that took the orders, engineers who designed the product, project managers and customer service representatives, communicating with the customer throughout the process. Most of the projects did not warrant full time attention so the ability to multitask was a necessary attribute. Having filled that role in the past, recognizing the value of the skill and being head of the organization I would often talk to our product engineers about skills required to effectively multitask. In these discussions I used the analogy of the circus act where a person spins plates sitting on top of tall sticks. As they puts more and more plates on more sticks the plates start to wobble and the performer has to run around giving the sticks a tweak to keep the plates spinning. In these discussions there are a few points I highlight. The level of skill is determined not by how well the plates spin but how many they can keep spinning. No one will come to see only one plate spinning perfectly. To spin many plates successfully requires two main things. You need to see all the plates. In their job as product engineers this vision can be achieved through reports, formal inquiries or just a casual question as people’s paths cross in the hallway. The second and more difficult is to understand how much the plates can wobble without falling. This skill is developed through experience. To truly know how much a plate can wobble before it fall, unfortunately one needs to have dropped a few. Young people tend to undervalue experience thinking that they can do anything strictly based on their intelligence, diligence and desire. In some endeavors where failure is not part of the learning process, I guess that may indeed be the case. (Now I’m starting to sound like an old man.) The plates in our workplace took many forms. Interviewing the customer to determine their need is one. Asking too few questions may lead to an underperforming or overpriced product. Asking too many may annoy the customer pushing them beyond their ability to answer. Either of these would chase the customer away and the plate will fall. Overworking a design limits the number of plates one can spin and not giving it enough attention can sacrifice performance or increase the manufacturing difficulty and cost. In either case the plate will fall. Responding to a customer’s inquiry in an instant can lead to great inefficiency whereas too slowly will lead to dissatisfaction. In all of these the plate falls if the customer doesn’t come back or the product costs more to make than we are getting paid to make it. To reduce the chance of irritating the customers, especially when a less experienced individual is managing the project, we used a second and more experienced set of eyes that can recognize a plate about to fall and catch it before it hit the ground. This person focuses not an every plate of every performer but focuses on the most critical ones and ones that are most likely to fall. The challenge is to allow a number of plates to fall, providing the learning experience to the newer person and catching the plate before it hit the ground, not alienating the customer. Invariably plates would occasionally hit the ground and shatter allowing both the novice and master to advance their skills.

Impact of Empathy on Policy

I was watching Bill Maher’s show the other day where they were talking about Rob Portman’s recent change in position on gay marriage. It seems that his son came out of “the closet” announcing his homosexuality two years ago. Rachel Maddow, one of his guests, made a comment which struck a chord. She said something to the effect that since Republicans change positions when things strike close to home, maybe they should have poor sons and thus have more empathy with the poor. One of the things I have often pondered and have written about is the difference between conservative and progressive views and the notion of empathy may help me understand this difference. The human race has organized itself into various groups ranging from family to tribe, village, region, nation and species. There are other intersecting groupings such as religion, ethnicity, race, gender, occupation and I am sure there are still others I have not thought to mention. If the more closely we align ourselves with a group, the more we want policies favoring that group. The question then is how the value we place on membership in these groups is distributed. At the extremes are the individualists giving primacy to themselves and the globalists the human race. The Buddhists, and to some extent native Americans and some animists take it a step further and feel that we are connected to all things, even inanimate objects. Conservatives espouse individualism and place a higher value on groupings closer to the self and thus individual freedoms, family cohesion, local and regional institutions and their protection become paramount. The value of a nation becomes less important because of its separation from the individual and its diversity. All the overt enthusiastic patriotism and flag waving may just be to cover the guilt from the low value given the national citizenship, (as Shakespeare once said “the lady doeth protest too much”) and the patriotism is more focused on the military and security aspects and tends to be ethnic and not inclusive. To that point, Sarah Palin, while running for VP, talked about being glad to visit a “real America” when she was in some rural community. In her mind, the bowls of Newark NJ belong to some foreign nation, certainly not to her America. People living in rural areas tend to be conservative and in general are isolated from diversity. They tend to have a fear, distrust and misunderstanding of the “others”, be they the other by virtue of race, religion, intellect or culture. They are in favor of States Rights and local control which they can easily see and touch and distrustful of the strangers in a distant place. (You can’t get too much more distant than the UN) Progressives, on the other hand, placing greater value on society and identifying more with the human race as a whole, see the downtrodden, other races and ethnicities as part of their group and are less sympathetic to individual wants. They tend to speak more of American exceptionalism in terms of its ability to assimilate immigrants and care for the needy rather than its military and economic might, considering the latter to be the consequence of the former. Their patriotism though it may be deeply felt, tends to be less demonstrative. Protection of the environment and therefore our species, a global quest, is strongly advocated by progressives. City dwellers by nature of their diversity tend to look more to the federal government rather than the state which often has more of a rural lean. So I think that the degree of empathy may be determined by the relative priority given to the various groupings and to a great extent the resulting empathy drives policy. Though conservatives tend to place more value on groupings closer to the individual and progressives closer to the species, looking at Democrats and Republicans through this lens, one can see significant outliers. On the Republican side, true free marketers really are globalists with a large acceptance criterion, whereas members of unions support Democrats giving high priority to a very narrowly defined grouping. In fact the largest group that placed value only on a single factor was the now defunct Soviet Communists. In trying to “unite the workers of the World”, they gave minimal value to family and nation, none to the individual and made religious organizations illegal. So, is there hope? I heard of a phenomenon called the “Aunt Susy Syndrome”(?) which says that as we become more mobile, we bring into our circle of friend and relatives individuals (Aunt Susys) from unfamiliar groups. Through this interaction we note the similarity and humanity which contradicts the lore of bigotry and gradually come to like Aunt Susy and in so doing, others of her ilk become much less scary and we start expanding our circle or forming a new one to include her kind. If policies are indeed influenced by empathy, which I think they are, they should benefit an ever expanding range of our population as time goes by.

