Secret Ballots and Public Statements

One of the more interesting -- and valuable -- traditions in US democracy is the practice of the secret ballot. Now it is true that if you know me and read these words, you can probably guess with fair accuracy how I might vote on any given issue or candidate. Though I do hope to occasionally surprise people, it's probably still true if you read my posts without knowing me. So in that sense, one could argue that secret ballot is a fiction. If we pretty much know who will vote in what way, where's the point?

The conventional belief is that secret ballots prevent people from being coerced into voting a certain way. For instance, you could pay me to vote to support your cause, and I could take your money. Then I could vote against your cause anyway, and with a secret ballot you cannot know that. I don't want to argue that's unimportant or trivial -- it's not. But there's more.

When we try to change our habits and behaviors, one important tool we have is the strategy of precommitment. If I want to stop late-night snacking, it sure helps to leave the snacks at the corner store or lock the refrigerator after 9pm. I can still walk down to the store, or get the key and unlock the refrigerator, but I've put an impediment there.

We also use precommitment to condition our future behaviors in social and political ways. Declaring party allegiance disposes us to vote for or against issues that we truthfully are not especially interested in. Making public statements in support of a candidate or position might influence others, but it probably influences nobody more strongly than our future selves.

In this frame of reference, our social media posts are major foci of precommitment. And that is probably nowhere more true than in my posts this last month. We do face issues in this country. They are real and specific issues. But I chose to write about democracy, rationality, and compassion. Some of the specific problems facing our country make me raging, boiling-over, angry. And I am as susceptible to snap judgement as any other human being. You may know how I feel about every one of those hot-button issues. But here, by choosing what I say in a public forum, I am very much precommitting myself to put reason and sympathy first.

Old Basements

We live in media saturated times. For me, to think for myself means I need to remove myself from that noise and find some silence. This generally takes the form of long solitary walks where I reflect and question my beliefs and my arguments.

But sometimes I meet these wonderful people around me and I can't help but be moved to share some of our conversation.

This morning, I met the wife of a "bus friend" for the first time. We talked in part about religion. She said "before we moved here we were evangelical, and we have tried a few churches in the area." They have found Glastonbury Abbey particularly appealing because their services offer a lot of space for silence and reflection.

She said "We've had a lot of experiences in our lives and we want to keep moving forward. For instance, we're looking at retirement now and, we have a lot of stuff in our house we want to shed and get rid of. Frankly our basement and attic are full of things from our past. And some of it is starting to stink now."

"In that silence, we realize that our minds are not that different from our basement or attic."

Orthodoxy

It is not uncommon to deride people for being politically correct. In my experience, however, politically correctness contains two ideas - one of those is regulating language to establish an unchangeable orthodoxy, but the other is to speak in a way that does not cause others to feel slighted: common courtesy in other words. Those of us who still see value old-fashioned conservative values like being polite to others should be careful in entirely rejecting everything that is meant by choosing politically correct figures of speech.

We should, however, be scornful of orthodoxy. One such orthodoxy is the idea that PC culture is entirely evil. Certainly one can argue "I did not mean it that way" but when words leave our mouths, we lose some control over them. I know I am not the only one that feels politically correct speech is mostly a manifestation of courtesy toward others.

At the same time, it is clearly not only used to ensure respect. It is undoubtedly used to further orthodoxy too, and I decry that.

The popular wisdom holds this is primarily a problem for the left. I think that existence of the term RHINO (Republican in name only) is fairly convincing proof that the right has an orthodoxy that some chafe under as well. Still, though I'm not aware if compelling studies one way or another, it would not surprise me if it were shown the left today shows more tendency to push one or another "anointed" view. This is slippery ground, however, because it would be hard to account for differences in coverage by conventional media, amplification by social media, and differences in actual diversity of viewpoint (If there is little diversity of actual viewpoint, there is little need to coerce a unified stance, for instance). So it's complicated. Beyond asserting this is more a feature of humans than of the left or the right, there is just not enough space here.

The first amendment to the constitution is our critical hedge against unquestioned orthodoxy [1]. It ensures that ideas in the public forum can be examined. But it only provides the ground in which the true battle must be waged. "Unquestioned orthodoxy" is an outward view, and in a democracy we are better off without it. But as individuals, the true battle is for us to avoid "unquestioning acceptance of orthodoxy." This is a task I can only do for myself, and a task that only you can do for your self [2]. But it may be the critical task of any democratic society.

