Mind...what a waste

I want to make clear a couple of points I raised in Wednesday class; they have to do with my intellectual orientation to the study of human behavior.

First and foremost, I am a behaviorist. This means that I observe everything that humans do in terms of behavior. This includes thinking, feeling, etc. As such, the purpose of a human science is to explain or account for behavior. I do this by using the evidence generated by research conducted by behavior analysts. Why? Because after years of consideration, I have concluded that they have the best empirical evidence to support their claims. In addition, many claims made by behaviorists have been confirmed through other research.

Second...please don't think that because I reject the notion of "mind" that you have to as you don't. Your acceptance or rejection of this claim has no bearing on how well you do in the course. The reason I reject it is because I believe that the issue is explaining behavior (see above) and I think the addition of something called, "mind" to do that is unnecessary and misleading.

In addition, if we posit that people act because of mind, we have a problem...mind is an immaterial object...this means that it has no empirically identifiable properties (you can't touch, taste, hear, see, nor smell it). As such it is similar to a "ghost" or "spirit" and these notions are rejected by scientists because we cannot verify the existence of them. Put simply, based on what science has demonstrated after hundreds of years of application is that an immaterial object (mind) cannot control a material object (body). If we accept this premise, we have no reason to use the scientific method anymore because it is rendered useless since it is based on empirical observations.

So, what does work to control human behavior? This is still not well understood, but we know that the brain plays a part (if not THE part). Notice how a brain is not the same as the "mind." The brain has an empirical reality, whereas mind does not. So, if we want to find out the role that brain plays in human behavior, we have something to work with. Many people will say, "mind" when they are really referring to brain; I prefer to just say, "brain" if that is what I am being referring to.

Not me

I realized today that I am not the source of my own life. I don't animate myself. I did not create my life. I am something that's been created. Consequently, I am a fiction.

Recent rant on a list-serv...

RE: students not being able to pass the citizenship test and/or not being aware of current events...

 

I, too think that this is disconcerting, however, I am not that surprised. Given that our economy is one of consumption, it makes sense that students (and others) are busy consuming...entertainment, food, time through the ubiquitous use of social media, etc., at the expense of "school." School inevitably loses in the competition for attention, if for no other reason, our marketing budget is far, far less than that of the entertainment (read "product sales of any kind") industry. Let's be realistic, they out-spend us annually by billions of dollars. Who can compete against Xbox? Facebook? iPhones? Chili's? American Apparel? Consider that students are exposed to thousands of ads on a daily basis for these "products" and weigh that consideration against paying attention to stuff that is decidedly NOT entertaining...politics? social unrest in other parts of the world? genocide? nuclear meltdowns? "Nah, pass the chips and salsa, the remote for the Tivo, and the Corona...I got better things to do (like entertain myself) than watch this depressing crap."

 

Don't forget, we are also dealing with the leftover (now reheating) "culture wars" which equated being educated with being an elitist or, God forbid, a liberal (several years ago I had a student in class state that, "Science was a liberal endeavor"). And many states are cutting funding for education in a hopeless attempt to balance budgets, AND the unemployment rate is still high, AND the feds are cutting education funding...makes sense to me that more kids are opting for entertainment VS reality -- hell, reality sucks. Entertainment is...entertaining!!!

 

Last time I heard about "job creation" it was the creation of lower-paying (i.e., not much education required) jobs, so who needs to "waste time" getting an education when it isn't going to pay off? I have seen articles in various mediums discussing how getting a college education isn't worth the money! Plus, most of my students work AND go to school, so when they are not busy with family, school, entertainment, they are working (consequently "entertainment" is most appealing).

 

In sum, I think we are fighting the proverbial uphill battle; I don't know how we are faring in the war, but it sure seems like we ain't winning.

Email to some friends...

Mother Nature is awesome...I think she does these things to remind us humans that despite all of the BS we tell ourselves, we ain't runnin' shit, SHE is in charge.

For better or for worse (worse in this case), nuclear power IS the best solution (currently) to the massive energy needs that we, China, India, Japan, et al have right now. If you set aside the dangers (hard to, I agree), it IS the cleanest form of energy production that we have on the scale that we need (and we ARE going to run out of oil someday). Sure, passive is great, but it is not at the capacity to replace traditional forms of energy just yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason solar and other sources are not more available is BECAUSE of oil companies, nuclear energy companies, etc. But unless we want to return to a pre-industrialized form of society (i.e., no electricity), then this is what we are stuck with. At Dharma Farm (our place), we are try to live with the least amount of energy, but not easy to do.

