A Matter of Opinion

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

People who don't blog are puzzled by those of us who do. To them it really is the strangest of strange hobbies. We are writing to the Universe - although I doubt very much they have thought of it quite like that - with no real obvious audience in mind.

Depending on which non-blogger you ask, they may be more baffled by the serious blogging, the pieces that people take great care over, that read like newspaper columns, because it reminds them of dreaded school homework. Or they may find the much lighter stuff more confusing, people just thinking out loud.

I blog for the same reason you tidy a desk. There's only so much room in my brain for work in progress, some of it has to come out. It may not be finished, but it doesn't matter. It's not being submitted anywhere important. I have an extremely active mind, and if I write down what I'm thinking it frees up space.

Quite often, maybe most of the time, what is on my mind has arisen as a result of what somebody else has said (or written) . Despite having an opinion on everything, which I can articulate quickly, I don't always want to comment directly. Because having the ability to do so does not always justify doing so. Sometimes keeping my thoughts to myself is the better option.

It's a choice. Freedom of speech, both in law and in social behaviour is too precious to corrupt with poor decisions. If I were to speak my mind all of the time, I would hurt people. Far too often, the honest truth, the thought that comes to mind, would be too harsh. It would contradict too many views, criticize too many deeply felt attitudes, and do unnecessary harm.

Tact is a beautiful thing. It is where kindness rules over honesty, and it is always available. It costs nothing, takes very little time, if any, and does no harm to the person choosing not to think out loud.

I find humour in the strangest things, and one of them is a very private humour. I can be seen to smile sometimes when others make me privy to their thoughts. It's not a smile of happiness per se, but something close to the smile associated with discovery. A people watching moment. Easily found on Facebook. I love Facebook.

In this way, I smiled several times in the last 24 hours, privately, over statuses, with only cats watching, over choices made by others to say exactly was on their mind, at times I would have chosen to say nothing, and two of them have stuck in mind, resulting in these words here.

The first was a statement. It was a strong statement, which is exactly what Facebook statuses are for, and I applaud statuses that actually make sense. It was however a total contradiction of the poster's objection to a status of mine not so long ago. That in itself caused me a discovery smile. Of course my mind flashed "hypocrite" but I chose not to say so. To say so would cause unnecessary argument. Hypocrisy is a human right. But there was a second level of smile when I remembered that the person who wrote this statement is very keen on minds being freely spoken , and would quickly lambast me for excessive tact, yet would absolutely object to being called a hypocrite. I enjoyed these thoughts very much, and kept them to myself. Discovery. Fascination. Fodder for character writers. Remember it, it's useful, but no harm done, move on.

The second was a comment following a status. It was exactly the sort of thing I avoid doing wherever possible, which is making a remark that, while it begins "What I do is.....", actually screams "What you should do...........". It would be unfair to suggest that all comments beginning with "What I do is...." read this way, because they don't, and in fact saying "What I do is...." is usually the gentlest, and least pushy way to suggest an avenue of possibility. But every so often, due to the level of difficulty of following the advice, for example, it sounds as if "...ner, ner, ner, ner ner!" is added at the end.

For example, if your statement was "I'm so cold", and you got a comment of "When the weather is like this, what I do is go on holiday to the tropics" your reaction might just be a tad negative. Oddly enough, most of us don't have that option.

So it isn't actually helpful. Advice is supposed to be helpful.

And I find this just so amusing. That people come right out and say these things. That's probably very, very wrong of me.

But the best part, the very best part, is that often, when these things are said, and commented on, and then the comments are commented on, a real argument develops. I watch in awe.

