Becoming Human

“In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.” Morgan’s Canon

The truth is, we are animals with the potential to develop humanness. Homo sapiens share the following behavioral traits with other species within the Great Ape family:

1.     Formation of social structures

2.     Establishment of pecking orders through demonstrations of dominance

3.     Cooperation within social in-groups (groups of apes/people with which one member identifies and belongs)

4.     Competition/conflict with social outgroups (groups of apes/people that are different from the ones within which a single member belongs and identifies)

5.     Use of language and development of unique cultures[1]

6.     Utilization of instinct and intuition in decision making[2]

Likely related to some unique brain structures,[3] two potential abilities that may be used to define "humanness" are higher order critical thinking and higher order empathy skills.[4] [5] Other animals have been shown to demonstrate critical thought and empathy, so these traits in and of themselves are not exclusively human. However, the human capacity for cultivating these skills to extremely high levels is unique. For our purposes, humanness should be understood as an artificial, social construct and not a scientific distinction. 

Higher order critical thinking and empathy are skills that require development. So, though genetics determine whether or not one falls into the biological category of homo sapiens, a subspecies in the Great Ape family,[6] the characteristics that define true humanness present on a continuum and are not fully developed in all members of the group, Homo Sapiens.

Like all Great Apes, homo sapiens form families and social groups. We LOVE our in-groups whether they be political, religious, regional, national, or sports related. We establish pecking orders within these groups based on dominance. On the playground, human dominance is often determined by who is biggest. As adults, dominance may be determined through superior intelligence, physical strength, wealth, attractiveness, ambition, confidence, or any number of other factors. 

Like chimpanzees, we will often cooperate with our ingroup, but we tend to view outgroups with suspicion. Our nature is to consider them threats and often to classify them as “lesser than” or even “evil.” This instinctual behavior is at the root of all forms of bigotry. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand that a “go to” position for early humans of assuming people who are different are threats would be more adaptive than assuming their benevolence. In the natural environment, early humans were constantly at risk, so tendencies resulting in cautiousness aided in their survival. 

Intuition governs the lives of all animals. It is closely related to instincts housed in primitive brain regions. Intuition, or “gut feeling,” is an automatic, cognitive short-cut that provides a crude, organic, sort of meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[7] The scientific method was born of critical thought. It is a process designed to factor out emotional human biases, such as ingroup/outgroups behaviors. Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[8] [9]

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. H.L. Menken wasn’t far off the mark when he said, “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution… and it is always wrong.” The animal within us is highly attracted to simple solutions.

Prior to the Enlightenment, humans used a simple catch-all to explain any phenomena beyond our understanding, “God.” Few seemed to notice that “God” really wasn’t much of an explanation at all. It simply moved the goal post back one yard. If God causes all things, then what causes God? “God” is still the catch-all for unexplained phenomena. Science has been able to provide evidence-based, rational explanations for most of the physical phenomena we encounter in daily life. The expanse of unknowns that homo sapiens now use God to explain has shrunken to a handful of areas.

Homo sapiens are often not inclined towards critical thinking, and therefore, have a much greater tendency to interpret the world in concrete terms. For human animals, conforming to a solution posed by dominant members of their ingroups is obviously the "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid." Conforming to the decisions of dominant members of one’s group is a trait human animals share with other primates. Critically evaluating the relative merits of dominant group members’ decisions is unique to true humanness.

Higher order critical thinking does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

Some guidelines for critical thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking (Think, talk radio hosts and New Age gurus)

2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition

3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.

4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.

5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.[10]

The scientific method has proven a magnificent modality for examining the world through critical thought. Application of the scientific method has enabled us to advance beyond the wildest imaginings of our ancestors. That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who disagrees with the consensus will be able to demonstrate strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization or opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to not be repeated. Amoeba have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

But, we are not amoeba. Humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe." Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will predictably behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the ingroup over the health and safety of the individual. These animals species engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

Humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Higher order empathy does not mean "sympathy." Many species demonstrate sympathy. The term “sympathy” is from the Greek “sympathia.” It actually means to “feel with someone.”[11] If you feel sad because someone you know lost a loved one, you are demonstrating sympathy. Sympathy can be instinctual and often requires little effort.

