Sunday TED – Frans De Waal Gets a Morality Lesson from Chimps

April 22nd, 2012   by   Andrew

Why do we reconcile after a fight?

Well, why would animals reconcile after a fight?

Frans de Waal has spent a lot of time with apes. He was fascinated with how some of the animals he studied were obsessed with power. Or, why the researchers that studied animals were obsessed with how animals were obsessed with power. The more he studied the animals (and the researchers), the more the story changed.

de Waal collects some fun footage of chimps and elephants displaying cooperative behaviour and synchronization. There is also some evidence of underlying motivations behind the animal behaviour.

de Waal suggests there are two ‘pillars’ of morality that can be studied more with respect to animals:

Reciprocity – fairness

Empathy – compassion

He also puts in a fun little dig at academics and philosophers that scoffed at his studies, unable to play with the idea that animals could have anything to tell us about such things.

I thought this was a neat example of how people, even in the academic and scientific community, deal with new information that challenges their perceptions of things.

What do you think? Should we pay more attention to the moral lessons and new information other animals can teach us?

- – -

There is a series of videos from a youtuber named Evid3nc3, that I want to include in my Sunday videos. However, I felt like keeping things a little more light and fun right now. Thanks again to the Wise Fool for letting me know about Evid3nc3 – definitely a video series worth thinking about.

 


My Recent Empathy Fail

January 14th, 2012   by   Andrew

Part of the series God: from Magic to Motivation

And my head told my heart, ”Let love grow.”
But my heart told my head, ”This time no,
This time no.”
~ Winter Winds, Mumford & Sons

I’m calling the guy Tyler. I don’t know his name, but he might have been twenty, and the flat beak of his hat made me think he could have been named Tyler. Or maybe it was his teeth. I doubt that he’d ever been to an Atlanta Braves game, considering Atlanta is close to a thousand miles away from here, but maybe there is something significant about the good old team from Georgia. Maybe Tyler thinks their s%$t makes him look good. Maybe Tyler was never told the importance of seeing a dentist regularly. Maybe there is a lot about Tyler I don’t know.

After that night, I don’t want to know much about him. He could have destroyed my music equipment.

A friend and I were playing in a small pub in a small village of less than 3000 people. I lived in that village for a while, from Kindergarten to Grade 2. Today there is one Subway restaurant and one Home Hardware store and one IGA. I don’t think there is another franchise within the village limits. Everything else is Mom & Pop stuff. They do have a Family Dentistry Centre though.

The crowd is always great there when we play. Small in number, but they want to sing and they want to have a good time. The owner of the place sang a song with us. I think half the people in the place came up and sang something. Late in the evening the weekday cook came by and she took turns with an older couple in playing either the bongo or the tambourine we brought with us.

Tyler came in with his girlfriend and sat at a table for two. He drank. She texted. After a pitcher, Tyler seemed to realize there was live music, and that others were enjoying the music. A sociable guy in the crowd I’m going to call Jake introduced himself to the two and invited them to join his crowd at a bigger table. Jake is a regular and a good guy. He sells cars during the week and has won the heart of the weekday cook. He was sitting with my wife and some friends.

Tyler lost more and more of his balance over the night. His girlfriend lost more and more patience until she finally decided to disappear. Tyler didn’t mind if she went home, though. He thought he had new friends. And, he became more and more infatuated with a blond at the table. He was a man of persistence and repetition. Even after it was explained several times clearly and calmly that she was neither interested or available, he continued his pursuit. He was a young, motivated man.

When we took a break I learned that Tyler had been shuttled from foster home to foster home as a kid, and then group home to group home as an adolescent. He didn’t have much education, but he did have a three-year-old child that didn’t like him much and a girlfriend that he didn’t love. He was trying to do the right thing, be there for his kid and for the girlfriend. That’s what he’s supposed to do, isn’t it?

It’s amazing how easily personal information flows from the self-medicated. And don’t worry if you didn’t catch it the first time, because they will tell you again and again, just to make sure.

I told this story to a friend that’s a social-worker. Very quickly my friend said, “Don’t tell me his name! I might know more about him than you do.” Tyler might very well be one of my friend’s case files.

