The Avoidance of Trouble

Don't cause trouble.

How much trouble is caused, thanks to the hesitancies of people that say "don't cause trouble"?

In the DiSC inventory of personality styles, the "S" category is in the clear majority. Something like 60-65% of the typical population is comprised of these "High Ss", which stands for such qualities as Steadiness, Sensible, Security, Sincerity, Stability, Safety, Specializing. 

The S group definitely keeps the world running. Give them a job to do, and they will give it 100% effort, with a focus on quality and excellence. They are dependable. They will be at their job station on time, and will leave on time. They do not like surprises, and do not like to rock the boat. 

It is hard to avoid the influence of an S. They're everywhere. They will give you advice, with words like "You don't want to . . . " when they have no idea what you want. But to them it is so crystal clear: Do what makes sense. Don't take chances. Don't rock the boat. Try to keep everything around you peaceful and predictable. 

They are overly cautious, but they keep all of us out of trouble, and we owe them a lot. 

The downside is that, someone's got to point out wrongdoing when it happens. And it will happen. Unless it's metaphysically obvious that a wrong has been committed, evil will never be consistently challenged, because the majority, the Ss, keep urging us "don't get involved. It's not your problem."

Hitlers are inevitable, because there are so many Ss (please bear with me here. Ss tolerate potential Hitlers for good reasons, to a fault). As long as the violence and injustice doesn't come too close to them, too early, of too great a magnitude, they will put up with it. They are the ultimate frog that can be cooked via slow heating of the water. 

And so, the advice: Don't cause trouble . . . works very well, because its advocates are in the majority, and we have an innate approval for whatever the majority wants. But the majority does not take chances, which means the majority usually is not very creative; and not much able to deal with unexpected developments.

There's a reason why the road to wisdom always ends on a mountaintop, at the feet of a single, solitary guru.

I wonder how many people in our society are risk-takers and innovators, but never try, because the dominant nay-sayers are simply too numerous. It seems more than plausible: a person that would normally act decisively and assertively may be brought to bay, by a culture that marginalizes and intimidates such attitudes. 

How many people, so treated, end up retreating into a shell, where they become of less value to society. Indeed they may even become a liability, if their will to advance great things is crushed by the prevailing culture. Hitler may be the expected result of forcing a creative risk-taker into a corner, and telling him to stop causing trouble. 

Today, this very day . . . look around, and see if there are problems we could solve, or prevent, if the environment wasn't so discouraging towards people that might actually see the problems. Make a note of the words people use, to get others to just shut up and sit down. 

Putting Boundaries on Boundaries

I think the boundaries thing has about served it's purpose. It's run it's course. We've driven it into the ground, and broken it off. We started talking about boundaries, say, probably around 2004. It slowly came into vogue. By the end of the 2010s it had gone mainstream and drawn in all the margins. It gave us such meme seeds as:

• Know when to say no. 
• You have to take care of yourself first (like in air travel emergencies).
• Give yourself some "me time."
• You deserve to (fill in the blank).

In reality, there are times when we had better say "yes," even if it's what we don't want to do. Life isn't a Delta passenger flight - we are social creatures that wreck ourselves if we don't take care of others. All things being equal, the human race actually probably needs more "other," than "me" time. If we're being honest, we really don't "deserve" anything. 

"Boundaries" is not consistent with The Golden Rule.

Now, understand that I am not opposed to boundaries, per se. We go crazy if we take on too much. And we're no good at all to others if we're crazy. But like so many other things, too much of a good thing is bad. Too much water, too much oxygen, would kill you. The pendulum of human life swings back, and forth, through history. First we're big on justice. But then we swing over to being big on compassion. And then we swing back to justice; but we swing it further out, to include "social" justice. But then, we're back to making the streets safer. Back, and forth. 

The mature approach to the pendulum problem is to find the balance. How to maybe limit the swinging of the pendulum and get to a point where these competing, and incompatible impulses are both represented. For that is the true human condition. I will never have it fully my way, and you will never have it fully yours. We're going to disagree. The key is to finding a spot that is our way, while covenanting with each other, to protect each other, even when we disagree.

The 1980s were the "Me Decade." This wasn't something to be proud of. 