--

1)  We tend to see free speech as a constitutional guarantee. In his writing, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn develops the theme that it is only when all else is taken away from us that we are free. Thus, in common with thinkers on both the left and the right, free speech is always a freedom that must be asserted. Whether or not government condones it, speaking out against orthodoxy is always a difficult act of courage.

2) This internal/external duality seems vaguely reminiscent of the multiple senses of the word jihad, which as I understand it, can either be a physical and political battle against forces seen as hostile to the Muslim faith and peoples, or can be seen as an inner struggle against the flaws and temptations that keep an adherent from true submission to the will of Allah. (I am not Muslim, so I expect my understanding is far from perfect)

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

For a month now, I've been able to put one more or less complete thought to writing each day. This morning, after an hour and a half of work, I still cannot come to a chain of thought that does not threaten to digress into tangents that have no end.

It is no secret I am a fan of rationality. And while I do not argue that your personal choices can be made without recourse to reason, I do argue that reason must be at the core of democratic society. "I feel this more deeply that you feel that" or "I can yell louder than you" are not sound decision-making strategies.

So, in a bit of a cheat, today instead or writing, I am going to recommend a fun read for anyone who has read or seen the Harry Potter series. The book is a piece of fan-fiction called "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" originally written under the pen-name 'Less Wrong.'

In the story, Petunia married a biochemist, and Harry grew up reading science and science fiction. Then came the Hogwarts letter, and a world of intriguing new possibilities to exploit. And new friends, like Hermione Granger, and Professor McGonagall, and Professor Quirrell...

You can read on-line, find podcasts, or download for your favorite reader at hpmor.com -- Enjoy!

Dog Whistles: A Mea Culpa

I had hoped to include a reflection on dog-whistles in these musings, and it looks like today is the day. But not for the reasons I had hoped. I feel the need today to offer a mea culpa and a corrective.

According to Wictionary, a dog whistle is political allusion or comment that only a certain audience are intended to note and recognize the significance of. In the last sentence of my reflection yesterday I said "...I chose compassion, I side with love, and I believe rational conversation is a key ingredient..."

"Side with Love" is an interfaith public advocacy campaign promoting respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Under the name "Standing on the Side of Love," it emerged as a rallying point for people of faith in 2004 in Massachusetts during their early efforts for fully inclusive marriage. It's core issues of focus include, but are not limited to: LGBTQ equity, immigrant justice, and racial justice.

I should have been clear that "side with love" was a reference to a movement and organization, and I was not. I thought it was a cute homage and a nice rhetorical flourish. But a neutral observer would fairly say it was a coded message that could help cultivate sympathy among those who understood it, and slip past those who did not. Though I did not see it that as such when I wrote my conclusion yesterday, it is really is the very definition of a dog whistle.

There is a lot that is interesting there. Implicit in that definition is the idea that to one audience dog whistles are in a sense not really dog whistles. On a Unitarian-Unversalist forum, everyone would have known the meaning and it would not have been a coded message. But I am writing to a broader audience than just my church, and I should have caught that. Making that mistake opened my eyes to certain ambiguity in what constitutes a dog whistle, and a degree of sympathy for those who must speak at the same time to both broad and narrow audiences.

It seems to me it is no corrective to go back to yesterday's post and erase those words -- critical thinking requires honest self-assessment, and easily erasing the past makes such introspection less likely. Nor is it a corrective to to suggest I could not have known, or try to contend it was not a dog whistle for some. I think for me, the only corrective is to make the coded message explicit -- I have supported marriage equality since 2004 and I continue to support LBGTQ equity. I support racial justice here in the US and across the world. And I believe just treatment of human beings does not permit the gross inequality of opportunity we now see as the outcome of place of birth.

One of the great harms of dog whistles is that they allow ideas to float through our discourse without being subject to analysis. I hope I've made my beliefs explicit here, that I have demonstrated my commitment to honest discourse (as well demonstrating my own fallibility), and that I have regained a bit of your trust

Step Up, Step Back

Our church works to create what I think of as "Sacred Conversation Spaces." In these spaces, we practice listening deeply to one another and acknowledging each other's unique human experience. Most of these spaces start out with an explicit agreed-upon covenant, and often part of the covenant is to "Speak Up, then Step Back."

