Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) : “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Since the beginning of its existence on this planet untold millennia past, life has been a dangerous proposition for all creatures. The big fish eating the little fish has been the model for most interactions between living entities. All living entities have been either predator and/or prey. Evolution needed to develop in each entity methods of recognizing danger and thus trying to ensure that it will be able to replicate itself through procreation. Each species of course has different means of recognizing danger in its environment and various diverse senses for doing so. The importance of these senses varies by species and sometimes varies infra-species. Its own hierarchy of life preserving senses and activities can change in a species as it evolves to meet each new environmental challenge.
As humanity evolved there is no doubt that there were variations in the relative importance of our five senses at different times in our evolutionary history. What many humans believe is our most important attribute is of course the collective of our senses known as intelligence and the ability to reason. We are the singular species of this planet that has developed incredibly complex means of communication leaving us as the seeming masters of our world. Nevertheless, most of what we know of reality is our personal constructs of information that our senses have perceived and then compressed into a usable conception of our world, which despite the breadth of any one individual’s intelligence, is merely an approximation of the whole. However, to continue existence each human must make certain choices based on their personal perception of their environment. Sometimes these choices are successful ad sometimes they are disastrous. Since the arc of human existence has presented an ever-widening range of information, we have learned to edit and approximate much in own personal constructs. An example of this is that behavioral science has determined that we develop pictures in our mind of particular individuals and in our subsequent encounters rely mainly on those original pictures. Anyone who has raised a child knows that it is hard to see them as they grow, as anything more than the infant they were. While it’s true our picture of the child changes with growth, the lasting overlay of impression is usually quite dated. This is at least my conception of human perception.
With this concept in mind let me bring this post to the America of today, illustrated as a microcosm of the difficulty humans have in living with each other. Our politics have become perhaps more polarized and deadlocked than at any point in our history. Many people respond to each new issue that crosses public consciousness based on their personal sense of correctness, informed by a long developed political belief system that structures the nature of their response. The deeper ingrained this belief that there is only one path to political truth, the more mechanical the response becomes, and the less capable becomes the individual’s ability to react to the information from its environment to save itself. Those species unable to evolve to meet each new challenge to their existence became extinct. As humans our evolution has become more than just meeting actual physical challenges, we have evolved to the point that we represent the greatest danger to ourselves. Human existence is now dependent upon collectively being able to comprehend the dangers we face. How can we understand these dangers if our only method of understanding them is filtered through an ideological certainty that categorizes them based rote methodology? This is my attempt to try to make sense of why our political scene today seems so irrationally skewed by the inability to collectively recognize and adapt to dangers.
Can we agree that the information revolution has presented all of us with a dilemma? We are not quite ready or able to absorb all the information about the world that is available and that most of us are bombarded with on a daily basis? All of us, even geniuses, have learned to develop constructs of our environment and of the opinions that inform us. To a greater or lesser degree this allows us to cope with our lives. These human constructs include, but are not limited to, philosophy, religion, politics and economics. Such is the daily assault of information that we perforce need to “pigeonhole” each bit of new data as passes into our consciousness, just so we can seemingly make sense of it. I readily admit to using this shortcut, do you? I’ve come to see though, that this process of fitting prior perceptions into current situations can lead to misunderstanding. Because of that I’ve tried in my life to be self critical of my actions and opinions. As I’ve aged wisdom has taught me how much even a person like me, egotistically awash in intellectual self-esteem, can be completely wrong in any given instance simply because I filter new situations through past perceptions. I believe this is a human trait. Because of that trait, to a greater or lesser degree, our conflicting perceptions handicap our ability to make this world livable for all of us humans. In my own case some here may remember that on numerous occasions I boldly stated I was convinced that Jeb Bush would be this years Republican Presidential Nominee. My wrong conclusion was based on a wealth of information on the Bush family that I’d absorbed, but which kept me from seeing current political reality.