Higher order empathy requires the complex attempt to cognitively "see through the eyes of another." Empathy requires effort and imagination. To empathize is to “project” you into another person’s frame of reference.[12] It is our nature to criticize others from our own egocentric viewpoint. This is why we tend to judge the driver in front of us as an idiot when he slams on his brakes but feel perfectly justified when we have to slam on our own brakes. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and, on some level, understand the world from another person's perspective.

Research on feral children has shown that empathy is a learned behavior.[13] Higher order empathy is an extremely difficult skill that many humans rarely even try to master. If all people demonstrated true humanness and regularly employed this skill, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated. Children reared in environments devoid of contact with people do not demonstrate humanness [14]

Take a look in the mirror. Do you practice humanness? If so, you are likely experiencing deep, meaningful relationships with other people. And, you also suffer deeply when you become aware of social injustices (homophobia, racism, genocide, intolerance, man’s inhumanity to man, etc.). You are not easily duped by the barrage of manipulative, emotionally charged, nonsense you receive from the media, the pulpit, and the political arena. You are likely able to override primitive emotions to some degree, enabling you to maintain a healthy body and a stable mind. Your moral code comes from evaluating an ideal based on universals such as “harm done,” “fairness,” and “empathetic understanding” rather than from “how you were raised,” cultural norms, or religious/legal text.

We are all human animals, and this is not a bad thing. We are literally wired to be such and wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, some of these animal traits are not adaptive in a civilized culture. With hard work, metacognition, courage, and a tireless commitment to intellectual honesty, we can all come closer to being truly human.

---

[1] Kappeler, Peter M., and Joan B. Silk. Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Print.

[2] "What Is Intuition, And How Do We Use It?" Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Newly Discovered Brain Region Is Uniquely Human, Scientists Think."International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[4] Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Print.

[5] Elder, Lina. "Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Inquiry Winter XVI.2 (1996): n. pag. Web. 28 May 2014. 

[6] "Mammal Species of the World : A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference."(Book, 2006) [WorldCat.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.

[7] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[8] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[9] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

[10] "Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking." Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[11] "Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[12] Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[13] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.

[14] Plessis, Susa Du, and Jan Strydom. "Chapter 7." The Right to Read :Beating Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities. N.p.: n.p., 2000. N. pag. Print.

Real Men are Brave and Strong

Disclaimer: Given that men and women are equal representatives of the human race, the qualities of a real man may be identical to the qualities of a real woman or simply, a real person.

I was raised in a culture that clearly defined what it meant to be a real man. As a male in this environment, the importance of achieving real manhood can not be overstated. As a dyed in the wool skeptic and moral relativist, I would be disappointed if my opinions were interpreted by anyone as some universal definition of manhood.

Real Men are Brave:

If “brave” means “fearless,” I would have to judge one who claims this quality a liar. The fear

response is hardwired into humans and most other animals, so fear is a given. True courage is the ability to do the right thing in spite of one's fear. If we use this second definition, I agree that bravery is necessary to real manhood. A real man has the guts to stand up for the underdog, the unpopular, and the underrepresented. Ironically, many of the characteristics of real men, as defined by culture, are rooted in fear and cowardice.

Real Men are Strong:

I place a high value on physical strength and put forth a good deal of effort to develop and maintain it. However, this quality can easily be dismissed as essential to real manhood. A frail and weak individual who puts himself between danger and someone vulnerable to harm would certainly meet the standards of real manhood. I would specify strength of character as a necessary component of real manhood.

