An Essay by Thomas Klein
Okay, then I will not waste your time with idle talk:
You are convinced things get better - whatever "things" and "better" may mean - only if all the others will change themselves, but not you (and your community)?
If your answer is "yes", you should stop reading, at this place.
"I knew it!", you want to shout? Sit tight, this section will be short.
Independent of the "grade" your personal faith has: Does your religion tell you something about that subject?
Likely neither to defraud / deceive nor to defame / lie.
Just the opposite? Anyhow it happens?
Enough of this moral club, you won't stop it, vital is another matter.
The most fundamental answer to the second question is this: Without any trust exactly nothing works.
Of course different stages exist. Likely you won't give a reasonable amount of money to a total stranger by shaking hands - virtually these times -, even if your account could cover that.
But, perhaps to a good friend, to a less good one eventually with written contract.
Keyword: Trust in strangers (trust in God, alternatively)
Pronounce what you think, how you feel?
That won't help always, at least not immediately in most cases. But as long as the person or organization in question doesn't learn what went wrong, how / why should the behavior change in the future?
If the item is important for you, you might / should "escalate".
That means to invest (more) time and energy, but not (inherently) to lose objectivity, react physically (assault / damage to property), or take revenge some other way.
One or the other might sound familiar to you. Then you know where it led to resp. where it ended up (long term).
Keyword: I-message. (Yep, I can nearly see how some readers roll their eyes.)
As you kept up until here - it's becoming difficult only now.
Did you ever ask yourself, "Why did I disappoint / insult / hurt someone? Might the other be right?"
Inconvenient, isn't it? Then you would be wrong. And maybe others / many near you, too.
In so far it is much more convenient to avoid exactly that.
And what is "exactly that" actually? Factual arguments, in the end truth, as far as you can recognize / understand it.
Keyword: Self-reflection
Without questioning yourself sometimes you won't be able to change your behavior. But, (as a rule) no improvement without change.
Obviously, change is never risk-free. But change happens around you, always. If you don't change - "adapt" -, this is far beyond of being risk-free.
So it seems to be worthwhile to give some thought to it.
Viewed in this light (as adaptation of a known fatalistic saying): "If everyone advances his/her behavior, the coexistence of all is improved."
This is idealistic? Yes. Some / many will not care a rap? Yes.
The consequence? Follow them? ... so that nothing will change, at least not for the better?
Wouldn't that remain unsatisfactory as well? For something is gnawing nevertheless: The comparison with others - others change / improve (significantly) more.
And you change nothing much - it shall remain "comfortable".
If such (attitude) changes manifest even manifold (-> out-group), it becomes unbearable? "Something is going wrong!", you suppose?
Your response here? Pal up and cut off yourself with malcontent of the same kind?
Now truly: "Oh dear!" That way you wanna get (more) satisfied? Seriously?
Isn't the real question where things are "going wrong" (-> self-reflection)?
It is the way of thinking - "as little as possible" vs. "as much as possible" ... or at least "as much as reasonable".
That comfort can later have uncomfortable consequences and a plus of perceptible adjustment can in fact at least mitigate worse consequences, is a consideration that (in my eyes) doesn't look that absurd. (What I think of, is obvious.)
Well, many attributes have two extremes: Good - bad, rich - poor, left - right, honest - dishonest, religious - irreligious, ...
And in between a great vacuum? Nothing? Somewhat too simple, isn't it? None the worse, if one shall result from the other: Rich --> dishonest, religious --> good (at least with the "opportune" faith), ...
Sometimes that's correct, sometimes not. So - should you differentiate? How that works? Only this way: Take a look. If meaningful indeed at the individual case - in particular the own.
Yes, again: That takes time, energy, is troublesome at times, also because some topics are (too) complex.
In the latter case again trust is helpful, especially in experts.
But in which? More on that point later.
What should you change? Which are your most urging problems? Often those you cannot grasp or / and cannot solve alone (completely)?
That causes uncertainty? So, what to do? Panic? Become upset? Find (jointly) culprits?
What do you think - are your problems exclusive? In detail that will mostly be the case, with detached mind rather not:
"Whom do I elect?", "Can I hold my job?" resp. "How / where do I get a new job?", "Which threats face my tangible assets?", "Which threats face my intangible assets?", ...
Actually, that doesn't sound too exclusive. And the answers? Are that yours, or those of others? Must the circumstances be inspected carefully?
The problems are similar, but the circumstances make a difference: Some will pull through some days, some still months. Many have wife / husband and kid(s), others not. People live in cities and the countryside. Some live in a religious milieu, some in a rather secular. Some jobs are (comparatively) safe, some not. ...
