The Anthropomorphized Company We Keep

We live within the ridiculous notion--now legally certified--that corporations are people. It's easy to assert this notion as nonsense, but there is an unfortunate use of language we employ that works in opposition.

It is common when speaking about corporations, or organizations in general for that matter, to say things like "XYZ company wants such-and-such" or "ABC company decided to do X." This kind of language assigns human qualities to an organizational idea we invented. In short, we have anthropomorphized a concept.

This is not a small thing. How we use language is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant. How we talk and write informs how we think and the decisions we make based on those thoughts. Given the way we now refer to the virtual as being not only real but human, it'll be hard to get out from under the faulty notion that real people are indeed different abstractions we invent.

I just can't stop! More satire headlines...

Okay, I'm on a satire headline kick right now for some reason. I do admit to being a fan of The Onion and Andy Borowitz, so it comes from that. But why do this now? Not sure. Just am. 


Terrorist groups now celebrating Columbus Day in effort to find common ground with Americans

Diner patron convinced he can permanently shoo away that fly before dessert

George Lucas reveals that Star Wars is fiction

Leaving default 1-2-3-4 password intact fails to entice hackers to steal Donald Trump's naked selfies

Local mother of three vows "to do whatever it takes" to fit into her original bride of Frankenstein dress for Halloween

More Satire Headlines...

A few more satire headlines...

Local shopper feels lucky after picking rare container of mold-free strawberries, spends salary on lottery tickets

Research confirms consistent time capsule disappointment leads to support of the History Channel's abandonment of history programming

Elderly man decides to "hold it" after failing to find urinal in new restaurant's unisex bathrooms

Doctor who contracted Ebola now sorry for always ignoring hand washing directive from bathroom wall diagram

Brainy Autoimmune Disease Against Knowledge

Headline: "Climate change, Benghazi, the Fed: The science behind the right’s irrational obsession with conspiracies"

The headline is unfortunate because this is a really good and in-depth article covering the science behind conspiracy theories. It outlines in detail how and why we have a tendency to create these theories and, even worse, refuse to let them die. It's just one more example of how the human brain can't be trusted to reach valid conclusions on its own.

It reminds me of the Wikipedia list of biases that seems to go on forever. With so many things working against us when trying to find out anything for sure, it's not surprising it's taken millions of years for us to get this far. Our brains act like an autoimmune disease against knowledge.

But because we now know about these problems, we can, if we want to, take steps to mitigate them by relying on evidence and processes that remove us as much as possible from the results. We just need to want to do so.

More Satire Headlines...

A few more attempts at headlines in the style of The Onion (I know I've made posts like this often lately, but it's a new mind exercise I'm trying out!)...

Newly single man shocked to discover putting dishes in the sink to soak is not the final step

Woman discovers her best thinking is done during slow internet connection pauses

To ease Middle East tensions, President Obama to personally knit Christmas sweaters for ISIS commanders

Study finds "adorable" most used word for those wishing to hide their real opinion

God to save money by awarding new call center contract to handle prayer requests to Philippine company

The Scientific Need For The Personal Touch

I love this editorial from Nature magazine: "A little knowledge: The significance of expertise passed on by direct contact— tacit knowledge — is moot."

In short, the piece outlines how important it is to have the experience of in-person contact when sharing knowledge. Reading papers, even ones that are very detailed, can't pass on the quality of knowledge that personal sharing of information and techniques can achieve, the editorial claims.

This has been a pet peeve of sorts with me for over 10 years due to a personal experience. When I received my first I.T. certifications, the classes I took were in a traditional classroom environment with other students and an instructor. When I went back a few years later to update those certifications, the classes were all just videos that "students" sat down and watched.

I didn't enroll.

I knew that the knowledge I needed to acquire couldn't be obtained by watching videos (and the money do watch them was ridiculously expensive). I need the interaction with others to do any kind of useful learning, and I think that's true in general for everyone. The way knowledge is absorbed through shared experiences can't be duplicated by watching a video or reading a paper, as the editorial explains.

I think this is an under-recognized problem that shows itself most noticeably in the proliferation of online universities. I'm not sure I would trust a person with a degree from one of those places to have the level of knowledge and skill as someone who had a degree from a place where learning was done in-person and hands-on with others.

We need to acknowledge that we need one another to learn and that learning needs to literally be personal. We ultimately lose knowledge if we keep trying to share it in ways that keep us isolated form one another.

The Power of Past Sentence Fragments

Headline: "Islamic State group uses only half of a Quran verse to justify beheadings — see what’s in the other half"

It is not atypical for humans to do this, so it's odd that it's news. I would submit that all religious fundamentalists do this--as do secular ones. Perhaps the most prominent secular example is the sentence fragment pulled from the Constitution's Second Amendment by hardline gun advocates. And, for religious texts, it's not only taking part of a verse, but pulling a whole verse out on it's own. Many verses are sentence fragments themselves, and using a tidbit of a longer passage--whether it's a verse or part of one--can't be an accurate justifier (given that you hold such things to be possible in the first place.)

