Group thinking and things I've learned along the way

As those who know me know, I don't like group thinking. I don't like being told how or what to think by well-meaning but ultimately know-it-all groups. I never have, even when I was a child in school. I prefer being able to weigh both sides of a societal or political issue in the peace and quiet of my private space. In solitude. I don't want anyone explaining a situation to me unless I have specifically asked for advice about it. Does that make me difficult to live with? At times, probably. However, when it comes to personal issues, I am very loyal to those I care about. I'll side with them, no questions asked, unless what they've done or are doing is of a truly criminal nature. But again, loyalty is a personal decision, not a group one. If I make a mistake concerning this, I'm the only one who has to answer for it. 

Given the current political climate, I'm glad I don't subscribe to group thinking. I'm glad I don't belong to one political party. I'm glad that I try to think for myself, to reason things out based on the information and news available. But there's the rub. Where to get unbiased news and information? It's getting harder and harder each day. So what do I do? I read newspapers and articles from both sides of the political spectrum. I remain politically independent. I don't belong to either major political party. In the current political climate, some might call that cowardly. I call it smart. You're not going to force me to hand over my intelligence to a mob. I'm not interested in mob thinking. Again, I've been like this for many years, since grammar school. Since I sat at the dinner table when I was a teenager and debated the important political issues with my father, who was both intelligent and kind. We two were the only ones interested in doing this in my family. I'm glad I got that training from him. We didn't always agree, but I learned to discuss and debate an issue and to defend my ways of thinking. Sometimes I changed my mind if I saw the wisdom in the other's point of view. But that was the point, we were able to discuss and debate, something that is long-gone in our current society. Nowadays, if someone disagrees with you, especially on social media or online, you'll find yourself the recipient of a barrage of hate comments, troll comments, laughter emojis or anger emojis. I have yet to read a comment that says 'hey, that's an interesting point. Thanks for posting. You gave me something to think about'. One of the reasons I closed the ability to comment on my blog was because the comments were either spam-like or downright hostile. One of the last ones I received from an anonymous (of course) poster before I shut the comments section said that he/she wished that I would die. I've got to wonder why, since I certainly don't set out to offend anyone when I write my posts. But I'm certainly not going to tolerate such things or even pursue them. My blog, my rules. If you don't like what I write, feel free to go elsewhere for your entertainment.