Can then answers (always) be universal? Barely. Again: What to do?
Typically also exchange views with others. Parents, (grown up) children, good friends know you, can put themselves into your situation. But, you have to let them / permit that.
Sometimes you can / should also include the train of thoughts of other sources. (Caught! That is an implicit reference to this text.)
If you trust the right person or generally consider a contribution deemed at last as "relevant new aspect", new ideas / ways / solutions can be revealed.
Most important point (acc. to my opinion): Try to spot, if you get thoughtful / balanced advice, text-book advice or are even manipulated actively.
"Pooh, damned difficult, enough!", you think? No, neither!
Keyword: Active listening (... and again rolling eyes)
Phrased differently: Follow arguments, ask questions. (I am trying the same, both.)
Essential here: Who may recommend / allege something for what reason?
Keyword: Motives / motivation
Second most important point therefore: Why talking with someone about something? ... and why with someone else preferably not?
If you talk about all problems with the same people, it can't be avoided that for some problems all around you are of one mind, conclude that exactly one solution is the best, simply because you (all) perceive less aspects than possible (or useful).
The consequence: Sometimes (in retrospect) a wrong decision.
Keyword: Peer pressure
Well, people can't read into the future - also some try to make us believe they can.
So we all will make wrong decisions on and off.
Can we avoid that? No. Should we try to hide that truth? No. Can we reduce the risk? Yes.
Can the target to make no (important) decisions anymore be a solution? ... possibly acc. to the motto, "God will bring it in order"?
Depending on your faith you may be convinced that God can do and is doing this - in key scenes. Fair enough, but this ministry is then apparently not that evident / frequent that it becomes visible for all people.
Deepening the topic would go beyond the scope of this text by far. However, I will come (back) later to one (in my view) crucial aspect.
Only one more thing: Is the target to decide no more not also a decision?
Does it make a difference whether you are wide-eyed on the road to ruin or can say: "The topic was (intensively) on my mind, but that was not on my (and others) radar"? Not for the result, but for your self-esteem?
That doesn't mean that you should not forgive yourself also foolish mistakes. But, to learn out of them for the future seems to be reasonable, isn't it?
Logically, only risks whose implications are perceived consciously can lead to a (consciously) adapted behavior.
Therefore again psychology in practice, by means of two items: (Again? Sure, that's what this is all about.)
Think about it. One or the other example is obvious. (Acc. to the ISO definition a risk can refer also to a positively rated occurrence.)
Why ever not? Because you always listen to and ponder all arguments carefully?
No further questions ...
Of course, for most people this is valid: You should trust your community in various aspects - yet, consider for some topics / questions to scrutinize the apparently absolute (as uncontradicted) answers by obtaining further information and integrating that into the overall picture.
And, if others of your community get to know therefrom? ... by accident / mistake or intentionally?
Fall reactions into the category, "That's just not done", "We never did it that (= another) way", "That is heretical", "That is idiotic", ...?
Then you might be in a personal emergency situation that you may hardly be able to escape from - if you want that at all.
The reasons for such a "step out" must be grave, needless to say! But reasons of that kind exist sometimes, suppressing them will not go well on the long run.
Evidently, for you I am an unknown person / a stranger that comes round the corner with some odd thoughts and questions. No imminent identifiable reason exists to trust me.
But, I don't want that at all. In a nutshell this is a matter of an already mentioned - actually trivial - proposal: Follow arguments.
Trust yourself!
You got an exceptional present - from God or your parents, as you like -: Your mind. Use it! (I am sure, God is fine with that.)
There is a nice folk song about that topic: "Thoughts are free"
Naturally, I have an own opinion about many topics. However, that's not something this essay is about.
If you denominate this text anyhow as "manipulative", we have at least a fundamentally different picture of this term.
I "only" want to encourage you to build an own (individual) opinion on as many subjects as possible, avoiding to adopt other opinions "for no reason".
The goal is this: An informed opinion that allows you to identify gross false statements about a topic.
No more, no less.
Oh yes, that about experts.
For that I want to recommend a three-part video: DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 1
The remaining parts shall be offered subsequently.
Also the videos partly run through the topics, all three contain catchy passages.
And, please ignore the discussed issue, some striking had to be used by the author ...
(If you are however interested in that matter, here the link to the website of the author: skepticalscience.com)
Illustrations of the used terms can be found here: FLICC-Quiz-Material-EN.pdf
Please find below the links to parts two and three:
DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 2
DENIAL101x FLICC The Techniques of Science Denial Part 3