Potential Danger of Globalization

The world is constantly changing with some changes much more dramatic than others, leading to catastrophic events. The industrial revolution brought about technologies causing drastic changes to western societies and shifted manufacturing predominance from east to west. At the turn of the nineteenth century power shifted from England to Germany precipitating the First World War. In the early part of the twentieth century the Russian Bolshevik Revolution gave birth to communism. Fascism came into being in part to counter the threat of communism to the establishment. German fascism not only instigated the Second World War decimating Eastern Europe, but its ethnic cleansing brutally destroyed millions of innocent Jewish lives. We are currently in the midst of another revolution. The information age is greatly accelerating advances in technologies. The most dramatic, of these, social media, allows massive, inexpensive trans-global communication facilitating international commerce. One of the consequences of the globalization is the diminution of the significance of international borders and a potential shift in the balance of power. At the turn of the twentieth century, the threat to humanity came from the left fermented by communist revolutionaries. The risk, as I see it today, is that as power; military, financial and intellectual is more evenly distributed throughout the world and as environmental, security and economic threats require more collaborative responses, fear, xenophobia and the desire for time to stand still could drive us into another world conflict. In this era, the threat is from the right. Conservatives, by their very nature are more susceptible. They may even have a biological predisposition to fear, particularly of the unknown. They want exiting institutions and relationships to continue unchanged and tend to wave the flag with greater gusto. My worry about the future stems from the Republican Party’s need to pull into their tent people whose economic wellbeing is inconsistent with fiscal policies favored by the Party. Theirs is a dangerous strategy playing into these tendencies and using a mix of fear, prejudice and patriotism to expand their electorate. The threats posed by global terrorism and, in response our war on it, unfortunately supports this strategy. My other concern is that since the turn of the twenty first century I started seeing inklings of a dangerous similarity with the past coming from the right. Some of the rhetoric is starting to sound a little bit like that of the German fascists in the early nineteen hundreds. They promoted fear and the resulting hatred of Jews to rally their ill-informed lower middle class. In the west, the political right propagandizes the fear and hatred of Muslims and Islam and in our country the “southern Strategy is still alive and well. The Nazis stressed the superiority of the Arian race while our right constantly chastises its opponents for insufficient acknowledgement of our exceptionalism. In Germany the “fatherland” was part of their battle cry. Here the word “homeland” and the need for its protection is more and more often heard. Collaboration in the control of the political process by the government, church and the industrial complex is a hallmark of fascism. In the last few decades we have had a strong shift to political engagement on the part of the religious right and the rise in economic inequality gives the wealthiest a disproportional influence on government. With the pronouncement of a never ending war on terror, more and more power is placed in the hands of the president and fear has lead us to cede a number of our civil rights. More military operations are undertaken by paramilitary rather than conventional forces. These forces are not subject to the code of military conduct and are responsible to an ever shrinking portion of the government. Fear and the Neo Con’s quest for ever greater military superiority and interventionism could push us in the direction of the German quest for world dominance. Then there is the charismatic leader lacking “intellectual curiosity” with the ability to rouse fear and anger that also scares me. A number of irrational, charismatic contenders were put forth by the right who momentarily lead the pack in Republican primaries (Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, the Pizza guy). Happily they were voted down for now. Fortunately the above are just inklings and thus far not a firm indication of a dangerous direction. Globalization, if we figure out how to navigate effectively through all the technological, environmental, social and economic challenges can make, not only our country but the world as a whole a better place for everyone to live. To this end we need leaders who are intellectually capable of understanding and dealing with complexities which we will invariably encounter with a vision looking well into the future and with the skills to counter the fear and hatred sown by extremes on both the left and right. The electorate will need to be well informed and select senators and congressman to implement policies for not only today but that anticipate impending changes. I think that in time, the information technologies will make people better informed and thus see through the talking points, though I recognize the potential for the same technologies to more efficiently spread propaganda. We will see. Whatever happens, it will be an interesting but hopefully not a lethal time.