Because we exist in an ever-shifting mix of unpredictable circumstances and attitudes, I don't think there is a way for any declaration to be considered valid or relevant past the immediate moment in which it was created (assuming it was valid even then). This causes those who look to past declarations for justification of a current desire to carve out what they want and ignore the rest. We just pile up our problems by failing to move away from this faulty process. Instead, we should take responsibility for our current problems ourselves with fully contextual information from the here and now.

A few more "The Onion"-style headlines...

A few more The Onion-style headlines...

Last man in local office to use Xerox as a verb retiring

Frequent traveler saves extra person hotel charge by claiming wife is only a visiting prostitute

Local couple stays together only to continue meaningless angry dispute with neighbors

The Failure of Armed Fear

We are being told to be afraid--very afraid--of a small band of rebels on the other side of the world. What good are our tanks, war planes, a navy full of ships and submarines, an incredibly enormous spying industrial complex, a large percentage of the civilian population armed to ridiculous levels, police departments that shoot people with little or no provocation, an enormous border security apparatus, and who knows how many nuclear weapons? It's as if being armed well beyond any other population in history provides no comfort, doesn't stop people from accepting pretty much any directive to be afraid, and ends up creating a attitude among others that being our adversary is noble. It's hard to imagine any other real situation that could be ranked as more bizarre, especially when the new call to fear voting is factored in.

More Potential Headlines For "The Onion"

Some more potential headlines for The Onion:


New study reveals customer only right 27% of the time

Salon owner comes clean: copying celebrity hair styles doesn't change your life

Researchers confirm "Two-Four-Six-Eight" victory chant to be a hoax

I Am What I'm Not

There is a consistent complaint by some atheists about the term itself. Because it notes what someone is not, those with the sentiment claim it is unworthy of being used. They would rather be known by other terms that note what they are instead of what they are not.

But I don't have a problem with it for the same reason I don't mind being called a non-smoker or atypical, or designating some businesses as non-profit. It is just the way our language works in some cases and is entirely appropriate where it's necessary to be accurate.

On a bit of a silly side note, this made me wonder recently if there is a clever joke to be made from a comparison between the dangers of second-hand smoke and second-hand religion. If not, maybe just a point of contemplation might be worth a few seconds of thought.

Hoarding Our Past Fails Our Future

I have written before about the false comfort we get by looking to the past for answers that supposedly trump new information we find and confirm. (This is perhaps the most core attitude contained within the beliefs of some religious groups and philosophical outlooks.) But I have experienced a new take on that issue in a more day-to-day practical sense and it has to do with clutter that comes from keeping old items "just in case."

This is almost purely anecdotal, but I am someone who tends to toss things out as I go along. This goes for things that include emails, snail mail, old tax forms, gadgets of all kinds, clothes, and, in general, things I haven't used in a year or so. I have no qualms about giving them away or tossing them out. For me, hanging on to stuff from the past tends to inhibit my ability to look to the future where better information and improved stuff resides. Keeping the past around is an unnecessary burden and a distraction.

For others, however, there is an opposite tendency along a spectrum of possibilities where just about everything old has not only some kind of value but very important value that has, by default, more going for it than anything new. To toss out something old is to destroy solutions to humanity's greatest problems that, for some reason, originally failed, or is evidence of something profound. (To be clear, I'm not including things being held for purposes of sentimentality or pure nostalgia.)

Why this behavior comes across as intriguing to me is that the old stuff being saved rarely, if ever, gets used or is even accessed again. If it does, it's usually given an overabundance of present value, tapping into the desire we seem to have for ancient hidden treasures to give us answers instead of looking for them with the best tools we've since created. But, in reality, these things are not even close to being qualified to provide them. While the past certainly has value in understanding the human journey, this unfortunate desire to look backwards to find answers ignores all the evidence that shows the the best information--and tools to find more--is always ahead of us.  

So, I guess the point is that I think this tendency to give undo power and overrated value to the past affects our behavior in ways that don't seem related. These include the keeping of folders of credit card bills from 30 years ago and old gas can caps "just in case," to religious texts of ancient societies containing their guesses about our place in the universe.

I'm not sure why this is the case (if it is), but I suspect there is more than one thing going on. The possibilities likely include a need to know something concrete about our "source" (on a personal level and in a larger sense), not wanting to insult ourselves by admitting the human journey has been filled with mistakes, and searching for evidence of universal meaning that, if true, must have always been there.

These are nice ideas at some level, but they misdirect us on our journey. What's most important is our future, not our past.

Virtuous Conversion

There are moments when I'm exposed to a string of stories about what conservative pundits and politicians have recently said where I can't help but think their agenda includes a concerted effort to convert into virtues the worst of human attitudes and behaviors.

