Fake Truth

What is the relationship between opinion, the interpretation of experience, conviction and Truth? That's gotta have something to do with how we sort our and arrive at conclusions, doesn't it?

 Well, these ropes...are they a circle?

OK, to start out, some terms:

Empirical reasoning: the observation ability that science is based on, but done by you and me.
Personal observation: what YOU subjectively notice because it's important for you. This may contain your vested interests, perhaps tainted by confirmation bias...(which is selectively finding what you expect to find, and dismissing anything else.)

Both of these are considered to be at odds with the golden standard of scientific observation and the definition of "Truth." Technically, things aren't true until a proper science procedures have been followed and documented and published and reviewed by peers. Of course, then there's the other Golden standard of Legal Truth too we might consider... Then there's "Your Truth," there's "What All My Friends Say Who I Believe," and there's "What the News Says." Except now, there's "Fake News." And since the RICO Act, no authority has to tell the truth unless sworn into a court of law.

It gets complicated who's version of Truth applies.

Our culture seems to be getting lost in the effort to reconstruct meaning for themselves. Even if we only speak one language, all of us must take in words and then reconstruct the meaning for ourselves. The way that we put together meaning might not be what was meant. The blame might be on either side - clumsy communication skills or our ability to misunderstand...

For me, personal research is closer to the Truth than most would consider. For me, the sum total of my experience is an operational truth that can always be updated...and does get updated. I'm proud of the fact that I can revise my convictions in the light of new information or experiences. But it frustrates me that when I trot out my findings. People don't listen because they don't have any idea of how much of my life has been devoted to my own pet research subjects. When they get a tip that improves the quality of life for them or solves a problem, they don't appreciate it. It appears that most people must pay money in order to pay attention.

So - what is "proof" of reasonable, operational truth that could be revised if needed?

Why - it's the sum total of my ability to integrate the conclusions and insights I've gathered and how I have made use of them. It's the collection of experiences I've actually had first hand, assumptions I've decided to believe, what other people have told me that they believe, what I've read that I can remember. Also it's some of what I've decided to believe purely because it sounds reasonable to me - even though it's probably not factually true.

In other words, you and I could be wrong, purely through ignorance and faulty reasoning. A field of specialization exists called Cognitive Bias. I find it a very handy field to study and keep in mind when coming to conclusions about the nature of the world and people in it.

So, how do we deal with the accusation of being wrong? How do we revise our convictions? Certainly you aren't a person who says, "Don't bother me with facts when I've already made up my mind!"

Actually, you probably are. (At least in some areas.) More commonly, people don't bother with revision of their opinions and values. Once their mind is made up, that's that. Some people are actually proud of embodying the conditioning of their cultural upbringing. Also, some people are in a situation where they hold convictions because it's a survival strategy so they can't afford to revise their convictions.

What's to blame? Partly, our English language has victimized us. The very usefulness of English is also its downfall when it comes to revising Truth.

I've observed that describing reality seems to be one of the irresistible assumptions inherent within the structure of English...and the nature of reality will differ depending on perception, attitude, and prior conditioning... AND culture, yet people don't consider this. They think what they think is "true" merely because they "thunk" it. 

One of the culprits for rampant miscommunication is that English doesn't have an adequate way to indicate subjective experience and frame uncertainty. English has... "seems to be," "from my point of view" or "IMHO."  Words like "Sometimes" and "Maybe" as examples of qualifiers or frames that attempt to serve this function of describing subjectivity. But these "frames" are scoffed at by the writing professionals. There's a reason for that.

When using those phrases, there's a danger that a writer's motive will be too easily misunderstood about exactly why they are uncertain. These qualifiers are questioned as indicators of uncertainty by editors. Writers will be admonished by editors to come out and dare to boldly say the declaration. It makes it less likely that the writer's challengers will attack.

So what if I wrote what I just said like this: ...describing reality IS an irresistible assumption inherent within the structure of English...? Would stating that sentence with conviction and certainty make it more likely for you to believe me? Would it matter how old or how beautiful I happen to appear? Are you thinking of questioning my right to say such a thing without a linguistics diploma or membership in your favorite political party?

We cannot open our mouths without someone questioning whether or not we have the "RIGHT" to define the nature of what we're talking about.

Everyone is trying to figure out how much other people are LYING!

It's gone too far: Scientists work to prove what's True that goes on whether people believe in it or not. Lately, our culture seems to have the conviction that every fact is merely another opinion.