Free Will

At a stress reduction clinic in a local teaching hospital which I attended after an episode with my heart about 20 years ago, I was exposed to an antidote for guilt which goes something like this: If I could have done it differently I would have, the proof that I couldn’t is that I didn’t. This statement suggests that everything is exactly as it should be, including our decisions, and we have no free will. Somewhere in my travels I was also exposed to another notion that: Everything that was in place prior to this very moment was exactly as it should be. However, we have a say in what happens in the next moment. I would like to rephrase the later statement. Once an action is taken, the results of that action are exactly as they should be given the action. And all of the results of actions throughout the Universe are exactly as they should be given all the actions throughout the universe. However, going forward we can make choices and participate in determining what the Universe will look like tomorrow. I want to explore the second statement. The first part of the statement is obvious. If I hit a piece of granite with a hammer in a specific spot with a given force, it will shatter. The way is splinters is precisely the correct way (by correct I don’t mean intended but as it should, given the circumstances). If I struck the granite with the same hammer in the same place with the same force using the same trajectory and it being in the same space at the same temperature, it would fracture the same way. Actions leading up to the fracture of the granite determine the mode of splintering and the splintering is precisely as it should be given the actions. Today there is a saying that reinforces this. Lunacy (or something like that) is defined as doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. However I am not sure I agree with the second part of the statement, going forward we can make a choice and participate in determining what the Universe will look like going forward. The granite has certain inherent physical properties which makes it granite, that determine its basic characteristics, like its chemical composition, strength, etc. These will be contributing factors to in how it will splinter. Other elements in how it shatters are, within the family of granite, its unique characteristics that make it this specific rock. These will determine things like the nature and locations of impurities imbedded in it along with the various local bond strengths. Beside this it also has a history that will contribute to the mode of shatter. How long ago did it break off from the mountain? What temperature cycles did it see over the period of its existence? How much water washed over its surface? How did it tumble and fall as the earth moved? Then of course there are the external conditions like the nature and weight of the hammer, the velocity and direction of the hammer head, the orientation of the granite and the precise location of the impact. All of these, its nature as a rock, its unique structure, its history and the external conditions at the time of impact, will contribute to determining precisely how the rock will shatter. This premise should be relatively easy to accept. Now let’s replace the piece of granite with a person and the nature of the splinter with the decision at a crossroads to commit a crime or not. As in the case of the granite, the person has an inherent nature possessed by all human beings. She is conceived through the merger of a sperm and egg, struggles to survive, seeks pleasure, grows, decays and dies. Then there are factors driving her inherent individual characteristics, traits specific to her that she was born with. Broadly speaking, these are her DNA determined by her ancestry, the culture and life style of her ancestors, and the mother’s environment during pregnancy. What did the mother eat and drink during the pregnancy? Was she a drug addict? How much stress was she under? What kind of prenatal care in general did she receive? These factors will determine the color of the skin, hair and eyes, her height, much of her physiological and psychological makeup (nature), her propensity for diseases, and her general health upon entering this world. As with the rock, she will also be influenced by her history. Was the family under stress during the first few years of her life? Did she grow up in a loving environment? Was there someone available to comfort her? Was there a good role model available? Was the family intellectually curious? Did she live in a violent neighborhood? Did she receive adequate health care? Was she educated? What was the religiosity of the parents if any? What roads did she travel during her life? What people crossed her paths? What joys and sorrows did she face? This history also contributes to her physical and psychological makeup (nurture) and will come into play when she is making the decision. What are the externalities at the moment the decision is made? Is it cold out? If poor, are poor people stigmatized, in her environment is such a crime acceptable behavior? So when she comes to a crossroad and needs to decide to commit the crime or not, like the way the rock splinters, that decision has already been predetermined. Is she a good or bad person? That may not be the right question since it suggests she had a say. The more appropriate thing is to recognize that circumstances beyond her control have led her to this point and the question should be what kind of a member of society and community is she. Should she be forgiven? Yes. If the crime is a serious one, should she go to jail? Yes. Though what she does is predetermined, society’s laws should apply, if not to rehabilitate her then to discourage her and others from committing that crime again. (The philosophy and effectiveness of incarceration is whole separate discussion.) This gets us back to the antidote to guilt. If I could have done it differently I would have, the proof that I couldn’t is that I didn’t. The older I get and the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that statement is true and there is no real free will for us as individuals. Since there is no free will for individuals, does society, being the sum of its individuals, travel along a predetermined path also? Are we just actors on a stage following a script? If so, the bigger question then is where, when and how was the script written?