The idea is that we want everyone's voice to be present to the extent they are comfortable, and we do not want one person's passion or their comfort as a public speaker to outweigh thoughtful conversation or the voices of those who, for whatever reason, are not inclined to grab the soapbox.

Nearly a month ago I started writing these daily musings, and at that time I set for myself the rule that no matter how angry or frustrated I felt, I would strictly limit my voice. I would post no more that one personal reflection each day, and I would re-post no more than one other post that particularly moved me.

Limiting my output has definitely changed the way I write. It's a bit like that aphorism about "when you die, would you wish you spent more time at work?" -- if I have very limited space, I need to be choosy about what I say. If I write just one thing today, knowing it's an unpredictable world and there may be no tomorrow for me, do I want that one thing to offer hope or to offer pain? If I amplify one thing by re-posting, do I want to amplify anger or amplify compassion.

I'm sure I fail from time to time, but I hope in the last month I have shown that I chose compassion, I side with love*, and I believe rational conversation is a key ingredient in building those bonds of love and compassion that hold our society together.

--

* "Side with Love" is an interfaith public advocacy campaign promoting respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Its core issues of focus include, but are not limited to LGBTQ equity, immigrant justice, and racial justice.

Are Truth and Justice Isomorophic?

In "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", Robert Nozick argues:

A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means. The legitimate means of moving from one distribution to another are specified by the principle of justice in transfer. The legitimate first "moves" are specified by the principle of justice in acquisition. Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. The means of change specified by the principle of justice in transfer preserve justice. As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premises is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specified by the principle of justice in transfer are justice-preserving, and any situation actually arising from repeated transitions in accordance with the principle from a just situation is itself just.

When I read that, I kind of just pulled up short -- I do not think this line of analysis is fruitful, but Nozick's assertion just ran headlong into my understanding of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, particularly as described in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. If it is wrong, I think the reason has more to do with non-linear dynamics than incompleteness. But I just don't have the philosophical chops to get any further on my own.

I do feel it is an unproven assertion. Just saying that justice operations are exactly analogous to truth operations seems to skip over an essential part of the argument. Maybe the proof lies elsewhere? Maybe it is self-evidently true for some reason I do not see?

Dear reader, if you can help me resolve my lack of understanding, I'd be grateful.

Toward a More Skeptical Media

I want to talk about "Krystal and Saagar: NASCAR, police poisoning hoaxes show media MUST be more skeptical." It's worth watching. The main point is right here in the title - the media must be more skeptical.

They (correctly) point out confirmation bias. I would suggest that their characterization of Bubba Wallace shows that while they are aware of confirmation bias, they are not aware of the Fundamental Attribution Error. But that is another article.

What I want to focus on is the idea that the media should be more skeptical. I do agree. But only to a point. We do want that from our media sources. But even more than that we want a free press and a free market. In such conditions, if one media source eschews that enraging unconfirmed story, another will provide it if the market wants it.

Further, with the democratization of media we can all be publishers. I am doing it right now. But we do not all have the editorial boards and institutional norms that used (ideally at least) provide some checks against bias and inaccuracy. We are now our own editors. And again, the market rewards the sensational story that activates our emotional responses.

I have compared internet memes to viruses. They exploit our system 1 thinking to evade our cognitive defenses of critical thought, and reproduce at the expense our rational discourse. But this suggests another comparison -- these memes and these salacious stories are like addictive drugs:

• They create biochemical rewards in our brains
• These biochemical rewards cause us to seek more, typically in larger and larger doses
• Any "War on Memes" akin to a "War on Drugs" will fail if it only looks at reducing supply
• To be successful, a "War on Memes" needs to look at our own addictive behaviors and reduce demand.

This is your brain. This is your brain on memes. Any questions?

Two Views of Human Nature

I have come to believe that there are only two ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution that really matter. All the rest are really implementation details.

The essential core of Declaration of Independence is the claim that we are all endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, as individuals, there is something sacred in our nature.

The constitution builds on that premise. It is holds that rights originate in the people and are given to the state and the nation. But the unique genius of the constitution is that is asserts that no human being, and no human institution, is without flaws.