It seems as if everyone has their agenda. Those with an agenda have gone too far to have assigned questionable truth to professionals who specialize in a field. The idea is because these scientists are specialists - they have "vested interests" in being right - despite this being a convoluted accusation!

Think about it - why did our culture evolve qualifications of education and specialization? If you're a professional, you are not supposed to imply uncertainty when you're attempting to add to the sum total of knowledge. Then if you're certain - you have vested interests...

This example of blatant Cognitive Bias drives me NUTS! 

What about when conclusions are based on many factors? Without these qualifiers, a writer's motive of an open mind won't be adequately conveyed.

What if the writer's subjective attitude is not meant to be considered a rhetorical point delivered with uncertainty, self-effacement or as a disclaimer? "From my point of view" is not necessarily another way of saying "I haven't taken a poll or conducted my research properly." It might be an indicator of being proudly humble - one of those paradoxes of culture that women express, for instance.

For me, using a subjective qualifier is a proud expression of conservatively stating my own open uncertainty toward the possibility of being wrong and openness to change.

But there is a backlash from holding this attitude. Guys like to challenge, they relish jockeying for position as a sign of respect. It just gets old when you HAVE the degrees and professional status to have the right to be believed to say what you're saying and people STILL try to fight you with outdated assumptions. In fact, it's a Top Gun problem - if you're number One, more people imagine you're the person they need to take down so they can take your place as Number Uno. 

Look at the life of Edward de Bono for instance. He wanted to call his last book: "It's Too Late To Think." He had written about 80 books on thinking skills, and was never able to get thinking skills as a subject into UK or USA schools during his lifetime. Bureaucracy is designed to resist innovation.

This resistance has had an effect on me too. Some readers have reacted to my using language in this way because they imagine I'm obligated to talk this way legally. Because otherwise I'm "making claims" that could be proved false. They imagine I'm afraid that I might be sued for making promises I can't keep.

Huh? This whole topic just stupefies me!

Free Won't

What is the relationship between opinion, the interpretation of experience, conviction and Truth?

Well, pure science tries to prove what's true whether people believe in it or not.

Empirical reasoning and personal observation seems to be at odds with subjective observations. For me, personal research is the Truth - but of course, it's an operational truth that can always be updated.

So - what is "proof" of reasonable, operational truth? Why - it's the sum total of your ability to integrate the conclusions and insights you've gathered and how you are making use of them. Sometimes it's the collection of assumptions you've decided to believe that other people have told you, you've read, and some of what you've decided to believe purely because it sounds like a good idea to you.

MRI brain research comes out and declares that before we know we've made a decision, our body has already prepared itself to execute it! Turns out because of this background preparation, we only have 1/64th of a second to veto what we've already prepared to do.

We don't have that "free will." Instead, we have "free won't!"


Describing reality "seems to be" one of the irresistible assumptions inherent within the structure of English...and the nature of reality will differ depending on perception/attitude/conditioning.
... AND culture!

Well - let's take the saying "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."(For those in ESL, it's an expression implying that carefully equal revenge is justice, even if violent.) But now Wolpert has proven that a judgment handed out of what is equal violence isn't going to be perceived as fair.

This scientist Daniel Wolpert, (self-described "movement chauvinist.") proved how perception mistakes levels of intensity.  He says people hitting each other are going to escalate the payback, all the while intending to deliver "an eye for an eye." How the brain interprets relative force depends on if you're doing it to someone else or if the force is getting it done to you.

Apparently, relative force is just one perceptual misconception that got measured - there are many more that haven't been measured...yet. Here's another one:

http://theconversation.com/fake-finger-illusion-pokes-holes-in-body-ownership-18508

This makes me sort of feel like I'm watching MythBusters... I'm on a roll.

Most of us think in our language. (Actually, that's another way I differ from most people. I don't...think in words all the time. Sometimes, I think in images. When I think in words, they are randomly shifting phrases of words, poetically intermixed and remixed, depending on shifting priorities. I'm a person who intermixes prepositions, the tiny little relationships words.)

I observe one of the culprits for rampant miscommunication is that English doesn't have an adequate way to indicate subjective experience and frame uncertainty. English has... "seems to be," "from my point of view" or "IMHO," but these are examples of qualifiers or frames that attempt to serve this function of describing subjectivity. But these "frames" are scoffed at by the writing professionals. There's a reason for that.