This morning I found this on a page I follow:

There is no fight left in her. And that's the best thing that ever happened for her. For far too long the futile battle of light & dark has left her exhausted. She's accepting both light & dark as the inherent gifts of the universe. She's not in a duelling match with them. The light no longer wishes to 'reform' her dark, and her dark no longer wants to 'control' the light. Suddenly, she's not playing the polarity game. She's not fooled into buying the teaching that there's something wrong with her that needs fixing, and she's got work to do before she's finally 'good'. Her divinity is in fully embracing her humanity. All of it. So where's the imperfection? The myth that one day light will vanquish the dark and there will be peace would have kept her exhausted & imprisoned. She's already at peace right now! Even the light and dark within her are sitting at peace with each other. Game over. What she's experiencing in the ceasing of war is an unbelievable tranquillity & peace. Thank goddess she believed in her own wisdom. ~Sukhvinder Sircar 

Presumably this is seen as empowering. So, it was with careful consideration that I chose to object to it. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. My opinion, while I think valid (or I wouldn't hold it) is often best saved for myself. When I decide to share it, I have to justify that decision. I won't do it on a whim. But this time I decided I would say, simply:

Define dark? Matter of opinion.

Black Cats

Just a quick one. Friends know I take a dim view of superstition, especially modern superstition, but I have no time for any of it.

This one is particularly vile because it can cause harm to animals.

It is also patently absurd, because it's backwards depending on where you live.

I was informed just this week by several intelligent, educated North Americans that they were unaware that...

Black Cats are considered GOOD luck in Britain, and other places.

Wikipedia offers a theory as to how Americans got it twisted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat

As it's obviously ridiculous that an animal can be both good luck and bad luck, this should be the very first superstition you throw out, but do me a favour and throw them all out while you're at it.









Gratuitous 1970s music.

Why We Argue

One of my pet topics here is communication, and there's a reason for that. Communication is a double-edged sword. It allows us to problem-solve and it causes no end of problems. So, as you know, I am very keen on good communication, and I observe bad communication. I have theories about bad communication. You're going to hear one of them.

What comes out of our mouths, and what gets heard by the listener are two different things. And this is not a hearing problem, because the same applies to what we write.

I know I'm not mistaken here because (and you've heard me witter on about this before) there are so many times people object to things I haven't said. So they are hearing/reading something else. Why?

It's simple. All of us have a different "angle", a different outlook, a different Weltanshauung. When we cooperate, this is really useful because they combine, they cover lots of bases, they give a more whole, rounded way of doing things. This is why we have juries, committees, parliaments, etc.

But when we don't agree there is discord.

In theory, by compromising and working together we can overcome this, but in practice stubbornness and misunderstandings often block a solution.

And I say misunderstandings because of this particular problem, this hearing something other than what was actually said.

I'm going to return to an argument I've already touched on in a previous blog, but didn't give you details about. It's a religious question, but don't let that become your focus, or you will get distracted from the problem in hand.

In this argument, which was on the topic of creationism being allowed in public schools, I made the assertion that the Bible was mythology. I've made that assertion once or twelve times, and I know exactly what the reaction will be. So I'm well-prepared for what follows. Even this.

Because what follows sometimes, is exactly what followed in this instance, where the person arguing against me said "But you don't believe in God". I then asked him to show me where I said that. Unable to find it he ignored the question and went on a different tack.

Now, I repeat, don't get bogged down in the God question. It's pointless. But there is no link, no connection between a person's attitude to a book, and a person's theism or lack of it. That relationship is caused by the listener's own beliefs (i.e. he believes God, specifically his God, wrote the book.)

This happens in far more mundane situations, I've mentioned before that frequently, when I say I'm cold, my husband says it isn't cold. I never said it was, I said I was. He's referring to the temperature, I'm referring to my comfort level. This is the exact same problem.

Friday morning, we went to buy a new dryer. Home Depot could not sell us one, only order one for delivery in 7-10 days with a $50 delivery fee. Future Shop sold us a floor model, covered the cost of the tax, and helped us get it into the back of our truck.

Quite why Future Shop can do this and Home Depot can't, I don't know, company policy obviously, but what it means is that regularly, the sales clerk in Home Depot has to disappoint people by telling them they have to wait. My reaction to that was to smile and say thank you and goodbye. I was very nice about it, she was very apologetic, but I guarantee there have been problems over this. I guarantee that at least one potential customer, possibly frustrated by being without an appliance they rely on, has torn her to shreds for not saying right at the beginning, that nothing in stock is actually for sale.

You may say, well this is different to the other examples, but it isn't. The responsibility for clear communication lies at both ends, in fact. Sometimes you may feel it lies more at one than the other, but that's just your angle.