These are nearly opposite views of human nature. On the one hand we are said to have a divine spark, on the other we are said to be intrinsically corruptible and fallible. Both at the same time.

All the rest of the constitution and the amendments are just ways to ensure these two contradictory conceptions of humanity are resolved.

It struck me while walking this morning that some might say those two statements are the fundamental lessons of the Christian bible -- we are all flawed and we are all divine. Having been recent witnesses to the strife different personal conceptions of God creates, the founders set about to create a response to those two truths that was secular in practice.

In our personal relations with others, we tend to see our own divinity and the flaws of others. This is the "fundamental attribution error" where we see all the nuances of our own motivations in considering our behavior, but hold others to a standard that is not based on -- or does not even allow -- understanding their mitigating circumstances.

How might we treat one another if we always remembered we are fallible? How might we treat others if we always remembered they also embody something sacred?

A Hard Practice

In a conversation yesterday, a friend recalled a pretty intense argument we once had (this would have been about 35 years ago). I straight up admit that back then I almost certainly would have dug my heels in and argued with everything I had -- that I would have had to be sure I "won."

I know there are still situations that get my back up and make me defensive, but I also feel that I've been lucky enough to have some experiences that have helped me learn to listen and accept criticism better than I once did. One of them is the practice of working on a modern software development team.

Part of releasing code involves peer review. In practice, what this means is more or less every day I am actively seeking out people to find the places where my logic fails, where I have missed a possibility, and where I am flat out wrong. And more or less every day my co-workers ask the same of me.

It doesn't take long to start learning a bit of humility.

Still, when I've worked for a day or more on a problem, it's pretty easy to get attached to my solution. So language matters. Conversation has to be crafted to attack to problem, not the person. Comments need to be as informative as possible, built to probe and explain. The person seeking the feedback needs to seek to understand the concerns, not refute them.

It's a hard practice. But a good one.

Ask Yourself...

When is the last time you tried to change someone else's beliefs with an argument or social media post? When is the last time you read someone else's social media post with the hope that they might change your mind?

(A hint...the second should generally be more recent than the first)

When did you last admit you were wrong or tell someone they had a good counter to your general beliefs? Or thank them for changing your mind?

If your goal is only to persuade or be made to feel better by having your beliefs confirmed, are you truly treating the people in your life as individuals with a divine spark in them?

If you treat other people's minds or bodies as objects of conquest, are you not committing a grievous sin?

Using Memes to Sell Reason?

I recently posted a link to a podcast by Sam Harris that caught my attention -- "Can We Pull Back from the Brink". Though he reaches some conclusions I don't agree with, I am a committed fan of his basic stance that the best tools for improving our world better revolve around rational, fact-based discourse. It is well worth the time to listen to him. He has his detractors of all political stripes -- but he also appeals to calmer rational voice across the spectrum. That alone counts for a lot in my reckoning.

A few days after I first listened to the blog I went back to get a link and found a presumably well-meaning listener, apparently sympathetic to the same ideals, had posted a meme -- one of the more compelling quotes alongside a photo of Sam Harris staring directly at the reader.

Now, I get that we all want to sell our points of view. But I think that in this case the medium truly is the message. We know that people respond to eyes and faces in a way that bypasses our type 2 thinking processes. So to use to these kinds of marketing tactics to sell the idea that people should use skepticism and reason to avoid being manipulated...well, it rubs me the wrong way, even when it's promoting a point of view I agree with.

Notice the Plank

It's easy to tell others "before criticizing the mote in your neighbor's eye, remove the plank from your own." It's harder to do ourselves. In fact, in my experience "plank" seems like like the perfect metaphor because this New Testament aphorism is so easily used as a sort of verbal bludgeon to shut someone else up. And I'm sure I've been guilty myself.

Though the exhortation is clear, the strategy to live that way is less so. Living a godly life and loving one's neighbor are great goals. But, for me at least, they are not the tools that move me closer day by day. For those tools, I draw on the ideas in Buddhist meditation practice. In meditation we seek to silence the "monkey mind" that takes over our inner self when we sit in silence. It's not easy. I'm not sure I've ever done it. But the standard direction on getting there is something to the effect of "if your mind drifts, notice that and gently bring your attention back to the present moment."