Tyler requested a song. After we played his song, he forgot and requested it again. We played it again but he quickly turned around and went outside for a smoke. At the end of the night, he came over to us while we were packing up and requested we play his song again. He was sorely upset that the night must come to an end and he turned to share his disappointment with his new friends at the bar. In that turn, he bumped a table, and let go of his glass of beer. It fell, all of it, into the crate I use for my electronic effects board and my cords. I watched as the liquid soaked into the crate padding, coating the metal casing of my effects board, obeying the demands of gravity and seeking the most efficient routes down and through, down and through.

I remember looking up at the guy. I remember wondering how often I’ve probably worn that same serene, self-medicated face. I remember going over everything I heard about his life, how he may have been the unfortunate loser in almost every possible lottery that life throws at us. He had no say in the genes he was given or in the level of intelligence he might have been born with. He had no say in the parents he was born to, and almost no say in the habits and values they instilled in him. He likely had very little control in the decision-making process that selected his foster homes or his group homes.

And yet he still had the power to drastically change one girl’s life. He had the power to create another life. And he had the power to dramatically threaten a complete stranger’s property. Each of these things probably needed mere seconds and the haphazard coordination of circumstances. Does he have his license and a car to drive too?

How much of Tyler’s life was Tyler responsible for, when he didn’t have either the genetic tools or the nurturing environment to inspire in him a desire to change? What would make him want something more in his life? Even if it is just a dang shame, and society has provided him every opportunity to shape up and value what all the rest of us value, it doesn’t matter. He still has the power to fuck up our shit, by his mere presence!

My brain went out to him, thinking his life was little more than a determined series of events set in motion by things of which he has only ever had partial (maybe illusory) control. My heart said, “Get this guy away from everything you hold dear.”

In environmental terms, the guy is toxic, a stumbling bag of entropy. In religious terms, he was evil – evil by ignorance more than by intent, but still dangerous enough to bring complete disorder. In psychological terms, he was not properly motivated, not adequately socialized to function positively or take on responsibility. But all that doesn’t matter! He nearly broke my stuff!

Andrew Coyne had an article in Maclean’s Magazine a while ago on the differences between the Canadian and the American Occupy Wall Street movements. He suggests the elite classes have a lot of upward and downward mobility when it comes to finances. The lowest 10% of society, however, have practically no mobility and no resources to change that, except maybe their own motivation. According to the stats he collected, getting the poor out of the poor house wouldn’t actually take that much money, relatively speaking. If we increased the personal income taxes of our supposed super-elite class by 10%, that would be only enough to take care of 1/3 of the problem (ignoring other consequences for now). This option is obviously ludicrous, considering a hike that huge could start a civil war in the luxury class. If we increased the federal retail tax by 2% (that means on most consumer purchases of goods and services), that would likely bring in enough funds to move all the country’s poverty-stricken into respectable, safe lifestyles… for one year… conditionally. Changing the corporate tax levels would have too many other consequences, short and long term, that it’s just best to find better alternatives.

The problem is, the poor would still be poor, no matter how we juggle the numbers. People don’t change when money is thrown at them. They just make more expensive mistakes. And maybe most important to me, Tyler would still have the same power and ignorant inclination to mess up the lives of those around him. Even if he does mean to do the right thing.

Strangely, religions have always had an obsession with the Tylers of the world. Religions spend a great deal of energy and effort on either changing the motivations and minds of those that drain society, or at least minimizing the problems they do create. It’s something we need to pay attention to, since this the western world seems to be trending away from religious involvement and participation. The greedy, the ambitious and the rich take care of themselves. They always have, whether we want them to or not. They have to the tools to do it.

If we don’t take care of the religious, then the religious don’t take care of Tyler, and surprise surprise, he doesn’t go away. Instead, we still foot the bill (and my social worker friend has a job through a government agency). It seems like no matter what we do, we’re stuck paying for Tyler and for the person that tries to change Tyler into something more benign or productive. Otherwise, Tyler will find a way into our daughter’s pants.

I’ve spent most of my life in “economically depressed” places. Due to a couple of personal shortcomings and “unforeseen circumstances” (read: not facing my dragons), I’ve failed to sustain my entrance into the middle class. A lot of that has to do with my motivations though.