In prehistoric times, in a world of incessant danger the emerging human species had to rely on reacting with quickness and certitude to escaping impending danger. This was true either in the role of being predator and/or prey. Those that equivocated were those whose genetic heritage was not passed on. We are bred to look for patterns of certainty, yet how much of anything in life is really certain? The basis of almost all religion/philosophy is the need to establish a sense of certainty about our lives. Without that certainty, for many of us given our genetic heritage, comes disorientation and fear. This is a fact I believe for all of us, but its primacy of need differs from human to human.
A common complaint of Fundamentalist Religion is that the world is changing too quickly to not only keep up with, but also that change is a downward arc towards human degeneracy. Yet this change and this danger can be mediated if only one would follow the path described by Yahweh, Jesus, Allah or perhaps The Buddha. With that belief firmly rooted those so inclined view all new experience filtered through their pre-conceptions of what life is all about. If you think about it in a political sense you see the same pattern professed by politicians and political partisan from all parts of the political spectrum.
Many Republicans, Conservatives and Right Wingers express their nostalgia for the ”Roaring 20’s”, “Golden 50’s” and/or “The Age of Reagan” as if somehow it was a better world back then. Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Left Wingers too view the world through their own lens of nostalgia as if the “Roosevelt Era” and the “60’s” were times of clarity. The fact is there are no times of “clarity”, no “Golden Era” and no “better” past to emulate nostalgically. We are here now and it is in this “now” that we need to operate. All of us are genetically hard-wired” to abhor uncertainty in our lives, though some can tolerate the anxiety of it better than others. Therefore we seek broad-ranged “certainty” to dull our anxiety and calm our fears. We all know that the main fear of being human is the certain knowledge of our own mortality, but perhaps peculiar to our species is also the fear of not being remembered, of having not contributed anything to life and of having no purpose.
So all of us strive to quell the fear of uncertainty in ourselves, to ameliorate the anxiety it causes us, to fit our preconceptions into each new situation. We develop philosophies; adhere to religions and view the world through the lens of our personal politics. Fritz Perls, the Founder of Gestalt Psychotherapy, in which I am trained and in the philosophy that I use to live my life, once stated: “I see my role as destroying people’s character”. What he meant was that in our interactions with the world each of us develops a rigid “character”. “Character” is our personal construct of how we wish other humans to see us. He believed and I also believe that the danger of “character” was that it limits human choices in dealing with our environment. “Character” is a construct that developed in tandem with and possibly as an assist to, the civilizing of humanity. It possibly is the reason why tragedy has plagued human history. In an uncertain world the “survivor” hopefully is able to react to each new situation of conflict, danger, excitement, and pleasure in terms of their current feelings/information and not based on past pre-conceptions/premises. An example of the possible dysfunction of character might be a man threatened by someone bigger and stronger, who has the ability to run away, yet whose “character” dictates that he must “man up” and face certain pain. Are there times when one must rely on the certainty of their moral/ethical compass? Absolutely, and to one’s death if need be. However, these “life or death” decisions would serve us better if they are a true response to a present situation, rather than a decision filtered through pre-conception. To make that life changing decision, we’d be better served if we viewed each potential threat and/or pleasure in the present, without pre-judgment?
We see today in the political arena the effect of this search for certainty. The deep divisions that exist between people all arise from the fact they so strongly cling to the “certainties” they adopt to stave off the anxiety of uncertainty. Humanity as a whole must learn to live with the uncertainty that life presents, encounter it in the present moment and in essence “be here now”. Until then the “certainties” that we adopt to keep “uncertainty” away, will keep us from evolving into a species at one with our existence and possibly sow the seeds of our species extinction.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Gene,
We must have been raised in the same household for “the only constant is change” was one of the main themes of discussion at the family dinner table. (You were probably sitting next to my brother in a time warp chair.)
Understanding history and a solid education in the culture of different religions and philosophies might help one in anticipating change and preparing for it but the uncertainty of life was always present and should be expected around every corner. This was not a presentation of fear … it was a presentation of practicality.
Gyges recommended a book to me awhile ago which I read. Buddhism in Thailand is most interesting in its acceptance of uncertainty and change. Mai Pen Rai (never mind) sums it up nicely.