If I speak clearly, and I'm misunderstood, I will blame the listener, oh yes. No question. If he tries blaming me I will object. I may well be right, both in what I said, and in standing up for myself, but there will still be an argument. It's virtually unavoidable.

And if there were 100 witnesses, who all agreed that I spoke clearly, and honestly, he may still see it differently. Because what we hear isn't always what was said, and something else. We just don't like what was said.

I'll give you another example from my family, because the pettiest arguments often come from family, with people we love and care about.

It is normal, when I tell my husband something has happened, that he says "What do you mean?" For example, when I said "The washing line is broken" he said "What do you mean, broken?" to which I replied, perhaps a bit too sharply, "I mean broken". And he glares back. The silliness of this is obvious, but some of you are nodding your heads.

And you could explain it. You could take his "side" and say "What he is asking, is "is it snapped" or has it just fallen off the fittings, or has the pole fallen down". Which is quite a reasonable thing to suggest. Except it doesn't take into account the two personalities involved. Or to be precise the fine details of the two personalities involved, the fact that he ALWAYS asks "What do you mean?" to any announcement like this  - if I said the cat was dead, he'd say "What do you mean, dead?" where there is no possible ambiguity. It's how he reacts to news. And that I am rather more clear in my choice of words. Had the line slipped off, I'd have said so, if the pole was down I'd have included the word pole etc.

People have quirks, some people have more quirks than others, and without knowing them thoroughly, it's impossible to say who is responsible for the miscommunication. Maybe both sides.

My point is that it's inevitable. These miscommunications happen in the best of circumstances. Add in variables like hearing problems, language problems, memory problems, emotions, stress, illness, weather, history, and the price of bacon, and quite frankly, it's a bloody miracle we get along as well as we do.

To prove my point, right now some of you are still bothered that I said the Bible is mythology, some of you are considering buying your next dryer at Future Shop, and my husband is saying "but I don't....."

Once again, not reading what I wrote. I even specified "my point is" and marked it in bold. This is a simple answer to the title of the blog, but you, dear reader, have gone all round the houses in your opinion of my attitude over the examples I gave, and gone off on tangents over the blog. It happens all the time. People take all sorts of things from my rambling style of writing, rather than the point I was hoping to make. And it's inevitable. It's so inevitable it's not wrong. It's human nature. But it still causes problems.

A variation on this explains why employees and kids do a poor job of tasks.

You ask your employee or your son to clean the sink.

When you clean the sink, your objective is a clean sink.
When he cleans the sink his objective is to get his boss or parent off his back.

Consequently the sink is not cleaned properly.

Although your communication of "clean the sink" is quite clear, his angle, his attitude to cleaning, is quite different. You can try all sorts of things to improve his work, but until he wants that sink clean, it will never be quite right.

Then, added to that are your expectations. These aren't met, and you get upset. AND, you feel you are justified in getting upset. Layers and layers of being "right".

While your employee or son, who sees it differently, feels nagged and irritated.

And no amount of insisting that he "should" do a better job will help. I'll talk more about "should" tomorrow.

We communicate badly, both when we speak and when we listen. We could try harder.

You Are Annoying

Yes, you.

You do things that annoy people. A number of them. You do them repeatedly.

Do you know what they are?

Perhaps you do. I know my annoying things. I know all of them. I am fully aware of all my faults.

Will I change?

Probably not. Will you?

There are so many things people can do to annoy others, some are just sort of quirks. Habits.

Many years ago, I went on a training course and was paired with a girl who finished the ends of your sentences. As you wound up with "..........Wednesday" she was already there, somehow. And would say it for you. I tried to pretend I hadn't noticed at first, but it was constant, and it was very distracting. I tried not talking, but that's impossible. I tried letting her do all the talking and just using "yes" or "no" answers, but she predicted those too. So I got mischievous and changed my mind a lot, or used ridiculously obscure words I'd learned playing Scrabble. Finally I resorted to making words up. This caused her a few problems but she muddled through gallantly.

Thankfully I was only with her two days or I think I would have gone mad.

