Conspiracy Theories: Opening up secrets or removing trust ... or a bit of both?

      I have a favorite bumper sticker. I haven’t seen it for a while, but it says:

“Just Because I’m Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get Me”

     A “conspiracy theory” is generally defined as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. A group of people conspire to make something happen. The group can be a political group, or an ethnic group, or even a family group (certain rich dynasties seem to attract conspiracy theories).

     Just as in the bumper sticker above, it is difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, there are usually “holes” in the chain of “evidence” that connects the group to the event. (That doesn’t matter to those who want to believe the theory.)

     These holes include circular reasoning (X happens because of Y, Y happens because of A, A happens because or X). They include lack of proof of presence (we don’t know where Ms. Q was at the time, perhaps they were at THIS location doing that). Motivation is often connected to pre-conceived notions as to character or beliefs about what they are trying to do in more general terms. Denials cannot be true because the denials come from “the guilty parties”.

     My personal feeling is that the most distinctive aspect of conspiracy theories is reverse reasoning. A person starts at the desired conclusion and the group that they want to tie to that conclusion and then start building “evidence” that connects the two. A good way of recognizing a conspiracy theory is that it usually only talks about the two end-points — the group/people and the event/conclusion. If pressed, some may be able to point to in-between logic which can then be examined. But most people passing along conspiracy theories don’t know of any (if any exists) “evidence” that the endpoints are connected.

     If conspiracies never happened then they could all be dismissed without evaluation. They sound crazy so they must be crazy. Back to the above bumper sticker. Conspiracies can happen and we have all heard something of the nature “it must be true, I could never make up something that crazy”. The aspect of being unbelievable makes them more believable simply because life is unpredictable and events happen that we could never explain.

     So, if a conspiracy theory MIGHT be true, why does it matter? Primarily because, most of the time, it is usually NOT true. As someone (among many) who tends to make up statistics when I don’t have anything solid at hand — I would say that 98% of conspiracy theories are not true. The exact number is likely to be wrong but it is certainly a high percentage. The reason this is so is due to the reverse logic — building up a “case” based on what we want. There are so many possible paths that can be taken, from the end to the supposed decision starting point, that having the entire logic chain being correct just fades away into unlikelihood.

     And believing when it isn’t true can cause a lot of damage. It can also cause violent action based on the incorrect assumptions. Since conspiracy theories tie specific groups or individuals to the conclusion, it can be very tempting for those who have chosen to believe them to follow the short-term approach of eliminating that group or individual.

     What about those few cases where it is true? Well, as the saying goes — “a broken clock is right twice a day”. If a conspiracy theory is true then the same conclusions and connections can be achieved via a more direct investigation.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What's Happened to Education?: Effects of Income Inequality

     By almost all measures, as an overall average, our children in the US are not emerging from the education system (public or private — but more so with public) as well prepared for the world as they were 40 years ago. This is true in most measurable areas — but especially true for the non-measurable areas. Education (public, private, home schooled, or self-schooled) should end up with people able to use knowledge, able to research knowledge, able to evaluate knowledge, and with a desire to continue to grow in knowledge and the ability to use it. For most, that’s not the case.

     Overall, people have not changed that much in their potentials. This is true for all humans no matter the gender, ethnic background, nationality, or other qualities. There is, of course, a range of abilities from not so capable to enormously capable. We have now also recognized that there are different types of intelligence and each type is most useful in particular situations. Often we emphasize intellectual (or academic) intelligence but other types of intelligence are often more important in the pursuit of happiness and “success”.

     Assuming (though not likely to be something upon which all agree) that this is true, what has happened? What has happened over the past 40 years to lend support to such a trend? There are many things that are possible causes — environmental contamination and change, educational methodologies, social support, and societal expectations, and on.

     I propose that one of the primary reasons for our faltering educational system is that of greatly increased income inequality.

From the Pew Research Center:

     Okay. These are the numbers, but what does it mean for the general populace in the US? It means that a much larger percentage of people in the US find it difficult to support themselves within our economic system. Note especially the widening gap between middle-income and upper income. Some specific outcomes, for lower and middle income people, are:

• People are spending a higher percentage of their income on rent or mortgages.
• People are having to tightly prioritize expenses.
• There is less of a cushion available in case of emergencies or fast changes in income (such as layoffs). 
• Parents are working more hours — sometimes more jobs — and spending less time with families.
• Due to lack of time and energy, parents are also interacting less, with teachers and schools, in a direct manner.
• In regards to education, one direct result of income inequality affects tax support of schools. Funding for schools is different for each state in the US but they all involve some combination of property tax, local taxes, state taxes, school levies, and federal support. Increases in taxes must be approved, directly or indirectly (through representatives). As budgets tighten, there is a desire to reduce taxes and expand classes.

     An example of the direct effects of the expansion of class sizes could be an example from my wife’s situation as a teacher within a much-too-numerous student class-size. During the last year that my wife taught 5th grade, she had 39 students in the class. Assuming six hours in the classroom (it varies from state to state and district to district), that allowed less than ten minutes to be spent with each individual child. Of course, that is not how classroom time is structured. Most of the time is allocated to the class as a whole and the amount of time, to be allocated among those 39 individual children, might not even be an hour (or less than two minutes apiece) and the majority of that time will be spent with children who have attention-seeking behaviors (usually via misbehaving).