There was a brain study done at Washington University Renard School about people with strong political affiliations. The very learned professor who orchestrated the study left with a great deal of disgust. He had tended to the subjects who were Barry Goldwater Republicans in 1964. He summed up the study of that brain wave group: Cant teach an idjit nuthin.
bettykath 1, May 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm
“Many people respond to each new issue that crosses public consciousness based on their personal sense of correctness, informed by a long developed political belief system that structures the nature of their response.”
And it may be that the specifics of their brains contribute to this.
….
I look forward to the results of additional studies. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the actual study. Hope it wasn’t a hoax.
===================================
One place I suggest that you watch, to satisfy your curiosity, is The Human Microbiome Congress, an entity compose of worldwide microbiologists.
Five decades ago, old school Darwinism began to crumble and the dictionaries began to get way too brown and dusty to be used anymore.
The revolution in science that is going to take place, will probably cause some shootouts in old book stores that harbor grandpa’s dictionaries.
Screw them.
Focus on the oldest life forms, the most prevalent life forms, the life forms that will be here if humanity destroys itself.
The microbes.
bettykath,
My bad! I thought I was linking to a different service. You can indeed get the entire report for free from the link above or this link takes you directly to a .pdf of the article.
bettykath,
No, it wasn’t a hoax. Here’s a link to the study. The abstract is free, but you have to pay to download the study proper.
“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults” by Ryota Kanai, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth and Geraint Rees
“Many people respond to each new issue that crosses public consciousness based on their personal sense of correctness, informed by a long developed political belief system that structures the nature of their response.”
And it may be that the specifics of their brains contribute to this.
While the following is about liberal v conservative, it may help in understanding why some people deal better with uncertainty than others.
It may help to explain why so many ultra-conservatives need to gain certainty by turning their uncertainties to their God.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cp-pva040511.php
[block quote]
Political views are reflected in brain structure
We all know that people at opposite ends of the political spectrum often really can’t see eye to eye. Now, a new report published online on April 7th in Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, reveals that those differences in political orientation are tied to differences in the very structures of our brains.
Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.
“Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual’s political orientation,” said Ryota Kanai of the University College London. “Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.”
Kanai said his study was prompted by reports from others showing greater anterior cingulate cortex response to conflicting information among liberals. “That was the first neuroscientific evidence for biological differences between liberals and conservatives,” he explained.
There had also been many prior psychological reports showing that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences. Kanai’s team suspected that such fundamental differences in personality might show up in the brain.
And, indeed, that’s exactly what they found. Kanai says they can’t yet say for sure which came first. It’s possible that brain structure isn’t set in early life, but rather can be shaped over time by our experiences. And, of course, some people have been known to change their views over the course of a lifetime.
It’s also true that our political persuasions can fall into many more categories than liberal and conservative. “In principle, our research method can be applied to find brain structure differences in political dimensions other than the simplistic left- versus right-wingers,” Kanai said. Perhaps differences in the brain explain why some people really have no interest in politics at all or why some people line up for Macs while others stick with their PCs. All of these tendencies may be related in interesting ways to the peculiarities of our personalities and in turn to the way our brains are put together.
Still, Kanai cautioned against taking the findings too far, citing many uncertainties about how the correlations they see come about.
“It’s very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions,” he said. “More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude.”
[end block quote]
I look forward to the results of additional studies. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the actual study. Hope it wasn’t a hoax.
Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm
A certainty in uncertainty is a statement of the universal and unavoidable nature of uncertainty, therefor, it is a recognition that uncertainty exists. A=A. Again, definitions of words have boundaries. Discrete objects and concepts must be defined before you can explore their relationships to one another. If words didn’t have discrete utility, there wouldn’t be so many of them required to describe the enormously large set that is the universe. You cannot define uncertainty without being certain of the meaning of the concept. You don’t really understand language. That’s how you get ridiculous conclusions like microbes practice science or religion. You don’t understand the boundary of words and the value of discrete concepts. That you have a reading comprehension problem is both evident and your problem, Dredd. You are easily confused. Again, you have lots of information. You just aren’t very good at processing it into any integrated knowledge that comports with understanding.