Things I've learned, especially during the last ten years--

• Those who shout the loudest are usually those who have little to say, or nothing to say that's of any value. You can shout in my face, be aggressive or threatening, and I'm still not going to convert to your way of thinking. I will 'listen' to you, as in, my eyes will be focused on your face and you will think I'm listening to you, but I'm really not. I learned that technique in the third grade when a teacher, who was particularly odious, singled out her pet scapegoats for her particular brand of mobbing. She was a bully, and the school let her continue as a teacher. Her modus operandi was to instill fear; she succeeded with some students, I'm sure. She only succeeded in awakening an anger in me that can truly scare even me when it is fully unleased. And I learned to unleash it as an adult. You would not like to be in my presence if you have wronged me or another that I care about. Why am I so preoccupied with fairness and justice for others? I need only think back to that teacher and how she treated some fellow students, and I know why. Or I think back to a time when I was treated poorly by another. You would not like to know some of the thoughts that ran through my head at those times. But then, I could not act on my anger. I was a child/young adult, and I was constrained by my upbringing ('be nice') and my religion ('be kind to others'). It took a long time to understand that anger is a good emotion, and when used correctly, can actually be helpful in changing your current situation or changing your life. 
• The above post also applies to those priests who like to bark out their sermons from the pulpit. Who think they know best. Do you win me over with your fire and brimstone sermons? You do not. And as many of you know, I have been (and remain) in non-agreement with some of the positions that my religion stubbornly will not discuss (female priests and married priests). And I was and remain furious with them for not prosecuting their pedophile priests, however small the number, for the criminals they were and are. The church, as my father used to say, is not infallible. It is filled with fallible men, and that must be understood.
• I don't particularly like bureaucracies (just ask my former colleagues), but I've come to admit that they are necessary. Yes, some of them are too big. No, I don't think that they should be completely dismantled. What happens when you do the latter? You disrupt a society that needs bureaucracies in order to function, a society where some of its people rely on disability and/or welfare payments, health insurance, etc. We are not all wealthy billionaires. I only object to bureaucracies when they micromanage all aspects of people's lives and/or careers and when they try to convert non-bureaucrats (e.g. scientists, doctors) to a bureaucratic way of thinking, which is what happened in my former workplace. 
• Disruption and creating chaos are tactics to get a society to accept group thinking. Think about it. If you disrupt the functioning of a society and create chaos, and then you come along as the great leader who will save society, you gain followers. They think, oh, the savior has arrived. I will follow him or her. I will be loyal to him or her, and I will badmouth all the others who try to stop him or her.
• Social media and the AI algorithms that power them play a huge role in the creation of group thinking. Take Facebook, for example. If you like a particular group or page, your feed will be inundated with posts having to do with that particular topic (in my case--gardens and gardening). If you extrapolate to political posts, you'll find that if you click 'like' on some 'leftist' or 'rightist' post, your feed will suddenly be filled with posts from left-leaning or right-leaning newspapers and organizations. After a time, that is all that you will read or focus on. And the algorithms are clever, they'll always find a new group for you to peruse and agree with. I call it subtle brainwashing. It's the same with tv; if you watch one channel that pushes a right-wing agenda, you'll eventually end up thinking like them if that's your only source of information. Why do the right-wing stations think they're the only ones who present 'the facts and the truth'? How do they 'know' that? They don't, but they're telling you that they're the only ones who know the truth and have the real facts. It's insidious. And the left-wing channels do the same, they're no better. 
• Group thinking leads to intolerance of other ways of thinking. Think about it. Each time we are 100% certain that our way of thinking is the 'right' way of thinking, we close the door to others. We close the door to diverse ways of thinking, to innovative and creative solutions to problems. We close the door to compassion and empathy. The woke movement, while it may have been well-meaning at the start, has also become intolerant of those who don't accept its ways of thinking. It is possible to believe a certain way and have the intelligence to understand that those who think and believe differently are still worthy of our respect and empathy. If this is not the case, what is the definition of civilization and humanity?
• Schools should teach students how to think critically and objectively in order to face an ever-increasing polarization of society. As far as I can see, they do not at present. They have abdicated that role. Parents must therefore try to fill the gap. But they are often tired and without time to do so. I think back to my father's role in my life. He did that job. He taught me to think critically and objectively, even when he was very tired, and I love him for it. There should be more men like my father in the world. 

Life of Pi, The Wild Robot, and Conclave--all excellent films

Traveling to and from the USA gives me the opportunity to catch up on my movies on the plane. On my recent flights to and from New York, I watched two excellent movies, Life of Pi from 2012, and The Wild Robot from 2024. I don't know why I didn't see Life of Pi earlier; there was a lot of hype surrounding the film when it first came out, and I often avoid films that are over-hyped because they often don't live up to all the fuss. But Life of Pi delivered. The director, Ang Lee, has made films like Brokeback Mountain, which was also excellent. He seems to be an eclectic filmmaker, which intrigues me. Life of Pi is an unusual (some would say very strange) story about a young man from India who is traveling to Canada with his parents and brother and some of their zoo animals (that are to be sold) to start a new life. They are traveling on a cargo ship that hits rough seas and capsizes, killing nearly everyone on board except Pi, a hyena, an orangutan, a zebra who has injured its leg, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. All of them end up in one lifeboat, with the expected consequences. The hyena kills the zebra and the orangutan, and the tiger kills the hyena, leaving Pi alone with the tiger in the boat. Pi understands that he can't stay in the boat with the tiger, so he fashions a boat out of life rafts and attaches it to the life boat. The movie is essentially about the relationship that develops/evolves between Pi and Richard Parker. It is not a comfortable relationship by any means, and Pi knows that he can never trust the tiger to not attack him. But he trains him to keep his distance, and a wary relationship between the two results. When Pi is finally rescued, he is asked to recount his survival story to the insurance company that insured the cargo ship; they want to know what happened to the ship and how he survived for over two hundred days in the Pacific Ocean. He tells them about the animals in the lifeboat and the tiger, and they do not want to believe that this was possible--that he could coexist with a Bengal tiger for so many days. He then tells them a second story--that the orangutan was his mother, the zebra was a sailor who had been friendly to him on board the cargo ship, the hyena was the odious cook on the ship, and the tiger was Pi himself, essentially saying that the cook had murdered his mother and the sailor, and that Pi had murdered the cook. The insurance company has problems with the second story, and though they do not really accept the first story, they end up using it (fewer moral implications). Pi himself tells a visitor who arrives at the beginning of the film and who has asked him to recount his strange story, that either story will suffice as an explanation for his survival. It's a film that captures your attention and draws you along for the ride. 

