The Empirical Manifesto

I had been thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black when I ran across a quote by Stephen Hawking the other day which read, “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street.” As I thought about the brilliance behind his observation, and only because I had been thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black, it also reminded me of Tim Minchin when he sang, “I'm not undervaluing what we've got when I say that given the role chaos inevitably plays in the inherently flawed notion of "fate," it's obtuse to deduce that I've found my soulmate at the age of seventeen. It's just mathematically unlikely that at a university in Perth, I happened to stumble on the one girl on Earth specifically designed for me.” Fate, as a line of thought however, was not foremost in my mind at the time. In fact it wasn't even running parallel though I admit to being amused when it forked that direction. No, specifically I was thinking about the long-suffering fiancé in Orange is the new Black when he made his astonishingly ignorant statement,

“...suppose, theoretically, that someone she loved was [incarcerated] with her, someone she had history with; someone who could understand her life in there in a way that I'll never be able to. It would be devastating to think that that person could give her something that I can't. It would be a betrayal.”

As I toyed with different ways of introducing the entire concept as ignorance without actually using the word "ignorant" (I've known people to get easily offended at that term being directed at them) and double-checking that I wasn't simply disagreeing with his statement as a matter of opinion, I was further mired by own experiences in which I would state something factual about myself which was argued with; "If I could, I would eat Mexican food for every meal."
"No you wouldn't."
"I prefer vanilla ice cream."
"No you don't."
"I think our values ought to change in support of new evidence which invalidates our old beliefs."
"No one thinks that way."


Apparently, I've discovered some people find the line between fact and opinion rather blurry...

I suppose believing something along the lines of `immunizations cause autism` despite the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary could be considered a difference of opinion rather than ignorance - then again when one is disputing a mountain of proof with the counter-argument, "Nuh-uh" its hard to vote in favor of opinion. (There are those who are unaware an "argument" is NOT a request for battle, so tread carefully). But when I outline my own beliefs, goals, likes and dislikes - where they originated and how they've mutated over a period of time - and someone disagrees with that? Just to be clear, that's not opinion. Its opinion's monotheistic homophobic cousin. To be kind, we'll call him, Ig. That way, people won't react emotionally to a word which means something completely different than they think it means, which is, incidentally, also detailed in Ig's broad coverage policy. While I'm tickled when something someone doesn't understand means, "something someone doesn't understand," I haven't yet found a good way to explain how counter-productive it is to negatively react to something not yet understood. I've tried using the word, "ignorant" to explain the phenomenon, which was, given the nature of the issue, itself counter-productive. See what I have to deal with? But this is getting ridiculous, even by my standards.

To get back on topic, I was running through some possible titles after the first couple of paragraphs, frustrated that it was so difficult to conceptualize stupidity for other's digestion, and thought it humorous to incorporate one of my favorite illustrations, the hierarchical pyramid! So let it be written, so let it be done. Behold! In glad adoration, THE COMPREHENSION PYRAMID (which was a first-draft blending of the pyramids of argument, denial, and bloom's taxonomy). What I particularly enjoy about authoring my own is its clear, unequivocal demarcations. While many of us may believe we've transcended lower levels of similar pyramids based upon ambiguous definitions or a subjective rating system (and a healthy dose of self-deception), its pretty hard to run from this one. I myself continue to reach for the brass ring of pure evaluation without actually ever reaching it. I know people who can rebut flawlessly, but do not count myself among them. Sadly, I also know the trolls which haunt the bottom three echelons, most of whom believe they sit atop it.







Which brings up another wonderful point - what I think I am. People tell me all the time I think I am always right. I readily admit that nothing could be further from the truth - I beg and seek holes in my own theories and logic to discover ways to strengthen them. It would be stupid to come up with a theory based on a feeling or a possibly misinterpreted action then relentlessly bind oneself to it without further input. So yeah, I always assume I'm wrong. Yet someone is always right there to argue the point with me - to tell me what I think. Has anyone picked up on the irony of that yet?


Currently, the only way I know to deduce what someone thinks is through their behavior - and I've uncovered some fascinating (and by fascinating I mean completely antithetical to reason) beliefs. Once intent is gleaned (usually greed or fear though outside myself and a handful of emotionally mature people, I haven't met anyone who readily cops to those) a fairly high-resolution picture emerges. Some would argue irrefutable.


At any rate, in this graphic, I can at least say to those who embrace Ig as a hard-nosed and inflexible belief system, that I think I comprehend more than they do, as I point to the very clear and unambiguous levels, for even astonishingly non-thinking people cannot misunderstand that stating, "Nuh-uh" differs greatly from, "Presents supportive contradictions with reason and evidence."


Anyway, all this inherent frustration on both sides (people who believe logic is akin to witchcraft admittedly frustrates me) got me to reevaluate the way I looked at the long-suffering boyfriend's statement. Thinking back to Kathryn Schulz's TED TALK, "On Being Wrong" reminded me of the attachment to our own rightness. First we think someone is ignorant, then we think they're stupid, then we think they're evil. If the long-suffering boyfriend feels devastating betrayal because of some superlatively unrealistic shit, then I would have to defer to ignorance being his sin. Perhaps his experiences have differed so wildly from my own that even while bantering with his buddies, getting advice from his parents, hitting on the bartender, or having philosophical conversations with the NPR radio host, he's never considered the astronomical improbability that a person should get all their needs met all the time from just one other person. (See how I just did that?)