A generation later, it's the "Me First, Last, and In-Between, and Me Only Decade." You got a problem with that?

Here is an example of the type of meme in vogue today, in The Era of Extreme Boundaries:

Don't change yourself so that other people will like you. Be yourself so that the right people will love you.

The sentiment is boundaries on steroids. But it has a set of problems.

First: Changing, when it comes to yourself, isn't a bad word. The openness to change is necessary for growth. We must change, or else we die. But the boundaries ethic has come to mean, don't change at all. (It should be noted that society does, indeed, endorse some categories of change that represent existential change to one's real, true self. This is delusional and neither healthy to the individual nor to society at large. )

Second: It places the emphasis on whether or not to be liked, or loved, or both, or neither. Regardless, the focus is on self, and that is narcissism.  I know plenty of people that stand against the crowd, even if it means being disliked. But in 2022 we don't find it within our cultural mores, to celebrate people like that, if only for their courage. 

Third: Who are the "right" people. The ones that "love" you? And what is our definition of "love"? Being treated in a way that makes us "feel" good . . . or gives us a chemical rush? Real Love has everything to do with serving people we don't particularly love, or even like. It is not a feeling. 

Finally . . . the meme actually creates boundaries. Big boundaries. Series, hateful boundaries. Boundaries that cause divorce, fighting, crime, and even war. If you don't love me, I will dump you. 

I know that I am exaggerating. It may appear that I don't get it, or that I am over-analyzing it. 

But something is wrong with the world, and to trouble-shoot the problem, we have to be willing to examine, critically, the popular mores and trends. What books are people reading? What are the popular memes? What gets the most "likes" on social media?

In 2022, the pendulum has swung way to far to the extreme end that is about self. Me first. Love me. Notice me. Accept me. Me. Me. Me. 

Why? Because I have boundaries. 

Our course needs correction. 

Lies

If I say it, it is true.

If I write it, it is true.

If I blog it, it is true. 

If I get likes, it is true.

If I get arguments with evidence, it's still true. Oh wait, I take that back. If I get arguments with evidence, it may not be true, but the person challenging my statement is a racist, or misogynist, or fascist. This will make my statement true. 

If I'm running for an office, from the Presidency down to local school board, and I have an opponent that seems to be gaining traction, I can claim that he or she cracked racist jokes, wants to ban books, or wants to marginalize some group or the other. 

I do not need evidence. It's true. Or wait . . . whether or not it's true, it must not be challenged, because I must not be challenged. And if I am on the side considered more "progressive," more "hip," more "cool." If my side has celebrities, athletes, college professors, and wealthy corporate-types on the team; then anything I say might as well be true, whether or not it is . . . especially if I have supported it with lies that demean my opposition. 

Ethics are gone. Honor is gone. Integrity is gone. 

Make it stop. Please. 

The Schoolyard-ization of Modern Culture

There was a "fight-or-flight" feeling, or sensation, that I remember from my childhood days. It happened rarely. But when it did, it was decisive in putting me on a high state of alert. It kind of froze you. There was an urgent thought, that in the next few moments my chances of being beaten up, or just punched and bloodied a little, had just spiked up into the "Imminent Threat" zone. 

There were a few kids in the neighborhood that found it too easy to land a few punches into the face, or stomach, of a smaller kid. And they would do so, on a whim: they were having a bad day; A bigger kid had just bullied them; or maybe they just wanted the experience of being "king of the hill," simply for being the only one bold enough to inflict physical harm on a peer. 

Now don't get me wrong. My childhood was wonderful. It was classic. Golden. In fact, I never was successfully bullied. Not by anybody. There were a couple of attempts. But I always fought them off. But casual violence committed for the sake of meanness was a reality in my suburban neighborhood. And all of us . . . all of us . . . knew the low-grade dread that, maybe today, you would find yourself on the wrong side of a bigger, tougher kid that just wants to punch somebody. 

I came across bullies throughout life, and that same sensation came back, when the bullies went on the attack. In the late 1990s I worked for a company that put a Boston Bigmouth over me as my manager. If anything wasn't close enough to perfect, he would call me and ream me out. Or send emails laced with invective. He worked all the time, and his emails would be sent out at bizarre times like 3:30am. The schoolyard feeling of dread was a constant companion during those months that I was under this manager. 