Real Men Wear Prescribed Hairstyles and Clothing:

In my hometown, this prescription includes short hair, with either khaki pants and boat shoes or camouflage and boots. While there is nothing wrong with enjoying the prescribed stuff, I consider one who fears to deviate from it, a coward. No courage at all is required to conform. Fear of being different is indicative of one who does not have what it takes to be a real man.

Real Men Take Care of Their Own:

This is an instinctual characteristic found in many lower animals. Real chimps, baboons, and bison take care of their own. A guy who demonstrates this quality has not distinguished himself beyond the level of a primate. I think a real man must set the bar higher. A real man should take care of all who are unable to defend themselves from abuse and exploitation regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, political group, regional affiliation, socioeconomic status, or even species. One who only takes care of his own is less than a real man.

Real Men View Homosexual Behavior with Disgust:

If this were true, we would have to exclude Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, and Richard the Lion Hearted from the category of “real men.” A large research study tested attitudes about homosexuals in self-identified heterosexual men. The men were then divided into two groups, homophobes, and non-homophobes. Both groups were hooked up to plethysmographs (instruments for measuring erections) and asked to view male, homosexual,

pornographic videos. Only the homophobe group became sexually aroused. This response did not occur in the non-homophobe group. In other words, guys who have huge issues with gay people are often covering for their own homosexual tendencies.

Real Men Take Charge:

Yes, I would say that taking charge when the situation warrants is inherent to real manhood. However, one who wants to take charge in ALL situations is simply arrogant and self-deluded. Real men have the maturity to defer to a more qualified individual when one is available. An intelligence that exceeds the level of any single individual within a group emerges whenever a group of people cooperates and respectfully works together. 

Real Men Express only One Emotion, Anger:

Unless damaged, all people experience the full range of human emotions. Which requires greater courage, to express emotions that show vulnerability or to hide them? Hiding is not a behavior I typically associate with being a real man.

Conclusions:

Make your own.

Is Atheism in Men Caused by Bad Father/Son Relationships?

A few years ago, my cousin informed me that his minister delivered a sermon on atheism. The minister indicated that in men, the best predictor of atheism is bad relationships with their fathers. “YOU had a bad relationship with YOUR father and now YOU are an atheist!” This bothered me, because it was true. And, while I was certain that there was no causal relationship between my atheism and conflicts I had with my father, I could completely understand how this coincidence might inspire a compelling sense in my cousin that his minister had nailed it.

 I looked for research on atheism and father issues and found a piece called “The Psychology of Atheism,” by Paul C. Vitz, a psychology professor at NYU.[1]  Dr. Vitz admits to a brief period of atheism in his youth which he attributes to social

conformity (Interestingly, he does not attribute his subsequent Catholicism to social conformity). I have great respect for information yielded from well-controlled scientific studies in the field of psychology. However, “The Psychology of Atheism” doesn’t cite a single scientific reference. Not one! To my knowledge, no supporting scientific evidence exists for Dr. Vitz’ theory.

 Vitz’ essay presents an anecdotal argument that since Hobbes, Voltaire, Freud, Zedong, and Hitler all had fathers who were weak, unloving, or not present, then father issues must have caused their atheism. In fact, while all of these men questioned dominant religions, Hobbes was a Christian[2], Voltaire a Deist[3], Zedong a Buddhist/Taoist[4], and Hitler a Catholic. Pope Pius XI negotiated the Reichskonkordat agreement, which actually lent moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime in Germany.[5] And, Hitler made his views on God very clear, “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."[6]

 Freud was an actual atheist and did a good deal of philosophical writing on the topic.  In “The Future of an Illusion,” he reasoned that as children, we are weak, ignorant, and helpless by nature. We are comforted through childhood by parents whom we consider strong, knowledgeable, and invulnerable. As adults, when we realize the imperfections of our parents, we would once again be thrown into a deep sense of fallibility. Freud believed it an adaptive evolutionary trait to invent invisible, magical parents who were all-knowing, all powerful, and immortal. Like our terrestrial parents, the magical ones protect us from danger, punish us when we are bad, reward us when we are good, and have the answers to all of our questions.[7] 

 Let’s stop here and ask a question. Which argument seems more reasonable? Freud’s argument that man invented God to fill in the gap left by Earthly parents, or Vitz’ argument that the atheist is angry at his Heavenly Father because of a bad relationship with his Earthly one? Neither argument was based in scientific research, but one will “feel” more true to you depending on your own pre-existing beliefs.