Somebody has to work with her every day. Somebody presumably lives with her.

Did they ever say anything, I wonder?

And COULD she stop? Or was it like a twitch?

I don't know.

But some of the things people do that are annoying are things they are fully aware of and fond of. We'll use my annoyance here as an example. I'm forever going on and on about good basic English. I don't call you out on it, because I think that's rude. But my son just sent me a message on Facebook, and I'll share it with you:

"Us kids have it easy your really smart and always know what is needed:)"

That's very sweet of him, so I said:

Well, thank you. I try. Age has its uses.

But then added:

And that's " ...easy. You're really..."

The reply was:

-.-

He's used to me. I consider myself his main teacher, and it's my job. He'll thank me for it one day.

Yes, I know it's annoying, and some of my friends and family have said so. I have been thoroughly chastised. I'm just really grateful that I have people in my life with the guts to speak their minds like that. They are free to point out anything annoying that I do. I won't be offended, but I don't promise to change.

And the number one thing I do that annoys people is make them think. To re-examine things they have been taking for granted. Now, again, people who have chosen to be in my circle see the value in this, and it's a sort of smiley annoyance, a roll your eyes annoyance, and sometimes they come back and thank me.

It's not my place to try to force my opinion on anyone. Apart from anything else, I could be wrong! But some of the things I value most having learned, I picked up during a difference of opinion with somebody. We often learn quite a lot being disagreed with, and it's quite a good idea taking a bit of time just to listen before responding. If I've learned ANYTHING in my half-century to date, it's that listening is really important.

Therefore, one of the things that annoys me the most about people is not listening. It drives me nuts in any situation. It's the most frustrating thing children do. It's beyond frustrating in customer service. Whatever the situation, if I have to repeat myself, I'm quickly annoyed. (This is related to this blog: http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/09/fine.html by the way)

So, in an argument, for example, if the only response I could possibly give, would be to repeat mysef, I won't. This annoys people :)

So, this blog is not a blog, it's a disclaimer.

Russell

A friend posted this on Facebook today, and I'd like to preserve it a bit longer by sharing it here instead, and adding editorial.

If you're not used to Russell you may be put off by his style. I hope you can get past that because he has something to say.

There are many people in this world whose approach to life is not serious (myself included) and as a result are not always taken seriously.

You know me well enough to know I can approach serious subjects and I can also be very silly. Sometimes when I'm being silly I get taken seriously, so it doesn't always work, but that's the written medium for you.

We live in a world that is totally absurd. You may have noticed. If it takes a clown to point that out, it seems quite appropriate.

If you like what you see, there is more. Russell has written two books, which I highly recommend. They are the same combination of utter silliness and deep wisdom. These things can often be found in the same place, because those of us who see that the emperor has no clothes, are often amused by it.

Logic 101

This one's doing the rounds, so as yesterday's blog was cancelled due to my better judgement, let's consider this whole topic.

Let's look at this logically.

The cost of testing has been conclusively demonstrated to cost multiple times any savings here. It has been tried. It has failed. The idea sounds half-reasonable until you look at the numbers, and the numbers don't work.

Similarly it has been proven time and time again that the cost of tracking down all forms of cheating on any welfare or benefit scheme always costs far more than the money spent on people who really shouldn't be receiving it.

In other words, it's cheaper to turn a blind eye to a few freeloaders than it is to prevent their fraud. Ask any accountant why you would spend more rather than less, or just figure it out for yourself.

But let's pretend this is not the case. Let's pretend you save money testing welfare recipients not only for drugs, but for all forms of "not playing by the rules", and for some reason it was saving the system money.

You stop giving them support.

What happens next?

If you think they are all going to suddenly snap to it, become fine upright citizens, get a job, pay the rent, feed the family and never be a problem again, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

For a start, it's hard enough for people without these issues to get jobs. If you are a drug user, or simply a lazy bum, it's not only much harder to find employment, you won't keep it long. Some people are virtually unemployable. If you've ever worked alongside a person with drug problems, or with severe laziness, you know that not only do they do a bad job, they create problems for their co-workers. They could potentially be an actual danger to the public.