Take a moment and re-read that last sentence if you will.

It seems to me, some of the current conversation about race, privilege, opportunity, and justice in the US can be seen as a national call to this sort of meditation. We are being asked to focus for a sustained period of time on the feelings of injustice and alienation felt by segments of our society. And we are tempted to feed our monkey minds. We are tempted to rage and scream and rally the troops to our side.

That is not the meditation we need. Gently invite your mind to back to the present moment. Extend a sympathetic thought to those who share this nation and this world with you. If you read a post that you disagree with, notice any anger you might feel. Give yourself permission to have those feelings, then set them aside.

Later, you can decide if you really must respond. Later you can think about how to respond in a way that brings more love, more peace, more justice to the world. In that one instant, read the post, notice your anger. Then return to the moment at hand and the great gift you have be given - to share a connection with another person.

This, to me, is the grievous harm of too much re-posting. I write this and I read your comments with the hope of making a connection with you, my friends, as individuals. Not to Kevin Bacon or whoever else six degrees away wrote the post. Of course, as a way to share news, re-posting makes perfect sense. And I will allow myself one public re-post per day. But as a way to amplify our anger and outrage, it is toxic to our souls and to our democracy.

Martian Magnetoshpere

Friday night I watched The Biggest Little Farm. It really was a wonderful film, filled with tender little scenes and a powerful vision of ways to build a more resilient agricultural base for our country and the world. It's not a spoiler to say that film is about a couple who set about to create a sustainable farm by building up a vibrant ecosystem on a failed 200-acre farm in the California hills north of LA. The place starts out as a dust bowl. Essentially, they are terraforming the earth.

Well, that phrase "terraforming the earth" came to me later. It struck me as interesting and stayed with me. At the same time that we have used energy from fossil fuels and synthetic fertilizers to feed billions, we have also created deserts and fantastically fragile monocultures. The fact is that, as a species, we're pretty horrible at terraforming earth and the idea we could terraform another planet like mars seems, well, just far-fetched.

So let's think about it! It'll be fun!

At this point, it seems to be true that mars once had an atmosphere and oceans. When the martian geodynamo weakened, its magnetic field collapsed and the air and water were essentially stripped away by the solar wind. (e.g., It's Official: NASA Announces Mars' Atmosphere Was Stripped Away by Solar Winds). So I'm thinking small-scale greenhouses are a really sketchy premise for an effort to colonize another planet. To settle mars, we'd have to re-establish that planetary magnetic field. Of course, there are a few obvious ways to do that.

• We could somehow inject more iron and radionuclides into the core of the planet to heat it up. Seems hard.
• We could gradually haul asteroids to the planet until it's mass increased enough to undergo something like earth's iron catastrophe. Might take millions of years and and we would not be able to have any settlements there until after it happened. But somehow still seems more practical than some giant space needle injecting uranium into the core.
• We could lay a network of wires on the surface of the planet and use a combination of nuclear and solar energy to create a magnetic field that acts like earth's does for us. Okay -- that actually sounds remotely plausible. This is where I was going to stop. That would be cool. I can totally imagine that.

Humans are generally subject to a pattern of thought called "satisficing." Once we have an idea that is acceptable, it becomes a lot harder to question the idea or to seek better alternatives. I'm no exception in that vulnerability. I thought I had a reasonably clever solution that might be hard but actually possible.

I went to get a link on how the ancient martian magnetic field stabilized its atmosphere and found this: NASA proposes a magnetic shield to protect Mars' atmosphere. In short, this is a proposal to provide a magnetic shield by parking a magnetic dipole shield at the Mars L1 Lagrange Point.

Okay. Mind blown. That is amazing.

Honest Debate

As the author in a written space like this I frame the argument, and in some ways that is unfair. Of course, comments and replies provide a measure of interaction, but it is still basically asymmetric.

Debate and discussion do not share that asymmetry, but still we often focus on being sure we are heard -- we too often try to change someone else's thinking. It is not a remarkably subtle observation, but people usually don't like to be told that the things they think are true might be incorrect.

In the most productive debates I've been part of I've been able to adopt the stance that I am completely willing to have my mind changed. That position creates an honest conversation -- where there is no ego, and all that matters is increasing wisdom. The key to good debate and to conversations that spur discovery is to create the psychological safety that minimizes ego, and to set aside the desire to be right.