 There are obviously many rational problems with making assumptions about an enormous and diverse population like the atheists based on the idea that Freud and I had bad relationships with our fathers. Vitz cannot assume that this is the case for other atheists, since no supporting data exists. It is likely that many men have rocky relationships with their fathers. Some of them happen to become atheists while others happen to become theists.

 Without evidence, neither can we assume that Freud is accurate in his assumption that all religious people have needs for safety and answers. In this case, however, scientific evidence abounds. The fight or flight response is present in all animals, including humans.[8] Likewise, curiosity is an intrinsic human motivator.[9] A 2003 article cites numerous studies from scientific journals supporting Freud’s basic assertions that religious thought is a natural by-product of brain function[10].

Discerning and using objective evidence to determine accuracy is a relatively new development in humans. Making broad assumptions without sufficient evidence is much more characteristic of the way humans think. In simple terms, the mind is a machine that takes tiny amounts of information, makes sweeping generalizations, then “feels” these generalizations are accurate and reasonable. This is a fundamental cognitive error responsible for much death and suffering across the ages. Tendencies towards making sweeping generalizations are hard wired into us and are essential to navigating human life.[11] Imagine having to consider the universe of potential outcomes prior to every decision you make. NOT making sweeping generalizations based on small amounts of information would completely paralyze us!

So, we work within our inherent limitations and try our best not to screw up. One way to avoid screw ups is the choice to consciously override gut feelings whenever reason and overwhelming objective evidence disputes said feelings. In other words, if the majority of scientific evidence says one thing and my gut says the opposite, my gut has a high likelihood of being wrong. Science is never able to provide the absolute answer, only the best possible answer according to evidence available at a given time.

Just for kicks, I researched the best predictors of atheism. What I found brought a broad smile to my face. Turns out a primary predictor of atheism is… IQ.[12] 

---

[1] "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism Paperback – October 18, 2013." Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism: Paul C. Vitz: 9781586176877: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[2] Fuller, Timothy "The Idea of Christianity in Hobbes’s Leviathan." JSTOR (n.d.): n. pag. JSTOR 192.168.82.205, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Voltaire - Biography." Voltaire. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[4] "Religion - East and Southeast Asia - Modern China." - Mao, Religious, Daoist, and Zedong. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[5] Peter Hebblethwaite; Paul VI, the First Modern Pope; Harper Collins Religious; 1993; p.118

[6] Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[7] "The Future of an Illusion Paperback – June 30, 2011." The Future of an Illusion: Sigmund Freud: 9781614270867: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[8] "The Enduring Importance of Animal Models in Understanding Periodontal Disease." Taylor & Francis. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[9] "The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation  ." Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[10] Boyer, Pascal. "Religious Thought and Behaviour as By-products of Brain Function." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7.3 (2003): 119-24. Web.

[11] "Cognitive StudiesVol. 10 (2003) No. 1 P 76-92." Developmental and Computational Neuroscience Approaches to Cognition: The Case of Generalization. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[12] Zuckerman, M., J. Silberman, and J. A. Hall. "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Personality and Social Psychology Review 17.4 (2013): 325-54. Web.

He is Playing the Race Card

The first college course I taught was a section on General Psychology in Charleston, SC. The demographics of my class was about half white kids and half black kids. We were covering the chapter on Abnormal Psychology, so I gave what I thought would be a fun weekend assignment. Over the weekend, each student was to engage in "abnormal" behavior in a public place, then record peoples' responses. Students were given safety instructions NOT to break any laws or institutional rules (example: talking in the library) and they were NOT to engage in any behaviors that might be considered threatening to people or dangerous in any way. I gave a few examples of "safe" abnormal behaviors like talking to one's self, standing backward in an elevator, invading personal space in a conversation, etc.