War...I have come to respect the people in the military -- they are all brave people (far braver than I). What pisses me off is how American Presidents use these people in such a cavalier fashion -- doesn't matter what President. I also think that our choice of wars reveals the duplicity of our government. There are "humanitarian" crises in many places around the globe (Darfur, Ivory Coast, etc.), but we don't give enough of a shit about them to enact a no-fly zone. Here we come back to the energy issue again -- sure seems to me that we only decide that a conflict requires military intervention when our "national interests" (read: access to energy resources) are threatened. I would have far more respect for leaders if they were at least honest with populations -- "We really don't give a rat's ass about the Libyan people, we are kicking the shit out of Gaddhafi because we need the oil underneath Libyan soil." And the reason for increasing gas prices around the world is NOT due to a lack of oil from Libya (Saudi is making up for any reduction), it is ONLY because of speculators -- the same assholes who brought us the financial meltdown that we are still reeling from. Of course, THEY get the bailouts while we get the shaft.

From the mouth of the babe

My son went to an Xmas event at church the other night. He told me that some girl was bothering him, so he called her a "dumb ass." Then he clarified that what he really called her was a "dumb asshole."

My first thought was, "Son a bitch, son, you can't say shit like that at church!!!"

How I wish I could speak the truth.

It's the behavior, NOT the revelation about the behavior

I heard on the news on the way into work today that some folks are claiming that the Wikileaks cable release about the Yemeni President lying to his country about U.S. bombs dropping in Yemen might serve as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. This immediately reminded me of when I worked with substance-abusing felons...

Part of my job as a counselor was to challenge them about their behavior and to encourage them to be honest about any behavior that violated the rules of the treatment center. This was in keeping with the treatment philosophy of "honesty is integral to recovery from substance abuse." If they admitted to a violation, however, they would receive a consequence. Needless to say, it was indeed challenging to get them to fess up. What was interesting was their main reason for NOT fessing up; it is essentially the same thing that is happening with the above situation.

Their argument was that being honest (i.e., fessing up) would cost them...and indeed in one sense, it would and it did. As such, it was in their best interest to lie. I pointed out that this was in fact incorrect. It was not their HONESTY that resulted in the consequence, it was their BEHAVIOR that resulted in the consequence. In other words, it was not the revelation about the behavior that was consequential, it was the behavior itself.

Put simply, don't do stupid shit and you don't have anything to lie about; you can in fact be honest with people about what you have been doing.

Who knew that people in power could act like felons?

( Some comments I made at an Honors Reception)

Beware the Glittering Generality

I want to start by asking you to consider the following three statements from three different individuals, all made within the last decade…

1) “I think our core businesses are extremely strong. We have a very strong competitive advantage. Of course, we're now transferring this very successful business model and approach to a lot of new, very large markets globally.”

2) "The fundamentals of our economy are strong,"

3) "There is a reasonable chance that the biggest part of the housing correction can be behind us in a number of months -- I'm not saying two or three months but in months as opposed to years,"

Now before I tell you who made these statements and when, I want to ask if you noticed any similarities among them? Aside from their assessment of the economy and/or their business?

If, when asked to notice similarities, you thought of the use of the words strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage, all different in form, but similar in type (they all speak to something that is good, a “virtue”) then you are on to something. The question is, of course, what are you onto? The answer is…propaganda. And more specifically, a specific form of propaganda termed, Glittering Generality.

I can hear some of your thoughts (Sociologists are imbued with psychic powers, so beware what you think in our presence) Propaganda you say? In America! In the 21st century! Nyet! Can’t be so! You’re lying!

Um, yeah, afraid not that I am lying and afraid that what that is…is propaganda. In America…in the 21st century…so common…so much a part of our culture…so integral to the discourse of our culture (especially political discourse)…that we don’t even notice it.