People are great BS detectors. Pretending to be open to a new opinion is not enough. But what I have found is if I am open to change, the people I talk with are more likely to be, if only because of a general human tendency to mirroring. So yes, if I am truly open to change it is more likely my position will shift. But it is also more likely my conversational partner's position will shift.

Put another way, if you and I sit down to mull over or hash out a topic, I have no reason to believe it is more likely I am right than you are. My goal is for both of our views to converge on a useful, shared truth to the extent that's possible. I'm not keeping score of who had to move the most to get there. I'm only trying to model the attitudes that seem most likely to allow us to get to that shared perspective.

The struggle is to be willing to listen to others and be teachable -- to remember that I am not always right, and that there is always more to learn.

Be willing to listen to others and be teachable. You’re not right about everything… nobody is. Read more at: https://dailyinspirationalquotes.in

Be willing to listen to others and be teachable. You’re not right about everything… nobody is. Read more at: https://dailyinspirationalquotes.in

Freedom Day

On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass delivered his speech "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” to a gathering of 500-600 abolitionists in Rochester, N.Y. In part; he said:

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?...

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions!...

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.

It was nearly 13 years later that Gen. Gordon Granger arrived with Union soldiers in Galveston, Texas, and announced to enslaved Africans Americans that the Civil War had ended and they were free.

On this day we celebrate "Juneteenth" or "Freedom Day" -- the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. There is no day more fitting to rededicate ourselves to the ideals of equality, and to fully realize the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Does the media really not want you to see this?

Today I want to talk about the irony and deceit of a social media post that proclaims "the media doesn't want you to see this." This assertion serves to provoke an emotional response -- both in supporters and opponents. That emotional response drives page views and makes money for the media. The media very much wants you to see it. It is a self-falsifying claim.

The media's interest in such claims lies not in the truth or falsehood of their payload. It lies only in the cycle of emotion that provokes addictive engagement with social media and drives people to outrage-fueling news sources. The actual message matters little, and the truth of the message has little to do with the passions that drive its propagation.

Like viruses, these memetic packets of communication exploit the replication power of their hosts to make more copies of themselves. It does not matter whether we survive the encounter as long as we launch more copies into the world. If our mental machinery is rendered inoperable, we have still served the function of disease vector. Even worse, when we surrender to uncritical propagation of other these viral ideas we typically leave our minds perfectly capable of transmitting more dangerous mental infections, but less capable of evaluating or blocking them. Replication remains intact, but our immune system becomes more and more suppressed. And we create an ecosystem where other related mental parasites thrive.

Like viruses, spread of these metal pathogens depends on exposure, immune response, and replication rate. We should seek to bolster our immune response by practicing critical thinking and rational skepticism whenever we can. We should strive consciously to avoid spreading infectious ideas, like those that rely on tribalism for their power and appeal. Some people chose to limit their exposure by remaining silent or avoiding social media altogether. While effective, to me that seems akin to saying "that city is suffering from the plague; I have a vaccine but I would prefer to withhold it and watch to see if anyone survives."

The vaccine is rational, compassionate conversation. I am making as many doses as I can. I invite you to join me.

Principle of Charity

In debate, the "Principle of Charity" asserts that we must consider arguments in their most positive light. It is not fair or reasonable to reject a point because you can pick at a poor phrasing or an inconsequential exception to throw shade on an idea. This may seem a genteel relic of a more rule-bound or hierarchical society, but I'm going to argue that it goes much deeper than that. It is not only vital to discourse, but to sophisticated thought itself.

A couple of weeks ago, I resolved to think deeply each day about the challenges facing our country. So each day I walk and think. In less volatile times I might have thought mostly about a technical problem facing me at work. These days I think about civil liberties, democracy, and constitutional rights. What I have noticed in these periods of reflection is that none of the problems that concern me stand alone. They are all intertwined and few ideas can be expressed atomically. Even in my own internal dialog, I am nearly paralyzed by the constant weighing of exceptions, examples, counterexamples, and ways in which an idea is part of a system with complex interactions among its parts.