Monday morning I was shocked at the outcome of this assignment. Despite following my safety instructions, almost all of the black kids got into trouble with law enforcement, store managers, and other authority figures in the community. Apparently, if you are a black kid in Charleston, behaving abnormally results in trouble. Conversely, white kids who behaved abnormally received the expected responses of laughing, pointing, ignoring, gossiping, and avoiding.

Later, when I recounted this story to subsequent classes, white students were typically surprised (as I was) at the differences in public responses to black versus white kids. However, black students hearing the story for the first time knew what the outcome would be before I ever said it. One middle-aged, African American student who had children of her own, reported that she raised her kids to keep their hands in full view at all times whenever they were in a store or mall. As a white parent of white children, having my kids keep their hands in full view is something that never would have crossed my mind.

A few years later, an African-American colleague of mine, Anna, requested my help with her son who had recently gotten into trouble at school. Her son, John, was an honor roll high school student with no history of school behavior problems. However, he got into a conflict with another student and became defiant when the principal intervened. His punishment for defiance was expulsion for the remainder of the year. John subsequently apologized to the principal for talking back, but a hearing was set to confirm expulsion.

Anna had me and several other professionals who were familiar with John speak on his behalf at the hearing. The Discipline Board consisted of three white, male, principals and one white, female principal. I felt the hearing went very much in John's favor, so I was shocked when the panel ruled to go through with the expulsion. I approached the Chair of the Discipline Board and made the comment that an all-white, all principal, and nearly all-male panel was inappropriate. The Chair dramatically raised both hands in the air and yelled out, "I knew it! I knew someone just had to play the race card!" Anna was embarrassed that I brought it up. It is very bad form for victims of racism to complain about mistreatment.

Three months later, I was back before the same Discipline Board in support of another high school kid. On this occasion, another honor roll student with no history of behavior problems had gotten in big trouble. This second troublemaker was Suzie, a cute, white, female who broke federal law by distributing marijuana brownies to her classmates. The legal penalty for this act is up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. Again, the hearing seemed to go well for the student. The ruling? She was told never to do that again and was allowed to return to school the next day.

The Race Card: A term invented by bigots used to quiet victims of bigotry.

How to Write a Personal Mission Statement

Army Photography Contest - 2007 - FMWRC - Arts and Crafts - Follow the Light

People can have a tendency to drift through life without direction, or worse, allow others to choose their direction. The number one regret of people in the last stages of life is, "I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me."1 One way to avoid this misfortune is to carefully assemble a unique mission statement rooted in personal meaning and reflecting your own individual values. Refer to it frequently and modify it as your life unfolds.

Consider the following:

1. Your life goals. When you come to the end of life, what do you hope to have accomplished? Make the goals sweeping and broad. Really consider the big picture.

2. Your morals. What does it mean to be a "good person?" Was "good" defined by your parents? Your religion? The laws of the land? Or, do you use universal litmuses like fairness, empathy, or potential for harm to determine ''goodness?" (Hint: The latter reflects a higher degree of moral development.)2

3. Your purpose. Why are you here? What makes you feel alive? What activities make your life worthwhile? Are you drawn to improving yourself? Your society? Both? Do you like to create? Build? Organize? Does the acquisition of knowledge excite you? Do you like to solve problems?

4. Your priorities. Priorities are ever shifting. How will you determine what is the best use of your time right now? Tomorrow? Ten years from now? What causes an issue to change from low to high priority?