Society claims to abhor bullies. But in reality it celebrates and ennobles them. People that talk against bullying are the biggest bullies of all. 

I wonder how many other middle-aged adults are walking around, slightly on edge because of some other adult with power over them, causing them heartburn and blood pressure spikes? I wonder about the cumulative effect of all of this emotional stress, upon society as a whole?

Adults are going around, with money and power, acting like kids on a playground, unsupervised; ganging up on each other. Mocking and ridiculing that poor kid that, this week, is in the "doghouse." From Washington politicians down to small town Main Street mom and pop shops - we seem to love when someone from "our side" puts it to someone from the other side. 

It's demeaning. It's humiliating. It's dehumanizing. But it seems to make us feel good. Or, at the very least . . . makes us feel "safe." So we encourage some leader, or standard-bearer, to do the school-yard bully treatment against someone on the "other side."

That's what "cancel culture" is. It's what riot destruction is all about. It's what policies that remove people from society are all about. It's "My Gang" versus "Your Gang" on steroids. It's childish. It's unbecoming. But it's what adults have been doing to each other, more and more, especially since the mid-2010s.

We had rules to prevent children from acting this way, fifty years ago. Today we expect adults with power and money (on our side) to do the same, and more, to "The Other." 

It has become habit. It's becoming our culture. And it's very dangerous. 

The Problem with Experts

It's hard to tell which generation is in charge. But whoever it is, seems bent on driving the rest of us certifiably crazy. You wake up every morning, thinking that perhaps this time, you had a well-taken rest. You'll be prepared for this day. The sun is shining. What could go wrong?

But somebody, somewhere, has to go and share some ante-upping, snarky article or meme. 

You can't say anything . . . anything . . . without someone countering with some scientific study, some comedian's devastating wit, some tug-at-your-heartstrings tale of woe, some act of great courage sustained by a member of The Other Team. You must either back down at overwhelming logic, shame yourself for your cruelty ("You want people to die"), accept that you have been on the wrong side of history, or simply, just give up - you guys are gonna lose. 

The sky is blue.

Well, actually, it's not.

It's good to be honest.

Not if the honest person is a racist.

Etc. Etc.

This morning's installment is a slap in the face of people with lifelong, finely-honed opinions. It's patronizing for even the most hardened practitioner of elitist condescension. It was one of the first things to appear on my feed: an NPR article, entitled "The problem with thinking you know more than the experts."

If you aren't good enough of a human being to be ashamed of yourself . . . 

If you aren't self-aware enough to get how uncool you are . . . 

If you aren't sincere enough to own your hypocrisy . . . 

Then maybe this will make your realize how dumb you are:

You think you're smarter than experts! (LMFAO!!)

Here's the deal - - - everybody loves expertise. We all rely on experts. We trust them. We admire them. We're all proud of our kids when they become experts. But there's an exception to every rule. The exception proves the rule! And, the classic "expert" realizes this. Science is all about disproving the hypothesis. You're supposed to welcome criticism. And as we used to all understand (at least, up until about 1996), we need to welcome criticism from all quarters . . . even from (especially from) non-experts.

You see, a clear view of a problem may require the eyes of someone from the outside; a layperson, an amateur, a skeptic. It's almost proverbial - the greatest breakthroughs come from outside the laboratory. 

And, this reliance on expertise, like all things, always only goes so far. You bring your expert, and I'll bring mine . . . and I'll bet they disagree. Or better yet - if my expert introduces factors that your expert did not consider, are you willing to part some, with your expert's conclusions? 

Effective problem-solving requires that we open up our minds a little bit. There's nothing worse, when you're trying to solve problems as big as COVID-19, than experts that will not entertain new information.

People don't have a problem with experts.

But they do have a problem with experts with power. 

Or, experts with money. 

Or, experts with different values.

Or, experts with no values. 

So yes, please, bring in your expertise. Invite all the experts you can manage. But let them adhere to the same rules expected of the rest of us:

Listen to others.

Empathize.

Go for win-win. 

Realize that creativity comes out of the tension of disagreement. 