When using those phrases, there's danger that a person's motive will be too easily misunderstood for why they did it. These qualifiers are touted as indicators of uncertainty by editors. Writers will be admonished by editors to come out and dare to boldly say the declaration. But, without these qualifiers, a writer's motive of an open or scientific mind won't be adequately conveyed.

What if the subjective attitude is not meant to be considered a rhetorical point delivered with uncertainty, self-effacement or as a disclaimer? "From my point of view" is not necessarily another way of saying "I haven't taken a poll or conducted my research properly."

For me, using a subjective qualifier is a proud expression of conservatively stating my own open uncertainty toward the possibility of discovery and being wrong.

Readers have reacted to my using language in this way as if I'm obligated to talk this way legally. Because otherwise I'm "making claims" that could be proved false. They imagine I'm afraid that I might be sued for making promises I can't keep.

Huh?

In A Fight

In brain science and in hand-to-hand combat, the person who has the ability to calm themselves while under the threat of fighting has the upper hand. A person who can calm themselves can use an incidental strategic advantage collected by their slower upper brain as well as their faster reactions of their reptile survival brain. 

A friend of mine was once in a bad situation where a group of thugs were threatening to roll him and rob him. He looked around, figured it would be easier to defend himself if he were in a small space where one person at a time was going to come at him. So he backed in between two parked cars against a dead end wall and proceeded to wait. The thugs taunted each other to go in after him; but eventually one of them said, "Look at him - he's too calm. He's got a gun. Let's go."

Defending oneself in real fight is a whole different matter too, but again - calm observation and questioning one's own assumptions can pay off...

At 24 years old, I was once walking uphill on a one-way switchback to the little Mesa to a party in a remote place in Bolinas near the beach at night. As I walked, I began to suspect that someone was behind me, matching my footsteps. Was it in order to sneak up on me for some nefarious purpose? I shuffled my feet. The person behind me matched my footsteps again. The houses I was passing had occupants who were on vacation, or gone to bed and locked their doors... So I decided my advantage was that he did not know that I suspected what might be going on.

At fifteen paces, I turned around, still walking backwards and started blabbing to him in an over-friendly way in the dark silence. "Oh, hi! Were you at the beach like I just was? I didn't notice you there. Did you get that shirt at the freebox? I love the Freebox... I'm going to a party; are you going there too? "

He stopped, somewhat shocked...not answering me. Which indicated to me that he might have the nefarious intentions I imagined. Now I knew how he was dressed. But there we were...walking along, twenty feet apart. So I kept blabbing to him and decided to choose my battle ground to conduct a little test. I wanted to control where I was going to allow him to get closer to me to see what he might do when we came to a steep switchback.

When I reached my chosen spot, at that point I said, "Oh shit! Forgot something at the beach, gotta go back..." Sure enough, he ran the last ten feet uphill across the street towards me and pushed me down. But because I was smart to think ahead, I was on the ground parallel to the outside edge of the road; next to me was a steep drop off. I had a significant advantage of familiarity with the terrain.

While I was on the ground as he was coming close to me, I realized that my legs were a whole lot longer than his arms. I remember thinking, "Some part of me must have been planning this." As he loomed over me, still saying nothing, I crouched in a fetal position, saying, "Oh, you're going to help me up." He still said nothing. As he bent over me, all I had to do was extend my legs and plant them in his crotch to toss him over the steep edge of the road. I got up and ran. When I breathlessly arrived at the party, I explained what had happened. The guys in the part all went out looking for this attacker. But there was enough time to for him to disappear.

Later in the daytime, I went back to the scene of the crime. I saw that what I had done to evade the attack was an even better plan than I imagined. Where he'd landed off the side of the road, there were many poison oak bushes...

Relationship Stages

 

Personal Relationship Stages
 

 

 

 

An interesting view, that relationships have stages. Regarding the few intimate relationships I've had, would say the stages are:

• 1. Who is this person? What might we do together as a team?
  
  
• 2. Wow, this is wonderful. I'll do anything for her/him.
  
  
• 3. Wait a minute. Is what I'm doing to demonstrate love working how it's intended? Maybe this needs a bit of investigation and adjustment so the demonstrations I contribute to create love in the relationship goes where there are intended. In return, what I allow them to do for me also constructively floats my boat.
  