Sample Mission Statement:

To have a positive impact on the lives of family, friends, co-workers, and people in my community by:

1. Demonstrating and encouraging curiosity, creativity, enthusiasm, geniality, tenacity, and industry

2. Committing to unbiased, logical, evidence-based sources of information and constantly seeking out relevant new research

3. Employing and supporting democratic processes to create a culture of ownership and participation at all levels

4. Changing positions when supporting evidence clearly outweighs disputing evidence for my own pre-existing beliefs

5. Utilizing empathy, fairness, and potential for harm to guide my ethical decisions

6. Developing myself socially, intellectually, physically, and emotionally

7. Employing moderation, patience, flexibility, and the greater good to determine priorities at any given time

1. Ware, Bronnie. The Top Five Regrets of the Dying: A Life Transformed by the Dearly Departing. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2012. Print.

2. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development: Moral stages, their nature and validity.

On Snobbery

sto del Río Agardando por Snob

I had a fairly unpleasant high school experience. In the middle of my tenth grade year, my family moved from the coast of South Carolina to the Piedmont of North Carolina. My new high school had two distinct social groups: tobacco farmers’ kids and the privileged children of fairly affluent parents from Bermuda Run Country Club, a gated community. Oh, there was a tiny, third social group of transplant kids from the Sea Islands of SC… me.

Universally, the tobacco kids were unsophisticated, but emotionally mature. Each worked on the farm from a young age and gained an adult-like tempering from being productive and from contributing to the welfare of his/her family. The Bermuda Run children were emotionally infantile and inflicted a smug, judgmental snobbery on each other and on the rest of us. Prior to the move, I was honestly unaware of the phenomenon called, “name brand.” I quickly learned that wearing shirts with the wrong animal embroidered on the chest or sneakers with the wrong stripe on the side meant ridicule and a sense of shame.

In retrospect, I give the Bermuda Run children a pass. They were simply mimicking their parents. I can understand this level of immaturity in high schoolers, but am always surprised that any adult would want to extend such puerile behaviors beyond adolescence.  Pretentiousness is rare in the upper class, but pervasive to the middle and upper middle-classes. Most Bermuda Runners fell into these latter categories. Bermuda Run parents universally applied the absurd costumes and manners of sociological “wannabes.” Ironically, pretentiousness does not result from feelings of superiority. It is conversely, a manifestation of extreme insecurity. Snobbery is a desperate clinging to the superficial in the absence of genuine self-worth.

Pretentiousness is a “passive-aggressive” behavior that demonstrates craven hostility[1]. The intent of snobbery is to inflict emotional harm on others. It can effectively harm the immature, but ultimately causes greater harm to the snob him/herself. Snobbery is born of fear, vulnerability, and social incompetence. It serves as a mechanism for generating scraps of esteem in people so small inside that these tiny perceived victories are of value. Pretentiousness is a “short game” that sacrifices intimacy and meaningful relationships for pettiness and cruelty[2].

---

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201401/how-spot-and-deal-passive-aggressive-people

[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200906/field-guide-the-snob-some-it-haute

Are We Dancing Bears?

If you want to understand a species, observe the behaviors of its members over time. Bears have specific behaviors that have been exhibited throughout bear history. Bears forage, hibernate, are omnivorous, and so on. While the reactions of one bear in a particular situation may be unpredictable, the general behaviors of the species are extremely predictable.

Likewise, observation of the human species yields similar understanding. Throughout history, humans have always organized into groups, aspired towards moving up in their respective social pecking orders, developed religious systems, fought with groups having opposing views and with groups having desired resources, and so on.

It is possible to train a bear to dance and do tricks. A bear can rise above its nature and learn to do things beyond the scope of the average bear. However, training a bear to dance does not change the behavior of the bear species. The dancing bear is an anomaly and will likely be rejected by other bears in nature.

Individual humans can also rise above their base nature and, using the highly complex human mind, learn to live as relatively enlightened, rational animals. But, an enlightened individual does not change the overall patterns of the human species. Socrates, Plato, Gandhi, the Buddha all demonstrated varying levels of enlightened understanding... but they were anomalies and were ultimately rejected by their species.