The Wild Robot is a beautiful animated film about an intelligent robot called Roz who ends up shipwrecked on an island inhabited by various wild animals. Roz is designed to serve human beings, but in their absence, she sets about trying to offer her services to the different animals with whom she comes into contact. They begin to flee when they see her, but she ends up befriending a fox named Fink and taking care of a little gosling that she names Brightbill, together with Fink. Along the way, she helps the animals on the island deal with surviving the winter and with showing them how important it is that everyone try to work together. I won't give away the ending, but it is very touching, as is the entire film. It's heads and shoulders above most of the drivel that passes for animated films these days, which are for the most part bland, boring and poorly-animated (perhaps generated on demand by AI programs?). I can wholeheartedly recommend The Wild Robot. It's already a classic in my book. 

And finally, Conclave. I saw it at the movie theater last night. It's an excellent film about the process of electing a new pope in the Catholic church. That might not sound so interesting, but trust me, it is, because the process encompasses the humanity, the foibles and failings, the politics, the drama, and the gossip involved. It's a riveting film with excellent performances by Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, and Isabella Rossellini, and it has one heck of a surprise ending. I think it's destined for Oscar recognition, and that would be well-deserved. 

Inconsistencies

The odd times we live in have given rise to inconsistencies that are just begging to be commented upon. 

The political party of family values, headed by two powerful and wealthy men, have fathered seventeen children between them via six different women. The same party is pushing for the birth of more children in the USA, but is not anti-divorce or anti-adultery or pro-marriage for that matter. Family values? Don't make me puke. Having more children is all well and good, but I'm assuming that if they're not pushing for polygamy in order to achieve that goal, this means that in monogamous marriages, wives should be willing to have more than one child, despite the fact that it costs a fortune at present to raise a child, buy a home, and pay monthly expenses. So is the party of family values willing to give young couples a break so that they can have large families? And do women get a say in how they want to live their lives? Just asking. This brings me to the next point.

If the party wishes to return to 1950s America, when family values were apparently sacrosanct, when women stayed home to raise children (more than one) while men as heads of the family worked to provide for their families, then I'll say to the younger men who like this philosophy, get your asses in gear. Or get off your asses. Get out there and hustle for an education and high-paying jobs. 1950s America is no place for losers. You're a loser if you don't make a good salary and provide a house for your family. And you can forget about getting any help from mommy or daddy. Men in America at that time, unless they came from truly wealthy families, did not get help from anyone. They made it on their own. So get out there and work for a living instead of living at home with mommy and daddy until you're thirty. Stop living life through your devices. Stop moaning and complaining that women aren't interested in you. They will be if you show them that you can earn money. THAT was 1950s America. It was no place for men who were losers in the job market, whiners, or complainers. And there was no safety net. 

The men who support the current political regime are the men most likely to lose under it. It is not a regime that supports losers, the poor, the uneducated. It says it does and says it will, but it won't. It will enrich the already-rich. Because most politicians at present, in both parties, have grifter tendencies. They are interested in enriching themselves. That's the world we live in, that's the world we've become. Eat or be eaten. It's about survival of the fittest. And those at the top of the food chain got there by eating those at the bottom of the food chain. Study Darwin and you'll learn all about evolution, which as much as you'd like to deny it, is a reality and a fact of life. 

And of course, along with the new regime, comes the resurgence of viewpoints about how women should behave. Women, like children, should be seen and not heard, unless they're the 'dollies' on Fox News as my friend calls them. If you look 'glam', you're acceptable to men. If not, you're invisible. The non-glam women should just know their place, in relationships and in society at large. They should acquiesce to men. When I was younger, I had a conversation with a priest friend of mine where we disagreed about the New Testament passage that talks about wives obeying (submitting) to their husbands. What is often ignored is the second part of that equation--the admonition for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. I told the priest, when men can achieve that, when they can love their wives as Christ loved the church, then come talk to me about wives acquiescing to their husbands in all things. I haven't met one man who has managed that type of love, not one. The priest had no response, because he knew I was right. And while we're on the topic, why should women listen to others less intelligent than themselves about how to live and think? There are so many women I know who are far more intelligent than many men. How they think and feel about their lives is far more important to me than what some random men (read--politicians) I do not know or care about, think. 