  
• 4. Trades, offerings and tacit agreements evolve and are enjoyed or endured.
  
  
• 5. A way to update these agreements becomes necessary. Whether agreements are made tacitly, verbally, as trades or as "standing" agreements - is everyone on the same page about what the agreement is? Who does what for whom and who gets to wait for their desires/needs to be met, and how long do they wait? Does the "waitee" ever get what it is they want/need? Can agreements-customs be changed or updated as various member's needs change? For instance, if one of the members of the relationship gets injured and needs care to heal from the other(s), can the relationship be flexible enough to provide that care and later re-establish independence after healing without breaking apart?
  
  
• 6. Over time, everyone's challenges, shortcomings, strengths and/or style or preferences become familiar. Can each member accept the person's intent to do their best in bettering their character flaws, or accept these flaws? How to support and/or encourage improvement of personal character development and learning? How does each member "help" one another? Do the agreements that have evolved merely adjust and compensate for shortcomings? Or is there a recognition of a process that improvement is also evolving? Can personal change be accommodated? The answers to these questions makes or breaks the relationship.
  
  
• 7. If a "break" is happening, character flaws are assigned the role of punishment. It would be so nicer for ME if the person improved - they must not love me enough to improve themselves and make it easier on both of us. Mountain out of molehill sensitivity develops, noting the most minuscule expression of these character flaws in spite of ongoing improvement. The relationship must end; the pressure of having someone so invested in your shortcomings or successes is too pressurized.
  
  
• 7. a. From my own experience, the way out of this is to re-prioritize the constant recognition of the objectionable behavior(s.) Make a specific time to express objections all at once, (without defense is best) instead of constantly having uncontrolled emotional reactions come up all the time. Meanwhile, constructively rebuild the relationship based on enjoyable, bonded experiences so the enjoyment of being together is renewed.
  
  
• 7. b. Of course, if you work this out, you can start new projects together. If you don't navigate this stage very well, the two of you part ways, with various clean-up work ahead. Or you get so damaged that making further agreements are impaired,  but you keep going anyway.
  
  
• 8. I've heard after twenty years together, the partners change places in what their shortcomings have become. The shortcomings and complaints each used to have about the other swings in the opposite direction...sort of hilarious!
  
  
• 9. But by now, there's been some track record of getting past difficult times and hopefully, communication skills have increased well enough to continue indefinitely. Unless significant lifestyle changes intervene that make a liaison no longer possible for various practical reasons... But some relationships can spend time apart and get back together ongoing.
  

Thinking While Angry

I have taught myself to creatively problem solve while angry. It was a very strange skill to learn, not a skill which I'd recommend to others. Better to not to get to this level in your ability to have to manage anger in the first place!

Twenty years ago, I had a relationship going with a person who was quite skilled in being manipulative. When I entered into the relationship, I observed that he also possessed ethics on when and where to apply his considerable skills in argumentation and debate. Ten years into the relationship, he eventually used his superior memory recall and debate skills to fight with me - something which I did not anticipate would ever happen. I had to firmly establish my boundaries and keep them in place as he decided that all things we had established and agreed upon previously were renegotiable. It was a trying time, but I managed it.

He came to expect me to do so. Had I not groomed the ability to creatively problem solve possible options of what to do next in spite of being angry, our relationship would have ended immediately. As it became clear later that staying in the relationship had become a toss-up whether it was good or bad for me personally, I was relieved when the relationship fell apart for practical reasons. I'm sure that the demands for training the skill to be able to problem solve while angry mitigated unpleasant reactions and effects; but perhaps it also prolonged the inevitable conflicts that later ended the relationship.

A more common situation where this skill would be useful to model would be during the parenting of teens - who again, would come to believe that everything should be renegotiated.

There were some prerequisite skills to make this ability possible. These were the ability to stop, pause or interrupt one's own habitual reaction. This can be best practiced when one is not in the throes of an intense emotion. It requires quite a bit of practice concerning the ability to surrender one's goal. There is a short window of time, (a quarter-second,) available to veto an action. You are already preparing to act as soon as you think of doing so, long before you realize you "want" to do something. It's quite telling when people around you believe you have first gotten angry - usually this is quite a bit further back before you realize it yourself.

Because of this lack of awareness, it's very difficult to veto a reaction that has already begun. This skill implies sophisticated exploration of expectations. Also useful during the learning process are pointedly specific observations of how a specific person's anger routinely works.