The next issue is that some of them have dependants. What happens to them if income is withdrawn? The children of these people already suffer, already get abused, already go without food. With no money coming in at all, it's going to get worse.

What you will have, quite quickly, are people who are either begging on the street, or committing crimes to stay alive. In winter in northern climes, homelessness alone can be deadly. It's very hard to pay rent on no money.

You don't need to feel any sympathy for the drug user or lazy bum, if you don't want to. What you do have to look at is the outcome of withdrawing their income. Logically. Not wishful thinking. Not what you would do if you were penniless, but what realistically will happen.

What usually happens is that they become ill, maybe they are already mentally ill, but never diagnosed. That can happen to poor people. There are many physical diseases that can afflict drug users and other desperate people, including HIV. And now we have a cheap drug on the street that rots your flesh off.

These people will require hospital treatment. It costs far, far more from the public purse to hospitalize or provide drugs for chronically ill people than it does to cover their rent and food. Ask that accountant about the best choice here again.

Again let's look at the children of these people. The foster care system in most countries is already overwhelmed, so that is not a viable solution. Plus, foster parents get paid a lot of money, far more than parents are ever given to support their own children. So it's cheaper to leave them with their parents.

Do you think children living with these parents do well in school? Do you think they are growing up with the best guidance, the best role models, the best care? How will they be when they are adults? The answer is not difficult. They will be another generation the same as their parents.

Are their chances better or worse if they are homeless, and starving? Perhaps, in this scenario starving them to death could cut costs. Is that the plan?

You will not find a single taxpayer who is happy about this entire situation. Some believe the solution is to provide more money to go into supporting people with problems. Some would like to provide nothing. But there's nobody who thinks it's just fine as it is.

And if we are talking about money, there is such a thing as investment. Investing in the next generation, investing in safer streets, investing in the general health of the public, these things tend to be a wise investment. Unfortunately, because results are not instant, it's not good for votes.

If you have no compassion, or limited compassion, or just take a different approach to compassion, that can be discussed as a separate issue, and of course it will be.

But when it comes to cold, hard cash, it does NOT help matters to withdraw public support from those whose ability to support themselves is compromised in this way. It costs more.

Ignorance 2 - I Can't Hear You - La La La La La

I love it when a blog gets discussed. Yesterday's was discussed twice, in a way, because I also posted this:

Which led to a great discussion, read it if you haven't already.

Then this morning, I stumbled across this:

And that's the other side of the story. 

We did talk about fear, and loss - loss of dearly held beliefs. 

But if you know, I mean YOU KNOW you are wrong, and you stick to that script anyway, I think pride has to be involved too. 

I had a discussion (we won't call it a debate, debate has all participants following certain rules) on a friend's wall yesterday, which began on the topic of teaching "Intelligent Design" alongside science in public schools. My position on this is no secret. I do not object to it being taught, but it must be taught in a class called Mythology, and all other creation myths must be given equal time. 

I do not object to it being taught any more than I object to Greek Mythology being taught, because - I contend - they are equivalent. They are both hugely important mythologies, if for no other reason than the fact that they inspired literature, art, and many aspects of civilization. But we don't teach Greek mythology alongside science, it simply isn't appropriate. It isn't science. 

I offered a compromise. Allow it to be taught in a class called "Christianity" but pay. Pay for the textbooks, the tuition, and the classroom rental. It would be a great way to see just how much parents really do want this taught. Or alternatively, teach your dearly held mythology at home or in church. 

"Intelligent Design" is not science. If it is your beliefs, that's fine. You are allowed to believe anything you want. But there are two critical things to remember:

1) You have no business inflicting those beliefs on non-believers. A public school is for all children. That will include other Christians who are not literalists, children from other religions (which have their own sacred myths, including creation myths), children from religions who don't teach creation myths, children with no religion, and a whole whack of children who need to know the current, mainstream version of cosmology in order to succeed in a scientific career, regardless of the beliefs of their family.