The species did not become enlightened by the efforts of enlightened individuals. Instead, the human species simply incorporated concrete aberrations of abstract, enlightened messages into the same systems and patterns that have always existed in humans (i.e. forming groups, moving up in social pecking orders, fighting with groups that have opposing viewpoints, etc.).

I postulate that enlightened beings are no more than dancing bears. They are an interesting anomaly having little impact on the species at large. Bears behave like bears. Let them be bears. Humans behave like humans. Let them be humans. We each have the opportunity to develop our minds and bodies far beyond those of the typical human, but that will not change the nature of the human species.

On Men and Guns

I love westerns, biker flicks, and gangster movies. I like guns, and swords, and other dangerous toys. Courage, strength, violence, and heroes are concepts that resonate with my inner 7^th grader. A thirst for adventure is the emotional element that draws me to dangerous themes.

That said, while I own guns, I have never carried one or even considered it. Why would I? If tears say, “I am sad,” and punching a wall says, “I am angry,” then carrying a gun says, “I am scared.” And, I am not scared.

Only a terrified person would need to have a firearm on his person at all times. Some situations warrant such fear. If one is in combat, law enforcement, a violent street gang, or any position where one might reasonably expect to be the target of some else’s firearm, then carrying a weapon is sensible. But, what level of paranoia and anxiety would be required to prompt a person living in ordinary circumstances to believe that, at any moment, someone might try to kill him? If life itself is so goddamned frightening to you that you feel the need to carry a firearm everywhere, I interpret that as a need for psychiatric treatment. And, if I’m not mistaken, an absence of psychiatric problems is a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed weapon permit.

I have been fortunate in my life. At 53, I have resolved every conflict through conversation and/or an ass whipping. Whether I am at a motorcycle rally or in a bad part of town late at night, I move through life without fear of my fellow man.  I’m not saying that I am against guys carrying firearms, only that those who do are also carrying more fear than I can muster.

On Critical Thinking

Kevin Friery Questions from the Floor

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. 

People who are not inclined towards critical thinking, have a much greater tendency to see things in terms of black and white. For them, conforming to a solution posed by the group with whom they identify is easy and even the obvious "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid."


Critical thinking does not come naturally to humans. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a pro body builder and the average physique.

Teach's Precepts for Critical Thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking [1]
Examples from the Left and the Right of failure to critically evaluate the issue:
1. On the Left: "All of my friends at the health food store say that immunizations are dangerous and cause autism. There are scientific studies that prove it. Immunizations are part of a conspiracy generated by the medical industrial complex."
In truth, there was a single flawed study linking immunization to autism. The results have not been replicated, and overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the need for immunization reflects the consensus of the scientific community. So, if you believe that immunizations are bad, this belief is likely based on anecdotes, your need to conform to the group with whom you identify, and on your intuitive feelings of paranoia.
2. On the Right: "The guys on Talk Radio say that climate change is a myth. Many scientists agree. The whole global warming thing is a conspiracy perpetrated by liberal scientists who want grant money."
Actually, there has never been a more researched natural phenomenon in history than climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the validity of climate change caused by human activity and this view is supported by a consensus of the scientific community. If you believe that climate change is not occurring or that it is not caused by human activity, this belief is likely based on anecdotes, your need to conform to the group with whom you identify, and on your intuitive feelings of paranoia. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short
That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who opposes the consensus will find strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization and opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

I was once trying to teach a particularly difficult theory to a class. About half the class understood the theory and the other half didn't get it. When polled, 100% of the students who understood the theory said they agreed with the theory while 100% of those who failed to understand the theory described it as "stupid." It takes time and effort to become informed on complex issues and no effort at all to have a gut level response. Ironically, the informed individual is more likely to be uncertain about his/her position than is the uninformed individual.



2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition
3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.
4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.
5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.

[1] "Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence." Critical Thinking and Emotional Intelligence. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.