Some Potential Headlines for "The Onion"

Some potential headlines for "The Onion":

Woman refuses to share "greatest idea ever" with boss until GMO-free snacks are added to the break room

City bus driver never fails to squeeze in one more passenger

Local man issues formal apology to 49ers for losing lucky shirt that was source of their success
OR
Local man makes a fortune betting against home team after losing lucky shirt.

An Exceptional Rule

I am beginning to solidify a position that holds exceptions are the only rule.

The Male-Female Separation Hangover

It's fairly common for me to read something on a topic I think I know pretty well but come away with an improved view. This is usually not because of any new information--although that does happen--but because the tone and way the words are strung together are fresh. That is happening again as I'm reading Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade, a book on what we know about the ancestors to humans.

In this case, my improved view has to do with the male-female relationship structure. The book touches on the fact that males and females generally interact with each other differently than with each other, which is, of course, no surprise. But Wade expresses this obvious fact in a way that stresses the independent nature of males and females as separate groups among our pre-homo sapien ancestors. Individual males and females generally only came together for mating purposes and generally interacted little otherwise. (They probably came together as groups for other purposes such as eating, migration and protection from enemies, but these were exceptions to separate group lives.) It is also thought that males and females had separate power structures and rules of behavior. What each group did on a daily basis was also different. When it came to day-to-day life, it's as if they weren't members of the same species at all. They lived together in the same band or group, but each was almost an autonomous subgroup. The males were dominant, but the power didn't need to be exercised very often when it came to things other than sexual activity.

This did change, of course, and continues to change today. But what this emphasis has me thinking about is any lingering effects on our modern behavior. If this notion about the behavior of our distant relatives is true, can we still see its remnants in ourselves? I think the answer is yes.

Pockets of the world's population do actively promote the idea that men and woman are distinctly different and should be separated from one another as much as possible. Some groups go to extreme and violent measures to insure this happens. When the topic of male-female equality comes up, there is vehement opposition. Men who take this position act like our ancestors in wanting to keep their dominant position, an assertion that is supported by many women who support the same structural view.

In what I think is an interesting and relevant point, there are existing tribal cultures in places like the Amazon rain forest that still do physically separate the sexes. There is one hut for the men, another for the women. If they do have some sort of marriage-bonding process, the couple comes together for sexual activity and other issues related to offspring, but they do not live together. The cultures, if you will, of each sex is separate with any inter-group activities usually highly structured.

I would suggest that most of those in what we call the First World who support sexual separation are not really all that different from both our modern and ancient relatives. There are lots of differences, of course, but the root idea is still alive and kicking.

There is probably some benefit to a society that structures itself in such a way that members of each sex have at least some methods of coming together on their own. For men and women to each have a support group of people like them is not an alien idea; we do this all the time with a plethora of points of commonality between various individuals. But like with most things, this kind of separation can become a way for one group to suppress another, making any potential benefits evaporate. I'm not sure of a specific answer, but it's something we should admit and talk about.

Herds of Privilege

Story: "Why Some Rich, Educated Parents Avoid Vaccines"

Something I think is at least part of this problem is privilege, one of the other topics currently being discussed in the culture. Although people argue otherwise, privilege does indeed exist for groups with the most money and power. Included within the mindset of many in a privileged group is the idea that they are not only better at life than others, but that this trait is inherent, and separates them from the masses who naturally belong below them. I think this attitude bleeds over into immunizations because vaccine effectiveness is based on what is called herd immunity (or community immunity). The privileged don't see themselves as part of any herd--the seem themselves as far better and distinct from that condition because a herd is a designation for the lower classes. So, for me, it would make sense that our society's most privileged also see vaccines as only for "the herd," a group in which they claim no membership.

The War Against Too Much Democracy

Story: "Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Elections a ‘more meaningful measure’ if voters must pass a test"

The U.S. has often touted as a valid reason for going to war the imposition of democracy. We have killed an uncountable number of people and destroyed societies in this effort, telling ourselves that it is somehow worth it to do so.

We have endured a recent resurgence in the U.S. of people who now want to find fault in the very system over which we have killed so many to promote. This raises a troubling point of discussion: Will we ever invade any other countries based on this new vision? Will the export of a clearly broken view of democracy be a future rallying point for war? Will there be a time where we invade another country for having too much democracy?

Ignoring Our Anti-Greed Wisdom

"They are just doing it for the money" is a regular criticism leveled by an opposing party to another's actions. But the missed irony always amazes. The pro-greed sentiment being challenged is actually at the core of the society we've created for ourselves. There is no for-profit corporation that is not "just doing it for the money," and more than a few people who work in jobs they hate are "just doing it for the money." To claim tapping this pool of greed in which we all live is problematic reveals that, at some level, we do indeed acknowledge the money-driven snafu on which we've based so much of our existence. If only we would actually realize it.

The OK Standard

Those who claim "I turned out OK" as support for taking similar actions against others often have a brutally low standard for OK.