And why should we notice? Very few of us have ever been educated about propaganda. We might hear about it and the word might conjure up images of soldiers with rifles, charging a hill or decrying bad habits during wartime, but most of us have never been educated on recognizing the more subtle, linguistic, discursive forms…the forms that dominate our social world.

Believe it or not, there was, at one time in our national history, a brief 5 year period during which a concerted effort was made by a national organization to do precisely that…to educate the general public on propaganda in general, and seven specific forms it takes, in particular.

This work was conducted by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Inc. A non-profit organization founded in the United States in 1937. Its aim was to educate the general public on recognizing and then refuting propaganda. It produced pamphlets, newsletters, even a few books, all intended to raise public awareness about propaganda, which they defined as

“…expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends.”

Or to put it another way (my words)

“Specifically designed linguistic and visual efforts to rouse people to respond in precise ways without requiring their conscious acknowledgement”

Or perhaps, even simpler…getting people to do stuff without thinking about what they are doing.

Now, as I mentioned, the institute actually identified seven forms of propaganda. Time does not permit me to explicate each form, but briefly, we have:

Glittering generality

Name-calling (So and so is a communist, socialist, Marxist, etc.)

Transfer (all members of the Tea Party are patriots)

Testimonial (Wear Hanes underwear because Michael Jordan does!)

Bandwagon (Don’t be the last one to join! Have! Get!)

Card-stacking (Gay marriage will destroy the moral fabric of America!)

Plain folks (You betcha! I’m not a witch, I’m you!)

All of these share several features...

First, they are designed to shape public opinion

Second, they are designed to inhibit consideration, i.e., thinking

Third, they are designed to get people to respond in specific ways

Fourth, recipients (i.e., the public) are not supposed to notice that they have been designed nor are they supposed to notice their effects; they are simply supposed to respond.

Powerful stuff, eh?

So what about the statements that I started this with? What was the form of propaganda they employ? Oh, yes, as mentioned, they use something called, Glittering Generality, which is:

“…associating something with a ‘virtue word’ [it] is used to make us accept and approve the thing without examining the evidence.”

Let’s hear those statements again and this time listen for the “virtue words,” the Glittering Generality

1) “I think our core businesses are extremely strong. We have a very strong competitive advantage. Of course, we're now transferring this very successful business model and approach to a lot of new, very large markets globally.”

2) "The fundamentals of our economy are strong,"

3) "There is a reasonable chance that the biggest part of the housing correction can be behind us in a number of months -- I'm not saying two or three months but in months as opposed to years,"

Did you hear them this time?

Remember, I pointed them out earlier; they are:

strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage

Notice that they all are “virtuous” and suggest “good” things… strong, successful, competitive, correction, advantage

These are things that we all want, right? Only a fool would not want them!

Do you see how they almost immediately stop any questions, any discussion, any consideration of their accuracy? We are supposed to take the people who said them at their word. We are supposed to say, “Okay, nothing to worry about, we can relax…”

The problem is that at the time each one of these statements was uttered, there WAS something to worry about, things were not going “swimmingly.” Who said them and when?

The first, was something Ken Lay, CEO of Enron said during a conference call with employees right before Enron tanked.

The second statement was made by John McCain during his campaign for Presidency at the beginning of the financial crisis, and

The final statement was made by Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary during the Bush Administration at the start of the housing crisis.

And how was the public supposed to respond when hearing these statements? Were they supposed to question them? To challenge them? To attempt to refute them? It doesn’t seem so; rather, it seems that they were uttered in an attempt to allay any fears about what was occurring to our economy.

So, why talk about propaganda? Why give examples of glittering generality? Is it to bring everybody down? Poke our society in the eye? No. It is a small attempt to continue the work started by the IPA back in 1937. A brief, however limited, endeavor to educate us about the efforts of other people to direct our attention, our thinking, and ultimately, our behavior. It is to increase critical analysis of social discourse and social interaction. It is to invite everyone to develop a healthy skepticism about what is being said by whom and perhaps most importantly, WHY something is being said. Our world has always needed well-educated, thoughtful, people. We need those same kind of people today. We desperately need a well-educated public in this country. We have a future that is like so many other futures of years past…uncertain. We need to take action to make sure that all people are prepared to respond effectively to that uncertain future, to respond in ways that will ensure a better world for all of us, to increase the chances of us individually and collectively living to our fullest.