I want to feel for Tyler. I really do. But I have to admit, with some shame, that even now when I think of him, I can only see somebody else’s problem…

Stephen Colbert once said about America:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

I don’t think this is just a problem for “Christian nations” (if there is such a thing), and I don’t think that Jesus is the answer either. If it was, well wouldn’t the problem of Tyler be fixed by now, or at least faced up to?

(After all, Jesus didn’t inspire every troubled person he came across. But he did hang out with them and recognized them as part of his community.)

I think too much discussion is around who is right, or who has got it all correct. I think we need to start by asking, “Who has what power, and what are they motivated to do?” Tyler has the power to impregnate our daughters and destroy the things we hold dear. Moving away from Tyler or depriving Tyler of education and opportunities doesn’t seem to do the trick. He’s not changing. If Tyler is rich or ambitious, our daughters might actually be taken care of. Maybe that’s the only way we are going to understand how Tyler could be part of our family? That is, if Tyler thinks he should do the right thing.

Let’s find a better way to motivate him.

I’m starting to believe that the only religions I can trust are like the Tylers of the world (and even the ambitious of the world for that matter):

limited to benign pursuits,
able to keep their hands out of our children’s pants,
and mindful enough to not spill their drinks on my stuff when I am enjoying the rituals of song and fellowship.

What do you think?


The Empathic Audience and the Messiah Mistakes

September 11th, 2011   by   Andrew

Part of Chapter 13 in the series Myths and Dragons

The family circle has widened. The worldpool of information, fathered by electric media – movies, Telstar, flight – far surpasses any possible influence mom and dad can now bring to bear. Character is no longer shaped by only two earnest, fumbling experts. Now all the world’s a sage.

Electric circuitry has overthrown the regime of “time” and “space” and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns of all other men. It has reconstituted dialogue on a global scale. Its message is Total Change, ending psychic, social, economic, and political parochialism. The old civic, state, and national groupings have become unworkable. Nothing can be further from the spirit of the new technology than “a place for everything and everything in its place.” You can’t go home again.

“the others”

The shock of recognition! In an electric information environment, minority groups can no longer be contained – ignored. Too many people know too much about each other. Our new environment compels commitment and participation. We have become irrevocably involved with, and responsible for, each other. ~ Marshall McLuhan.

Have you seen the movie About Schmidt? An insurance rep enters into retirement, somewhat reluctantly, and finds he has to figure out what to do with himself and his time. One afternoon, while watching TV, he sees a commercial for Childreach. Angela Lansbury’s voice pleads to the audience for help, become a sponsor for a child in need. Schmidt, almost on a whim it seems, picks up the phone. He  gets a package in the mail with some information about little Ndugu, an orphan living half-way around the world.

Schmidt writes several letters to little Ndugu that quickly expose a pattern – self-centered and self-obsessed whining about his wife, his life, his daughter’s poor choice of a man, and so on. Schmidt takes a road-trip of trial, error and discovery which brings him face to face with a tough choice – how should he toast his new son-in-law, a guy that’s just not up to snuff, at his daughter’s wedding?

When he makes it back home, he’s emotionally and physically drained. And, he still has to face the problem of figuring out what he should do with himself. Has he made any difference in his life, after all this? But he gets a letter from little Ndugu. Actually, it’s from a caretaker of the child:

Schmidt did make a difference, in many ways, despite himself. But it doesn’t come from getting his way.

The empathic audience has some choices to make. ( I give a short history of the empathic audience here, and I describe the plural nature of the audience here.) The past technology of printed word generated a vast literate population of individuals with individual points of view. Psychological innovation allowed us to dive deeper and deeper into ourselves. Is there is any greater addiction than being “right” and  getting our own way? But the deeper and deeper we go, we find a centre that is not within ourselves. You are not the centre. It’s not even inside you. It’s somewhere outside, between what is “me” and who is  “other”.

Electronic media in the form of radio, television and now internet constantly bombard us with information about the “other”. The history of pop culture is one of repetitive exploration and exposure to the “next” marginalized group or outsider, still on the fringes but about to become accepted. The next aesthetic has almost always come from the “other”.

