It's been a little while since I posted. I had my high school reunion this weekend, and my dog required surgery for a mast cell tumor. (He seems to be recovering well, though he's feeling well enough that I now have to worry that he'll overdo it and break open the wound before it's finished healing). I have two dogs and two cats, but in case anyone was interested in what this particular dog looked like here's a picture from after we made it home (I took him with me in order to separate him from the other dog during the first two days. Less chance of wrestling and/or injury).
As for current events, the big thing is (of course) the Brexit vote. That and the ongoing 2016 presidential election, but I'm so disappointed in the choices that I'm tuning it out for now.
In a funny way, the Brexit vote reminds me of some things I've been mulling over. I suppose I should explain what I'm reading first. I like to mix up the serious books, I sometimes get surprising insights when I do so. I can only take so much of this at once, as the topics are kind of heavy and depressing...but well worth reading. I already mentioned Dwelling Place, which I'm still working on. I also picked up a book called Domination and the Arts of Resistance. In addition, I decided to start on the Kissinger books. I bought two, since I like to compare/contrast. One is called Kissinger's Shadow, and the other is Henry Kissinger's World Order.
So anyways. I'll get back to my reading material after I provide some background info. One of my life questions is why I can't "just drink the kool-aid", as a friend once advised me. I probably come across as too critical, not willing to accept and support the powers that be. I value accuracy over wishful thinking, and yet all of society seems to support the latter over the former. Take the whole fox vs the hedgehog thing. The sad truth is I'm more like the fox, and the hedgehogs are better at selling their idea. Singular. I like nuance. I like messy, complicated issues. I think there's something suspicious when a topic or issue is treated as though it's simple. I also think that fox-like analysis, which is more accurate in the end, is important towards making better decisions. That we strengthen our system by contributing our insights, even (or especially) if they don't match what everyone else is saying. That when a group becomes too closed off from such insights they create an insulated bubble that is prone to groupthink and will eventually end in disaster. So if I 'drink the kool-aid' I'm not actually offering anything worthwhile, but am instead just another contributor to something that may or may not end well. (That said, you do have to pick and choose your battles...and there's a point where you have to stop being argumentative.)
I enjoy books that point out the mistakes we make when we try to oversimplify complex matters and buy into our own hype. Seeing Like a State, for example, gives some great examples of how well-intentioned plans backfired or had unexpected consequences.
So anyways. There have been a number of articles discussing the current state of affairs. How economists lost the confidence of the public. How the middle class has been abandoned by business leaders. Why nationalism has had a resurgance.
And then there's this. A rather unapologetic "we know what's best for you, you idiots, and if you won't listen then we'll just go ahead and make the 'right' decisions for you". I'm exaggerating, slightly. There is a lot of ignorance out there, and I agree with some of his analysis. And yet we wouldn't be in this situation if these so-called 'elite' leaders hadn't lost their credibility. Their 'reality' is not accurate. It may not seem quite as distorted as the nationalists who've been in the news lately, there are a lot of valid concerns.
To bring this back to my reading material - in Domination and the Arts of Resistance the author claims that a dominant group shapes the public 'transcript'. That subordinate groups will publicly support that transcript, even though they may privately disagree. And that dominant groups, as well, may say different things in private. It's interesting on a number of different levels, especially since I have experience on both sides of these. I know why officers, for example, would want some private space where you don't have to put on the leadership show. I know how a subordinate might 'salute the uniform' when you really can't respect the person inside the uniform. Every so often I think we see an article that pulls back that curtain and provides a glimpse of the private transcript. Romney's 47%, for example. Obama's "guns and religion". And, in this case, the "we're sane and you're mindlessly angry". I wouldn't rag on this so hard if there was more of an acknowledgement that the issue is more than just globalization. It's also the 'expert' opinion that has allowed globalization to have such a detrimental effect on the average citizen.
As for current events, the big thing is (of course) the Brexit vote. That and the ongoing 2016 presidential election, but I'm so disappointed in the choices that I'm tuning it out for now.
In a funny way, the Brexit vote reminds me of some things I've been mulling over. I suppose I should explain what I'm reading first. I like to mix up the serious books, I sometimes get surprising insights when I do so. I can only take so much of this at once, as the topics are kind of heavy and depressing...but well worth reading. I already mentioned Dwelling Place, which I'm still working on. I also picked up a book called Domination and the Arts of Resistance. In addition, I decided to start on the Kissinger books. I bought two, since I like to compare/contrast. One is called Kissinger's Shadow, and the other is Henry Kissinger's World Order.
So anyways. I'll get back to my reading material after I provide some background info. One of my life questions is why I can't "just drink the kool-aid", as a friend once advised me. I probably come across as too critical, not willing to accept and support the powers that be. I value accuracy over wishful thinking, and yet all of society seems to support the latter over the former. Take the whole fox vs the hedgehog thing. The sad truth is I'm more like the fox, and the hedgehogs are better at selling their idea. Singular. I like nuance. I like messy, complicated issues. I think there's something suspicious when a topic or issue is treated as though it's simple. I also think that fox-like analysis, which is more accurate in the end, is important towards making better decisions. That we strengthen our system by contributing our insights, even (or especially) if they don't match what everyone else is saying. That when a group becomes too closed off from such insights they create an insulated bubble that is prone to groupthink and will eventually end in disaster. So if I 'drink the kool-aid' I'm not actually offering anything worthwhile, but am instead just another contributor to something that may or may not end well. (That said, you do have to pick and choose your battles...and there's a point where you have to stop being argumentative.)
I enjoy books that point out the mistakes we make when we try to oversimplify complex matters and buy into our own hype. Seeing Like a State, for example, gives some great examples of how well-intentioned plans backfired or had unexpected consequences.
So anyways. There have been a number of articles discussing the current state of affairs. How economists lost the confidence of the public. How the middle class has been abandoned by business leaders. Why nationalism has had a resurgance.
And then there's this. A rather unapologetic "we know what's best for you, you idiots, and if you won't listen then we'll just go ahead and make the 'right' decisions for you". I'm exaggerating, slightly. There is a lot of ignorance out there, and I agree with some of his analysis. And yet we wouldn't be in this situation if these so-called 'elite' leaders hadn't lost their credibility. Their 'reality' is not accurate. It may not seem quite as distorted as the nationalists who've been in the news lately, there are a lot of valid concerns.
To bring this back to my reading material - in Domination and the Arts of Resistance the author claims that a dominant group shapes the public 'transcript'. That subordinate groups will publicly support that transcript, even though they may privately disagree. And that dominant groups, as well, may say different things in private. It's interesting on a number of different levels, especially since I have experience on both sides of these. I know why officers, for example, would want some private space where you don't have to put on the leadership show. I know how a subordinate might 'salute the uniform' when you really can't respect the person inside the uniform. Every so often I think we see an article that pulls back that curtain and provides a glimpse of the private transcript. Romney's 47%, for example. Obama's "guns and religion". And, in this case, the "we're sane and you're mindlessly angry". I wouldn't rag on this so hard if there was more of an acknowledgement that the issue is more than just globalization. It's also the 'expert' opinion that has allowed globalization to have such a detrimental effect on the average citizen.
No comments:
Post a Comment