The solution is, most frequently, somewhere in the mix of "All of the above."

The Triumph of Good

This morning, I awoke to a Facebook thread started by a lifelong friend of mine, in which he invoked the worldview of Star Trek, to inform the recent protests in Lansing, Michigan, against Governor Whitmer's COVID quarantine measures.

He pointed out that it was only a few thousand in protest, compared to millions of people that stayed home, ostensibly, because they were all too willing to do what they're told, by government.

It's a good point. Perhaps all protests should be viewed from this perspective. The Mainstream never takes part in demonstrations and protests. That is one normal curve we may never flatten out.

My friend suggested that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," of course, recalling the Vulcan logic articulated by Commander Spock.

Now, the thread could have taken a positive turn at that point . . . to discuss the reality that the few do have needs. Needs are not wants. Needs are things that we must have, in order to thrive, or even, survive. The thread could have touched on the truth that people are complex, and these problems are difficult. The participants in the thread could have sparked a new way of looking at things: Let's not retreat into our biased corners. But let's gain enlightenment from this one, inescapable fact: The Few Have Needs. And go from there.

Whitmer opponents could have come around some, to a little empathy for the Governor's predicament. Whitmer defenders might have realized: "Yes, it is true - the protesters have legitimate concerns that proceed from out of their own, unique, needs."

But it didn't. It spiraled downward into the expected ridicule and insult. You can feel the raw, negative emotions emitting forth, from even the most simply-worded retort.

The thread lingered on a set of Spock quotes, all of which tended to endorse Governor Whitmer (be that as it may, I have strong beliefs that a real 23rd Century Vulcan would have little regard for 21st Century American political philosophies or social movements; but that's another matter).

The thread stopped there . . . .like all debates in the Year 2020. A quote from Mr. Spock, a couple dozen "likes," and we're all done. Slam dunk.

But there's more to the story.

In the Star Trek narrative, Spock does indeed sacrifice himself for the needs of the many. He gives his life, in a wonderful parallel to fundamental Western values. (Note, first of all, that he was one, and one only, that made the sacrifice. He was neither a mob nor a movement).

But . . . in the next sequence of the narrative, Captain Kirk undertakes a foolhardy mission, risking war with Klingons, risking the lives of all of his friends, risking his reputation and career . . . he even destroyed The Enterprise, the ship that had been his life and companion. And, in the cruelest turn of events - his son, David, was killed during Kirk's mission  . . .

 . . . to save one.

He put it all on the line, for one person: his friend, Spock. Kirk said "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

And so you end up with the full picture now.

You need both the many, and the one. You need logic, and emotion. You need Science, and spiritualism. You need fact, and opinion. You need Vulcan, and Human. You even need Klingon, and Federation. That really is the way out of our mess. It's the way out of any mess.

Going from Whitmer, to Whitman, we have a quote from the famous poet: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

As Spock might conclude: "It is not logical, but it is often true."

As the Star Trek story unfolds, we ultimately find Kirk in league with his mortal enemies, the Klingons. Picard ends up partnering with Romulans. Even the Borg, to some degree, end up having some value to The Good Guys.

If Kirk and Picard can get in the same room with people they once despised, so can we. It is not something Gene Roddenberry may have intended, but it's true: If you want to beat a problem as big as COVID - you might have to get along with Trump. But in turn, to people on the other side, is a challenge . . . you might have to get along with Biden, or Whitmer.

Don't expect our "leaders" to lead the way.

Once Spock's life had been restored, his father, Sarek, asked Kirk if it was worth the cost.

"Your ship. Your son."

Kirk concluded: "If I didn't try, I would have lost my soul."

Americans are scoring a lot of debate points today. They're getting very good at gotchas, fact-checks, finding errors in logic, appealing to Science, referencing morality, accumulating "likes" and "shares." They're bolstering their respective corners, and defining the lines of principle that they will not cross.

But in a Nation built on consensus and protecting the rights of the marginalized . . . they are losing their soul.

I'll conclude by giving a nod to a great quote by Spock's foil, Dr. Leonard McCoy, who once said:

"I've found that Evil often triumphs, unless Good is very, very careful."

We are going to have to become a whole lot more careful than we have been, if we want Good to triumph.