We cannot think about racism without thinking about power. We cannot think about power without thinking about money. We cannot think about money without thinking about economic vitality. We cannot think about economic vitality without thinking about creativity. By now we are no longer thinking about racism.

Of course, we need to keep tabs on peripheral arguments to come back and see in what ways they might matter. But when I allow an argument to be fully presented, I often find that the little voices of objection that rise up are really the desperate protests of my preconceptions that do not want to be upset. I am seeking to be challenged and to be made uncomfortable by ideas that are new to me. That requires lowering my defenses enough to examine them, and adopting or rejecting them based on the deeper consideration enabled by what in some sense amounts to a temporary willing suspension of disbelief.

This Principle of Charity is necessary even for the simple act of framing a complete thought to be discussed. Without the discipline of giving each other the benefit of the doubt, almost any idea that has depth and value can be hijacked and diverted by the most specious of asides. Without the Principle of Charity, our common effort simply cannot be brought to bear on the problems we face.

Mocking Disability Is Never Good

At West Point this past weekend, president Trump showed signs of age (the horrors!) This is a reduction in function to which nearly all of us aspire. From the point of view of the ADA, advanced age is a disability. From the point of view of equal opportunity, ageism is a discriminatory act.

When then-candidate Trump mocked a reporter with arthrogryposis, I think it was correct to point out that we should expect more from a presidential candidate. I can't get into Trump's head, but whatever his intent I think it is clear his actions had the effect of mockery. And none of the denials I've seen hold water or speak well of the candidate.

In my opinion, the same holds true for analysis or commentary on the speech at West Point. The ramp clearly did not meet ADA standards. It was way too steep to comply with ADA (it is also possible for an incline to be too long to comply with the ADA, and both at the same time, but I do not think the ramp was 30 feet long, so it was probably only too steep.)

What I saw was an illustration that we should look beyond the surface of people to their substance. And I saw an illustration that we should redouble our efforts to make all public buildings not only fully accessible, but fully accessible with dignity. Whether due to age or injury, most of us will benefit from these affordances at some point in our lives. Accessible design benefits us all.

None of the jabs and comedy bits at Trump's expense are a vast left-wing conspiracy to subvert democracy - they are just tribal human beings doing their tribal thing. So I see nothing here that should cause Trump supporters to get up in arms about the press. By the same token, this is just about ageism and accessibility, so trying to switch topic to any other faults Trump may have is just "whataboutism." It is not a fair or valid argument. If you wish to comment, please reflect on the above points before making an inflammatory reply.

During the campaign, we were reminded we could expect more from a candidate. Let's remind ourselves now that we can also expect more from each other.

Democracy as Dialog

As a system of values, I think it is reasonable to suggest that democracies can be measured by the degree to which they represent the will of the governed. They must also be able to respond to events in the world in a manner that is timely enough to protect the body politic, but that is an issue I'll discuss some other time.

The minimum standard for a functioning democracy has to include a fair means of deciding who gets to vote. In the US, we have adopted the stance that after the age of majority suffrage should be universal, with some exception for those who by virtue of criminal acts have been deemed to have separated themselves from the body politic. Another minimum standard is protection of the minority. If the losers of an election are executed afterward, it is not democratic.

It is my sense however, that these minimum standards are not the essence of democracy. In my view, the essence of democracy lies in the ability to harness diversity of thought to provide better, clearer, and more innovative decision making than individuals on their own can. This is the source of "American inventiveness." It does not lie in some genetic extra we have in the US that others don't. It does not lie in western European ancestry. It lies in creating a forum where ideas can be put forward to contest with one another, to sort them out according to correctness and suitability to circumstance, and often to imagine unique and creative opportunities that (at least initially) only a few see in those juxtapositions.

If there is truth in my assertion, then how we protect freedom of the press, free speech, and the freedom of peaceful assembly matter critically to or democracy. But they are minimums. If we truly want to have the advantages of a free commerce of ideas, we must pay the price for that commerce. We need to listen to one another. We need hear what our fellow citizens have to say and then we need to let let them know we have heard them. We need to include the powerful and the dis-empowered. We need to create spaces where conversation can happen, and we need to nurture that conversation.

That national dialog is the heart of our democracy. Voting rights and first amendment protections, as important as they are, are only the mechanisms by which we protect that conversation which is our democracy.