Technology has done something remarkable, something that old parochial groupings aren’t built to do – expose the ingroup to the outgroup constantly, and reveal the relationship each has with the other. As soon as a culture draws a barrier, or border, cutting off something as an “other” or “a place you dare not go”, it initiates the quest – explorers will inevitably be drawn there. Pop culture is a direct response to the barrier between accepted culture and unacceptable culture, between your lifestyle and, now, your global neighbour. And today’s social media has made that environment incredibly dangerous and close while at the same time incredibly safe and distant.

The audience of mythology and religion created a relationship with the “other” through ritual, supervision and conflict. The “other” was near unreachable, and maybe even kept at bay. The audience of ideology and psychology created a relationship with the “other” through “rational” argument, national policies, medication, intervention or treatment (all the while keeping the past relationships intact). Today’s audience interacts with the “other” daily through technology, through relating. There might be food in your digestive system right now that was grown half-way around the world. And it’s possible to have a relationship with the farmers that grew it and the transporters that brought it to you too, right now, if you have their emails or if you friend them on facebook. Now wouldn’t that be cool?

We are so connected to this world now, moment to moment, that we cannot help but become conscious of how responsible we are to this world. This means we cannot afford to worry only about what comes in some hereafter. We aren’t just leaving the same ol’ small world to our neighbourhood children when we are gone. We are literally putting the whole world upon their shoulders. And it might fall apart as we hand it over. If we have any love for the next generation, we cannot simply prepare them for the next world after this one. We have to get our relationships right in this world now.

It means the entire world must be a home we no longer take for granted.

Media technology and current events ring within our senses like little bells, little reminders – “All this is happening now! Everyone in the world is living right now.” Constantly, we are given information about what other people are doing, what else is going on. And the response is “Should I be involved? How do I react to this?” Despite the legacy of meditations from the past that try to prepare us for the future, we are inundated with reminders of our need to live in the present, in this world.

Dude: You’re living in the &^%$ing past, man.
Walter: “Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax… You’re goddamn right I’m living in the &^%$ing past!”
~ The Big Lebowski

Andy Warhol once said,  “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes.”


Well… now what??


In the present, everyone is asking “Is this real? Is this how it should be?” And in the present, everyone will be asked to make sacrifices… for fifteen minutes… at least. Despite our overwhelming addictions to self-interest, self-absorption and self-preservation.

You can’t just simply be yourself and only yourself anymore. The world no longer works that way. You, on the individual level, will have to be the change.

The technique of the suspended judgment is the discovery of the twentieth century as the technique of the invention was the discovery of the nineteenth. ~ Marshall Mcluhan

And so what does that mean for us now?

The globally connected and extremely delicate world family is the discovery of the twenty-first century. We are irrevocably involved with, and responsible for, each other.

(And to see just how delicate and close and connected our relationships can be right now, please check out this story of a kidnapped B.C. child returned to his family by the abductor.)

What do you think?



The Empathic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin

February 16th, 2011   by   Andrew

Author

Something intriguing is going on when an economist writes a book making a case for the importance of empathy in our lives. Jeremy Rifkin teaches at the Wharton Business School in America and leads the Foundation for Economic Trends. He teaches CEOs how to be better CEOs and has over 15 books to his name, including The Empathic Civilization.

Now, to further explore my current theme of Dissemination, I have four options for you nudging readers. Compare what you know of Rifkin’s message if you:

1. Judge the book by its title. (instantaneous)

2. Read the book. (the effort of finding the book and going through the 600+ pages)

3. Watch this video. (about 10  minutes)

4. Read the book review below from a hack. (that’s me)



Technical Bits

The scope of this book is enormous. In just over 600 pages, Rifkin tracks the course of human progress by describing a kind of map for the changes in our consciousness, our energy consumption and our communication revolutions. We are currently at a point where the level of trust between individuals needs to be  so high that we require a system in place that will allow global consciousness to flourish, energy use to be less damaging, and access to information to be universal.