"You Didn't Build it Yourself"

A comment President Obama made during the last Presidential campaign got a lot of attention. It even inspired the slogan used at the Republican Convention. Picking up on a response to a question Elizabeth Warren made early on in her campaign which went viral, the President reiterated her point that to succeed a business needs more than the ingenuity and hard work of an individual businessman but relies also on things provided by the population at large like infrastructure, education of the workforce and the system of governance established and fought for that allows for such success. He ended his comment saying “you didn’t build it yourself”. The conservatives took the last part of the statement out of context and used “you didn’t build it yourself” to attack the President. This attack of the Left by the Right points out a fundamental difference between the Right and Left emphasis on individualism and collectivism. The value of individualism, though an admirable trait, has diminished over time. Early man made his own tools and weapons with which he gathered plants, hunted and fished. Later in his development he also planted seeds and bred livestock. This continued over tens of thousands of years. As families formed tribal units and further expanded their societies, man started to rely more and more upon his neighbors and soon, to improve efficiency, started to specialize until full blown distribution of labor brought about the industrial revolution. So when frontiers were first settled by individual families separated by miles if not tens of miles, as in the prehistoric times, families had to fend for themselves. Today we romanticize about the strong, self-reliant individualist with a pistol in his pocket and rifle over his shoulder relying on no one but his own strength, cunning and courage. We overlook the fact that the pistol in his pocket and the rifle on his shoulder were made by someone else who got their metal from someone who mined it with equipment made by someone else. So even as independent as he is, he still relies on others for his survival. As the population grew and technologies evolved, the skill and efficiency with which we interact with each other as opposed to individual behavior becomes ever more important. As a practical matter, with today’s technological complexity, if all communication and information storage devices broke down we could not survive because we have become so specialized that no individual or small groups of individuals have sufficient skill to make even the most rudimentary item. (OK, OK, the primitive tribes who have not yet embraced any of the modern technologies may be able to survive, but only maybe.) I suspect that there are a number of causes including propaganda, underlying the different value placed on individualism and collectivism. Some of them may even be biological. Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroscientist was quoted in the Huffington Post on 1/4/13. “To use a powerful metaphor, we have two magnificent information-processing machines inside our heads. Our right mind focuses on our similarities, the present moment, inflections of voice, and the bigger picture of how we are all connected. Because it focuses on similarities, in my mind she is compassionate, expansive, open and supportive of other. Juxtaposed to that, our left brain thinks linearly, creates and understands language, defines the boundaries of where we begin and where we end, judging what is right and wrong and is a master of details. Because it focuses on our differences and specializes in critical judgment of those unlike ourselves, our left brain character tends to be our source of bigotry, prejudice, and fear or hate of the unfamiliar.” I believe different individuals are more inclined to use the right side of the brain others the left. Artists are right side of the brain people and accountants left. (We may have mislabeled the political right and left.) Getting back to “you didn’t build it yourself”. The left leaning people, using the right side of their brain more, and intuitively recognizing the connectivity of things, may by nature be more predisposed to giving credit more broadly and would have little problem with the notion that a business was built with many inputs by different people and society as a whole, not to mention a touch of luck. Yes, building a business did indeed take an effort of an individual, but it also relied on past and current efforts of others.