2) If it is vitally important to you that your children be fed mythology instead of science, there are other education options, such as private schools, home-schooling, and classes at your church. Unfortunately you do have a right to feed your children this fiction, and despite my disapproval, I actually uphold your right to do so. But not on the public purse. I don't care if 99% of local residents who pay those taxes support you (not that I believe that for a moment), that 1% who don't would then be forced to pay for their own children to be educated against their beliefs. Not acceptable.

But all of this is actually by the by.

The important thing here was what happened during the discussion. The person arguing against me, who we'll just call ID, on two occasions specifically argued against things I hadn't said.

This happens every time one of these discussions comes up. Without fail. This is why it wasn't a debate, it was just an argument. It remained polite, which is remarkable, but I could object to being misrepresented. I am in fact so used to that I do a countdown in my head...."any minute now he'll say X...5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -1...there he goes."

Assumptions. Regular as clockwork. WHY? Because their argument is not their own. It's memorized, like a telephone customer service agent's script. If I throw in a fact that messes with their assumptions, they are lost.

This does not only apply to the religion/science argument, obviously. It is very prevalent in political discussions, and quite often in general conversations too.

It leads to people pouting, and saying "Well, that's what I believe anyway." Or the equivalent thereof.

They then claim to be picked on.

Their argument is defeated, but they cannot concede that they were wrong, or mistaken, or ignorant. You are picking on them. With facts. This is pride.

Here's an example, no religion or politics involved.

My son has a cold. My neighbours says I should take him to a doctor. I say that's pointless, doctors can't do anything for colds. My neighbour says I could ask for an antibiotic. I say that would be a waste of money as antibiotics don't work on colds. She says they work on hers. I say this isn't possible, because colds are viruses, and antibiotics kill bacteria. She pouts, looks hurt, and repeats "Well, it worked for me." And now she's off in a huff. That's hurt pride, right there.

She has been corrected. Well, that's pretty uncomfortable. But a wise person would say "OK, I didn't know that. Thanks. I'll remember that." Or maybe she'd be less easily convinced and say "Oh, I must ask my doctor about that," which is fine. Go to an expert, yes. No problem.

This is how we judge people, intellectually, when it comes down to it. Not by the number of degrees they have. Not by their position of responsibility. Definitely not by age. But by their ability to recognize that new information has come along, and requires that they re-think their view.

Of course it's not always cut as clear-cut as my example. In some issues even the experts disagree and that's fine. The solution there is to acknowledge that it's not finalized, that there's more than one theory. This necessarily applies to economics for example. If experts agreed on that, there would never be any financial issues, but there are many variables, so the wise person postulates with that in mind. But first they do some research.

They don't guess.

They don't just parrot what they saw on TV.

If they know nothing about economics at that level, there is no shame in that - but spouting off about it as if they do know, makes them look foolish.

Do you want to look foolish? Admitting you don't know can make you look far wiser than pretending you do know, when you don't. When stuck, say nothing. Avoid the discussion. Or...you know....ask?

That's what children do, that's how they learn.

Some of the wisest people I've ever known had a bad start. Indoctrinated into literalist/fundamentalist religions, and/or poorly educated, etc etc. Their "why" questions were ignored, or they may even have been punished for them. They grew up effectively very ignorant. But they had a spark inside them that questioned, and when free to ask, as adults, they did. People who grew up with racist parents, but knew instinctively it was wrong. People who grew up in a strict patriarchal culture, who recognized the bigotry there. People who had been taught to discriminate and hate in many and various ways, but escaped that mindset. It can be done.

It takes a choice, and I believe it is the choice to do what is right over what is easy. It is a choice to risk being ostracized by those around you who still stick to the script. That's very hard, because that can lead to being out on your own away from all that is familiar.

But you know, that's how we got here, where we are today. If the first tribesman had not made the choice to be friendly to that other tribe, to accept their differences, to think outside the box, and not just do everything the way the tribe had always done it, we would still be running around with spears.

I am not exaggerating. Modern society exists because of those people who had the courage to dare to be different. So, yes, I do think they are "better" than the cowards who resisted. I certainly respect those who called for restraint, not too many changes all at once, not change for the sake of change, for a little caution. That's a good balance.

I have no respect for those who wished to keep the status quo just for their own comfort, and I openly condemn those who try to go backwards.