Is the party of family values going to do something about the dying middle class? Will they continue to blame the less fortunate for their status in life? Because no matter what, a civilized society will always have to carry the less fortunate, because that is what civilized societies do. My father used to say that. Christ, who was a wise man, once said that 'the poor you will always have with you'. What kind of society blames it citizens for not being financially successful when that same society makes it impossible to for its citizens to get ahead? If you're in debt up to your ears because of high prices for everything, you have no chance. The rich blame the poor for being poor. But perhaps the truly rich should look at the advantages that they've had from birth. They are not the advantages that the poor have had, that's for sure. And trust me, if you haven't had those advantages, you can scramble and struggle an entire lifetime to achieve success and never reach the level of wealth and success that the rich enjoy. Because many of the rich inherited their wealth; they did not work or struggle for it. Average ordinary people, who belong to the middle class that I was born into, worked hard to get what they have. Most of them have achieved moderate success. Most of them are financially-comfortable. But most of them would go under if faced with staggering medical bills as a result of some illness that required expensive treatments or full-time nursing care. And most of them are careful with money, with how they spend it. That is not something the truly rich need to worry about. The current level of hypocrisy in society is appalling. Perhaps it's always been there, but I see it in its entirety now. We need to call it out at every opportunity. The time to rise up against it is now. 

Sunny and warm--welcome to south Florida in winter

This comic strip (Garfield by Jim Davis) was not our recent experience--we were there at the beach, in Florida, relaxing and enjoying the sun and warm water. 

 

 

My friends and I recently enjoyed one blessed week in south Florida--a respite from winter's darkness, snow and cold. Being in Florida is like being in another world, in the sense that it's hard to believe you can travel from bitter cold to blessed warmth by plane in the space of about three hours, within the same country. We rented a townhouse in Deerfield Beach this time around, a few blocks from the ocean; last year we spent a week in Fort Lauderdale at an apartment on the intercoastal. This year we had warm and sunny days for the entire week we were there. Balm for the body, mind and soul. We managed visits to Butterfly World in Coconut Creek (near Deerfield Beach) and Constitution Park & Arboretum, as we enjoy anything botanical and nature-related. 

At the entrance to the beach near where we lived. An hour on the beach can
also provide perspective. 

I love the plants and flowers in warm climates.

our townhouse

one of the Morpho butterflies in Butterfly World

at Butterfly World

one of the birds in the aviary at Butterfly World

another colorful bird in Butterfly World

overhanging tree branch in Constitution Park & Arboretum

a eucalyptus tree starting to shed its bark, leading to an array of colors

the ocean and the beach on a warm sunny day--there is nothing like them for relaxation

Putting things in perspective

Just what I needed today, a good laugh and a reminder that everything could be much worse......Thanks to Stephan Pastis and Pearls Before Swine......

Creating fear and outrage is the new normal

Since the beginning of January, I awake each day with a feeling of trepidation. I wonder what has happened during the night while I was asleep, because guaranteed something has happened to create fear or outrage or both. We live in strange times now, where politics has become an integral part of everyday daily life, whether you like that or not. We are surrounded by politicians screaming for our attention, the one more bizarre and outrageous than the next. Creating fear and outrage is the new normal. Making people feel insecure is the new normal. Pulling the rug out from under people’s feet is the new normal. Being confrontational, aggressive and adversarial is the new normal. Getting in your face, likewise. Where will it end? We are verbally attacking our allies overseas, causing them trepidation about whether or not they can trust the USA to be there for them if necessary. 

Creating fear and outrage is a policy tactic. Creating chaos likewise. The buckshot approach. Shoot your mouth off and watch the words spread out in all directions, no specific target in mind. The media can’t possibly focus on all directions at once, so where there is a vacuum or an oversight on the part of the media, fear and outrage move in. The public will panic and try to deal with what’s happening as best it can. Those being attacked will try to protect themselves, but after a while it’s exhausting to fight back. 

This buckshot approach may work in a business setting, but not when the setting is the governmental arena. It’s impossible to run the government as a business, no matter how many times we say that it all should work more efficiently. Downsizing the bureaucracy is not an overnight job. Even if it’s necessary to pare it down, it’s not right or ethical to dismantle it completely and throw it into chaos. People depend on functional bureaucracies for unemployment benefits, retiree benefits, health coverage, etc. The country will not function without bureaucracies. Those who attempt to downsize them should know what they’re doing, and should accept that it will take time. Let’s hope they don’t do more harm than good.