I learned this skill through the study of Alexander Technique. I'm not sure there is any other forum to learn such a thing, but I imagine anger management class would have these elements. Most commonly, this skill is usually described negatively as "poor impulse control." As far as I know, there is not any place suggested where "good impulse control" is taught - other than very early in life by parental guidance.

There is recently a field of study that seems to teach this skill specifically, but it's tailored toward adults. It's in the negotiation field, ( "Appreciative Inquiry,") the field of mediation or arbitration. Also, at www.newconversations.net there are free e-books on communication tools that seem quite useful. Some interesting books on this are classics in negotiation by Ury and Fisher. It's a series that started with "Getting to Yes." "Getting Past No, dealing with difficult people" More recently Fisher wrote a book with a guy named Shapiro dealing with how to manage emotions during negotiation called "Beyond Reason, using emotions as you negotiate."

Most of these contain stories and philosophy, but some of them provide practice suggestions. It's those offerings of practice that are most effective.

In an ongoing relationship, it is a good thing to make the general agreement that only one person in an argument is allowed to be "out of control." Obviously, it's best for the longevity of the relationship if safe expression of anger can happen as this role is rotated. It has been documented that women in particular suffer quite a bit in their health more than men if they do not speak up and make their "not very nice" concerns known.

I did hear about a study where four year olds were told that if they waited to eat something yummy, they could have twice as much of it when the grownups returned. Or they could eat the smaller portion that was in front of them now. The study afterwards followed the kids as they grew up who managed to wait compared to those who did not. It was found the ability to wait possibly resulted in a significant difference in general achievement.

My own mother was also a great model for how to deal with anger. She and my sister used to fight when I was a kid. By the time I became a teen, she had learned a few things about anger. She told me that people do not bother to get angry if they are not concerned about the relationship. She also modeled "cleaner" ways to fight. She never brought up "the kitchen sink" i.e: unrelated issues. She never tried to wound intentionally, retaliate or say things she might regret later. She would never accused me of being stupid and managed to resist telling me to do what she did not want me to do. But she would yell when she was upset, "I thought you're smart enough to think ahead about how your actions affect others."  Her words were quite carefully selected. This instead of the classic name-calling angry routine of: "You thoughtless, selfish, cruel complainer. Why should what you want come first?"

She also made it quite clear to me that people who are out of control while angry say things they don't mean. She said this is mostly because people get scared - fear is a big component of anger. She gave me ways to calm myself down when I got angry and left me the time and place to do so. Then she modeled the ability to talk out the concerns that made us want to get angry with each other, once we were calmed down enough to figure out what we really thought and wanted.

So it was this fortunate, firm foundation, along with learning Alexander Technique, that led me to be able to manage to learn later to creatively problem solve and actually think while angry. I believe it's a rare thing. It should be more common.

Helping a Disabled Person

Today I helped the person who handles my mail while I'm away in Hawaii to set up a blog. She's going to talk about having to handle California's budget cuts as a partially disabled person.

Tammy's blog is: here

Tammy has been awarded In Home Support Services hours. She has had the help of someone who gets paid for one day every week to drive her to her doctor appointments, carry things up and down her stairs and help her pick up groceries, as well as do some of the cleaning that would make her back worse. She's a disabled person who lives in Novato, CA.

Tammy can't drive because of the nature of her medication. She used to ride the bus everywhere. She would often walk from Fairfax to San Rafael with pleasure. Awhile ago, she fell on some ice on her deck and developed a slipped disc. Everything changed. Since then, she's needed a little bit more of additional help. Her doctor was nice enough to fill out a sixty page report to help her get IHSS hours.

Now California is cutting IHSS for those disabled people with less than thirty hours a week. I'm hoping that Tammy's blog will make it more clear to people what it is she is facing.

She decided to start writing this blog because of the lame and clueless suggestions that people were giving her. She found herself getting angry at her friends when they began to repeat what the newscasters on TV had said that she should get along without this IHSS help because she "wasn't REALLY disabled." She found herself screaming at people, "Well, who is going to help me? Because I can't live by myself!"

She realizes that being upset about this issue is going to drive away the few friends she had who might help her. She wanted some place to refer people to who thought they had suggestions so their suggestions would be more constructive.

Tammy jokes with her black humor: "By eliminating services, California is helping disabled people to hurry up and die." After knowing a little more about her situation, it's sadly starting to sound true.