And that's just ignorance. Stupidity and malevolence are far worse, and though it scares me to admit it, probably just as prevalent. While I love and embrace Kathryn Schulz's idea behind the deathgrip many of us seem to have on our own myopic opinions, she only had it half right; some people are stupid. Some people are out for their own self-interests no matter the cost. They are all resting comfortably at the bottom of the comprehension pyramid.

I used to be so enamored with personal responsibly that I would often accept responsibility for things which were not mine to own up to. Of course understanding the true nature of personal responsibility means also knowing what not to claim.

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities. ~Josiah Charles Stamp

Personal responsibility is a big subject, with many far-reaching ramifications and it alone holds the key to real (not perceived) happiness, self-confidence, and all the rewards which self-actualization affords. True happiness is knowing ahead of time you will have all the courage you'll need in the face of adversity, and unflinching confidence in your decisions - its the absence of fear. Not the healthy fear which keeps us alive, rather the pervasive fear which destroys lives. Because happiness itself requires unconditional acceptance of personal responsibility, and personal responsibility requires courage.

A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson. He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, discontented one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate, happy and contented one.” The grandson asked him, “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” The grandfather answered: “The one I feed.” ^*

The choice to which to feed of course is just that, a choice. Many do not believe that to be the case; that it is simply a platitude without any realistic practical application. They would be wrong - and I am very aware of my use of the word, "wrong." It was less than a month ago that I said I wanted to teach my children there is no right or wrong just motivation and intent and behavior. It was I who was mistaken. There is wrong in the world. Cognitive distortion proved that to me. I was re-reading the definitions of the traits of those who suffer at its cruel hands and was struck at the despair these people who think this way think is normal, right and good: limited, expectation, discounting positive, negative, inflexible, inability, rigid rules, absolute, and blame. Its not enough to teach my children that happiness is a choice - I need to teach them discernment - the ability to recognize this damaging disorder and to run from it! People who suffer from cognitive distortion do not live their life as if happiness were a choice - they are often disappointed. They suffer at their own hands.

If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things. ~Albert Einstein

The problem I have in explaining personal responsibility, is that it can only be truly learned through experience - one cannot understand the sheer scope of its empowering ability without first shedding attachment of self, attachment of other, and stepping through the empirical tests. Fear must not only be faced to be conquered as the poets would have you believe, but also dealt with accordingly, and reconciled for optimum effectiveness.

The enemy of my enemy may very well be my enemy also. ~ehowton

For this exercise, I suggest using my oft-discussed proven-results checklist of character-building which is a marvelous example which can be applied to a broad range of personality flaws and shortcomings. More specifically, "No, its not magic. And sure its difficult - anything worth doing is. But only its unfamiliarity makes it so. Start small. Try it with little things. Try it on for size. See how it feels. Don't go too far outside your comfort zone, but go far enough. What do I mean? Its like this: What you're doing now is obviously not working, so you really have nothing to lose, despite the initial discomfort of uncertainty. Once you've had a few small successes - and failures, don't forget the importance of failure - you can branch out even further. Utilize your newfound power on even larger issues to tackle." Before you know it, by having confronted your fear in challenging the small things, you can now effortlessly - and this time without fear - face the larger issues. No one is going to do this for you. Ever.

Be the change you want to see in the world. ~ Ghandi

In researching personal responsibility I ran across Dr. Laura's blog where she had a hashtag for it. Not knowing anything about Dr. Larua but knowing quite a bit about personal responsibility I was horrified to discover that she was confusing personal responsibility with her own morals and values - what she herself thought was right and wrong action based on her beliefs alone. Responsibility assumption is an entirely secular doctrine insofar as it is universally applicable. Sure its been adopted into many different religions because of the truth of its nature - but to say that any one of those is the right way suggests that a different way is wrong, and we're suddenly back to cognitive distortion, the bane of critical thinking, personal responsibility's kissing cousin.

Some pursue happiness - others create it.

"You can’t accept responsibility for a situation and be angry at the same time. You can’t accept responsibility and be unhappy or upset. The acceptance of responsibility negates negative emotions and short-circuits any tendencies toward unhappiness. The very act of accepting responsibility calms your mind and clarifies your vision. It soothes your emotions and enables you to think more positively and constructively. In fact, the acceptance of responsibility often gives you insight into what you should do to resolve the situation."^*

Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others. ~Confucius

I think - and please disagree - I'm having difficulty finding anyone to bounce these ideas off of, I think the opposite of personal responsibility is victimization. If you cannot, will not, or refuse to take responsibility for your own happiness and well-being, or easily get your feelings hurt, you are blaming others. You are finding fault in others. Portraying a victim is the short-game, it is absolutely not sustainable. Something somewhere will most assuredly break - even if its a lifetime later - and when it does, the inevitable inescapable judgement day. How we handle this eventuality is also a choice.

Choose wisely.