I’m a little jealous of this writer. He employed a phenomenal research team to compile, compress and check all the resources that were examined for this book (25 pages of tiny endnotes and a Bibliography boasting nearly 300 titles). But with the resources available to him, and the goal of explaining what we have all been doing here on planet Earth, he better be thorough in his work. I’m probably not qualified to evaluate the even-handedness or quality of the sources, but I would imagine some deep scrutiny would suggest there are opposing sources not suitably rebutted and rallying sources overused. Such is the nature of publishing…

Rifkin’s main point in this book is this:

At the very core of the human story is the paradoxical relationship between empathy and entropy. Throughout history new energy regimes have converged with new communication revolutions, creating ever more complex societies. More technologically advanced civilizations, in turn, have brought more diverse people together, heightened empathic sensitivity, and expanded human consciousness. But these increasingly more complicated milieus require more extensive energy use and speed us towards resource depletion.

The irony is that our growing empathic awareness has been made possible by an ever-greater consumption of the Earth’s energy and other resources, resulting in a dramatic deterioration of the health of the planet.

The book is separated into three parts, each with five chapters. There is a straightforward and concrete style to Rifkin’s writing. He isn’t trying to exaggerate his vocabulary or impress his reader with convoluted acrobatics. He wants the weight of the ideas to drive the message, I think. However, a lot of the sentences are long and strung together with many ‘and’s and ‘or’s. He puts lists and qualifications and histories together all in one thought. Maybe that’s the compromise that comes with his scope.

Part 1 is about rethinking what it means to be human, and Rifkin explores the different ideas that we have used through history to describe our ‘nature’. Also, he gives a detailed explanation of the history of psychology, showing  how the narrative within that one discipline has changed so radically. Rifkin drops Latin descriptions of human beings throughout these chapters as a kind of teasing theme. He goes from homo erectus (the upright small-brain creature, to homo homini lupus (the savage beast to his fellows), to homo ludens (the playful character-actor) to what Rifkin refers to as homo empathicus (the emotionally literate, sharing collaborator).

The following chart is my attempt to summarize Rifkin’s breakdown of history:

Energy

Communication

Consciousness

Photosynthesis / Animal Voice / oral traditions Mythological
Irrigational / Hydrological Written script Theological
Coal / Steam / Animal Team Labour Print / Mass Distribution Ideological
Fossil fuels Telecommunication / Electrical – Early Electronic Psychological
Decentralized / Renewable / Solar, Wind, Geothermal Sophisticated Electronic / Network Technologies Dramaturgical

He explains the relationships between the three as follows:

The convergence of energy and communications revolutions not only reconfigure society and social roles and relationships but also human consciousness itself. Communications revolutions change the temporal and spatial orientation of human beings and, by doing so, change the way the human brain comprehends reality. Oral cultures are steeped in mythological consciousness. Script cultures give rise to theological consciousness. Print cultures are accompanied by ideological consciousness, while early electricity cultures spawn psychological consciousness.

Each more sophisticated communication revolution brings together more diverse people in increasingly more expansive and dense social networks. By extending the central nervous system of each individual and the society as a whole, communications revolutions provide an ever more inclusive playing field for empathy to mature and consciousness to expand.

Rifkin is not trying to say there is some sort of ‘invisible hand’ at play here. Each of the listed types of consciousness, for example, can be found simultaneously in cultures throughout the world. He goes into great length on how the collapse of Rome created a long history of separate populations in Europe and stagnant technological growth. As well, very early on he discusses the importance of keeping in mind the universal law of entropy. What he is saying is that when the convergence happens, there is a shift in how we represent ourselves, how we understand ourselves, how much we come to trust others, and how we shape the direction of our ‘progress’.

Part 2 is about civilization. There are some brilliant micro-histories plotted out in this section — the shift from ‘we’ tribal identities to ‘I’ individual and citizen identities; the birth of recognizing individuals before the law instead of by familial ties; the history of relationships towards deities; slavery from Rome to Europe to America and its end; property and ownership from physical items to intellectual works; the introduction of privacy in personal lives; the birth of the chair in European furniture; the creation of childhood; how affection and romance entered and became an expectation in married life; the formation of nations and subsequent conscious construction of official languages for those nations; the rise of romance novels; the effects of radio and television on our consciousness, and more. And each time, Rifkin traces back to his main point, that our consumption of energy rises and our communication technologies become more sophisticated and our collective consciousness extends so that barriers between self and other and world dissolve and need re-interpretation. Rifkin also focuses on the writings of specific historical figures like St. Augustine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in order to illustrate the changing nature of consciousness and self-identity.