======================================
Mike S feels your need for certainty.
So do I, but he is the one who must translate grandpa’s dictionary for you.
A certainty in uncertainty is a statement of the universal and unavoidable nature of uncertainty, therefor, it is a recognition that uncertainty exists. A=A. Again, definitions of words have boundaries. Discrete objects and concepts must be defined before you can explore their relationships to one another. If words didn’t have discrete utility, there wouldn’t be so many of them required to describe the enormously large set that is the universe. You cannot define uncertainty without being certain of the meaning of the concept. You don’t really understand language. That’s how you get ridiculous conclusions like microbes practice science or religion. You don’t understand the boundary of words and the value of discrete concepts. That you have a reading comprehension problem is both evident and your problem, Dredd. You are easily confused. Again, you have lots of information. You just aren’t very good at processing it into any integrated knowledge that comports with understanding.
Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I never claimed to be blog savior, Dredd. If you think I am, that would be just another error in your thinking. As to defining uncertainty? Considering the abuse you pile upon the definitions of the words like “science” and “religion”
=======================================
Why don’t you just post a blog about it.
It would have the appearance of authority, giving you an advantage in this place of power surges.
You could surge ahead, onward, and upwards.
Think of all the badges you could then had out!
And you could indict me for abuse of definition, by quoting scientists of all things.
A scientist says “molecular machine”, Dredd quotes that scientist, so “Off With His Badge!”
Another scientist (a famous sociobiologist) says that microbes practice altruism, then Dredd quotes another source that says “altruism is a fundamental essence of religion”, so “Off With His Badge!”
C’mon Gene H, please blog about it.
It would be so officious.
I never claimed to be blog savior, Dredd. If you think I am, that would be just another error in your thinking. As to defining uncertainty? Considering the abuse you pile upon the definitions of the words like “science” and “religion” in your tortured effort to make Midicholorians real instead of something from a bad George Lucas movie, I think I’ll define uncertainty as:
uncertainty \-tən-tē\, n.,
1: the quality or state of being uncertain : doubt
2: something that is uncertain
and related,
uncertain \ˌən-ˈsər-tən\, adj.,
1: indefinite, indeterminate
2: not certain to occur : problematical
3: not reliable : untrustworthy
4a : not known beyond doubt : dubious b : not having certain knowledge : doubtful c : not clearly identified or defined
5: not constant : variable, fitful
I know. Grandpa’s dictionary again. Too bad for you words don’t mean what you want them to just because you want them to. You didn’t get the badge you wanted, but you did earn the “Can’t Understand the Dictionary or the Proper Meaning of Words Badge” some time ago. Nobody will ever be able to take that from you. Where you choose to stick it is your business but I suggest that your fascination with bodily orifices be limited to your own. For many reasons.
CLH 1, May 19, 2012 at 11:29 am
This seems to be to be a summation of the theory of social evolution
======================================================
They said:
Nevertheless, I have to say CLH, your version of the story did seem to be more certain, Certain, CERTAIN.
Gosh, one person’s “certainty” may be another person’s “uncertainty” it would seem.
Gosh II, I feel thirsty for some reason. 😉
Gene H,
…
Fear of uncertainty is a terrible thing.
=============================
If you say so.
You couldn’t define certainty if your life depended on it, unless you were with your homies.
You have been around here long enough to have let the illusion of certainty sink in such that you are the blog savior, the keeper of all that is sanctified.
Fine with me, just take the frigging “Taken Seriously” badge back (I did not ask for it in the first place, never heard of it in the second place, you can stick it you know where in the third place, yada yada yada), and please do not give me any more badges other than “Gene H can’t read this post badge, which I would appreciate.
Thank you, all of you.
Awwww. Did Dredd’s wittle feelin’s get hurt? If you want to be taken seriously, might I suggest that 1) you don’t pimp ridiculous ideas like microbes practice science and religion and then expect to considered a serious commentator on the nature of biology let alone science and 2) that you desist in trying to hijack this blog whenever you get the chance. I would also suggest this isn’t your blog nor are you a contributor like Mike is here, Dredd. I don’t care if you “comply with my dictates” or not. I am, however, going to point out your behavior of threadjacking when you engage in it but especially when the inherent topic is both interesting and relevant. The topic of this thread isn’t related to your pet subject just because someone said the word “Darwin” and got a Pavlovian response from you. You’re as bad as Larry when someone mentions Lincoln or the Civil War. Your introduction of it into the stream of conversation is a non-sequitur. If you don’t like that this was pointed out? Tough. Fear of uncertainty is a terrible thing.
Nal 1, May 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Mike:
I was convinced that Jeb Bush would be this years Republican Presidential Nominee.
Jeb knows better than to run against an incumbent. Next term should be better for him.
=====================================
I like it, Bush III.
It is like being prosecuted by the little bitch queen who always, upon the presentation of some imagined charges of wrong doing, “Off with their Head.”
Too damn funny!
Keep it up Gene H, all this yessah massah otherlyness is boring.
You da man!
Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Dredd,
I’m sorry, but you lost your “Taken Seriously” badge
==========================================
I wasn’t aware that you were passing out taken seriously badges for the chosen, and removing them from the excommunicated.
Are you a blog Priest, Bishop, Pope or what?
The high priest of spontaneous law, the spirit of Gene H, master of all truth on The Jonathan Turley Blog?
I would recommend some sort of format announcement, with or without trumpets, and a little graphic badge by your handle, which informs everyone that they must comply with your dictates, or suffer keyboard pounding from Approval Central, the G ene spot.
Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Dredd,
I’m sorry
================================
Who are you protecting?
“The Lure of Certainty is Fear of Uncertainty”
After having used lures of various sorts in the oceans and streams of Alaska, The Yukon, British Columbia, and lots of other places north and south, I know that “all lures are local”, if you know what I mean.
All blogs tend to be that way. I mean blogs are a stream of letters that flow by like lures, localize for your individual zoo and zookeepers.
That is why blogs have old timey bloggers, blood vowel bloggers, and the magnet-sponge schmoozers who Darwinianly evolve into a form of encounter group leader, gone all gangy, keyboard poundy, spanky, and even skanky all over the place.
Way cool to watch, like a piranha feeding frenzy.
If you do not support the blog law, which does not even exist until it is made up at any given time, you will bring down the uncertainty police whose fingers quiver just above the grimy, spit-pocked surface of keyboards that exit only for certainty reasons.
The sophistry of sophistication, the certainty of insecurity, the hilarity of illusion, all in one overly salted alphabet soup of “I have agreed with you more than any other alphabet stream.”
Cushy. Inane. Schmoozy. Banal.
Flashing badges like porn stars flashing lures.
Dredd,
I’m sorry, but you lost your “Taken Seriously” badge when you started claiming microbes practice science and religion. And if you don’t like people pointing to your persistent threadjacking? Stop doing it. You’re free to do it all you like, just so, I’m free to point it out all I like. If you don’t like that? Too bad. That free speech, she is a double edged sword. The solution rests with you. You want to swing the conversation to your pet subject ad nauseum? I want to talk about what Mike’s post was about: the fear of uncertainty. Would you like it if people came to your blog and persistently tried to change the subject of threads there to match their agenda while promoting themselves relentlessly? No. If you don’t like it when others call you out for doing exactly that on someone else’s blog, I suggest that’s your problem. But at least you’re consistent. So you got that going for you. Which is nice.
Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“There is ‘schmoozing’ and there is ‘blogging.’ The former is engendered by wanting to replace uncertainty with certainty, the subject Mike S blogged about.”
=============================
The schmoozing is self-evident self promotion, a building clans, and shameless self promotion of both.
With some religious fervor about who can post on what comment on what, in ad hoc fashion without even any mores.
Now what was that Emerson said about consistency again?