I had to wonder if Rifkin was having some fun in this section. At one point he makes mention of the “nature of human nature”. When discussing the changes in consciousness of the late 1800s, he says it was the artists of the period that had the biggest impact on changing the “perspective on perspective.” If I ever meet Jeremy Rifkin at a social function or informal gathering, I would be tempted to ask him for his opinion on why academics feel the need to generate abstractions of… well… abstractions.

Part 3 is about today and tomorrow. Rifkin uses his research team’s collected statistics in great mass in this section. A lot is known numerically about today, after all. These chapters are written with a balance of caution and possibility. He spends a lot of time discussing the Millennial Generation (the population growing up never knowing a world without the Internet), and how they seem to be caught in a curious dialectic. They are the most sharing-oriented, socially conscious,  and globally aware generation, while at the same time the most possession-driven, narcissistic, and self-consumed.

Rifkin seems to see these two directions playing out in the energy industries of the world as well. He uses his economics background in this section to describe just how much the world depends on fossil fuels, but his explanations come from the voice of a matter-of-fact teacher using general language and simple examples. He also mentions at length the emerging ‘intergrid’. Companies are using the Internet  as a model for energy production, decentralized distribution and collaborative, non-hierarchical management.

Commentary

Another one of Rifkin’s playful themes in the book can be seen in the derivations he finds for Descartes’ cogito ergo sum. This phrase is often translated as “I think therefore I am.” Thought, ergo some kind of existence. However, our psychological consciousness has brought us to a point where involvement becomes the key to our being. I participate, therefore I am. And in the present consciousness the individual expects rights of access and the free flow of information. The idea of embodied cognition and its growing application is important for Rifkin. With such interaction comes the idea that we change as much as we change the world also. I am involved, therefore I exist. Rifkin puts together philosophical tradition with psychological examination and emerging modern concepts over and over again in this book. And by doing so he paints a detailed picture of our very fluid, changing ‘natures’, but also our potential global direction.

In some ways, there is very little new in Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization. But, he does bring it together with a new vision. And he brings a lot of it together. But as we all should know by now, a 600-page cinder block of a book does not always disseminate well. The vision can get lost, the anchor can be brought up, and the message can become so distorted that it cannot help but to look inconsistent or self-refuting.

Full disclosure: Yea, I’m a convert. I’m very tempted to use this one book for the rest of the year and devote the blog to spreading Rifkin’s ideas. There are so many specific things in this book that I want to chew on, so many directions to move in, but the constraints of a blog post are too limiting (I’m already 800 words over my self-imposed guideline for post-length).

Usually, if I agree too much with what I’m being told, that’s a sign for me to look deeper, find something. I haven’t found that yet in this book, except for some worries about the level of trust that is needed to achieve such a brave, bright, new empathic world. The book is somewhat too focused on European and American history. This may suggest a blind spot in his information – Asia might not want to play a part in the empathic game he has laid out. But then again, Asia’s progress may still fit in terms of energy use, communication technologies, and the debut of dramaturgical consciousness. After all, it was Asia that gave us the gift of karaoke…

For all the build-up, the end of Rifkin’s book didn’t deliver complete satisfaction for me. I was left with the sense that maybe we could pull ourselves into some global balance and fight off the jabberwocky of entropy for a while longer, but the amount of change necessary is tremendous. He’s banking on the malleability of  human nature. As a result, this book is an amazing thought experiment on how we can be, how we can look at our history and what direction we can take. But that still leaves the door wide open for how we actually respond to living in the world.

I do want to trust everyone. I really really do. I want to believe in technology. I really do think it can save us, or at least make us aware enough to change. I do think understanding empathy is important and can heal the darker sides of our consciousness. The world Jeremy Rifkin sees possible is better than the world we have now, and the route he outlines might get us there.

But, I don’t know if we’re ready.



My New Religion

December 3rd, 2010   by   zippy

I’m trying out a new religion today.

What do you think?

 

It doesn’t really give me any authority. And sometimes it might make me vulnerable and powerless.

And it might take a lot of practice…