    With less time available to get to know the teachers and the schools, parents are left with what is said by their children, and by other teachers and groups, to determine what is going on in the classroom. Not a surprise to the children but, somehow, a great surprise to the parents is that the children do not always tell the truth or take responsibility for their own behavior and actions. And other parents and groups are not always a good source of information as they may be responding to things said to them — with similar lack of direct interaction with the teachers and the schools.

     This lack of adequate awareness of what is really going on within the classroom can lead to an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers/schools. After spending a 60-hour workweek (40ish at school and another 20ish at home grading papers and preparing lesson plans), it is difficult for teachers to find time or energy to disentangle parents’ misbeliefs.

     Expanding upon the last three bullet items stated above, income inequality can directly lead to fewer resources to the schools, unworkable increases to class sizes (and a decrease in the amount of time available for the teacher to work with individual students), and lack of positive communication between the teachers and schools with the parents. Another large factor in educational performance is a shift in emphasis from qualitative experiences to a hyper-focus on quantitative experiences. I will expand on that in the next newsletter. Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

View and subscribe to newsletter

The Lure of Authoritarianism : A Comfortable Ignorance

 

     There are usually considered to be four parental "styles". These are authoritarian/disciplinarian, permissive/indulgent, uninvolved, and authoritative. These "parental" styles extend to leaders outside of the family -- government officials, religious authorities, social groups, also extended families that may affect hundreds of people. 

     The permissive/uninvolved types of authorities work only as a "figurehead" -- where the people who are being led must be autonomous and able to handle decisions and actions without assistance or leadership. This can happen within families, groups, or even countries. In most cases within larger groups of countries, there is actually a "shadow" government that operates behind the "curtain", and enacts policies, with the figurehead as a spokesperson. Of course, it is possible to have a dysfunctional family or group which has a "figurehead" without the people in the group having the capacity for being autonomous.

    Authoritarian and Authoritative sound very similar and they do both have "authority" in common. Someone leads, someone makes the final decision. However, the authoritarian is closed, or self-isolated -- they know everything, everything they believe is true, all actions are THE correct action, any deviations from THE correct way must be punished, all other people are wrong unless they support the leader's own directives, and so forth.

     Someone who is authoritative is open -- they get data from as many sources that they can, all actions, and decisions, can be evaluated and improved, deviations from expected behavior are evaluated, and punished if deemed necessary, but learned from and, potentially, expected behavior can be modified. The authoritative leader is usually considered to be the style that allows the most growth within the group that is led.

     Within a family, tribe, or an extended family, choice of leader is often based on tradition and the leadership/parental style is fixed within that individual. Beyond the family, leadership is determined in many different ways but, ultimately, is actively or passively chosen by the group that is being led. Within a monarchy or dictatorship, all four styles may be in effect depending on the ruler. Effectiveness, and popularity, of the ruler will depend on the leadership style and many factors outside of the leader's control -- weather, harvests, earthquakes, ...

     The time when there is a choice is when a country or group has a democracy -- direct or representative. It is during these times that the general political and economic environment makes a huge difference. Anger and fear are gifts to support an authoritarian leader. As Frank Herbert said in the novel "Dune" -- "Fear is the Mind Killer". People turn to authoritarian leaders to tell them what to do and what to think. It can be very comfortable as long as they don't start noticing consequences. Only (internally or externally, imposed) ignorance continues to support a destructive authoritarian leader.

     Emotions can easily overshadow thought. 

     Authoritarian leaders will often do things -- actions and words -- to make the electorate angry or fearful in order to increase support. They can gain acceptance in times of uncertainty and change which give initial fear and anger that can be manipulated. For example, the punitive restrictions on the German people following World War I gave fertile ground of which Adolf Hitler was able to take advantage.

     No matter where one turns, at present, there are drastically conflicting data and presented "facts". While it is true that many questions, or situations, do not have a single answer, the underlying reality can usually be determined. It requires serious research and staying out of the "data silo" that parrots only what each other says, and allows in only those concepts that are already believed.

The Foundations of History Tend to Shake: could the Holocaust fade away?

     The last of the surviving veterans of World War II are making their passage from this world. Also, the last of the survivors of the Holocaust. Together, this means that -- out of the many thousands of direct and indirect witnesses to the atrocities of the Holocaust -- very few remain and soon there will be none still alive.
     So, why does that make a difference? It is recorded in history and references are still taught and read. It happened, has been very well documented and proven, and is a tragedy from which we can learn for many years. Right?
     Alas, such is not necessarily the case. History is always in the process of being rewritten. Sometimes it is a result of more information coming to light -- excavations, first-hand documents, physical proofs and artifacts. Sometimes it is a matter of documents and artifacts being lost or deliberately destroyed or suppressed and then denied.
     At its best, history is a tiny slice of what has happened at a particular time. Choices are made as to what to include and what to omit.  History, or "His story", tends to focus on males throughout history -- such that women's accomplishments are forgotten, overlooked, or attributed to men associated with them. Histories are also "written by the winners" and the losers of wars and other confrontations often have their records destroyed or omitted -- certainly they are de-emphasized. Also, the history writers make choices from the materials available. Who, and what, is "important"? Do they talk about the war leader or do they talk about the woman organizing and leading the cooks to feed the army (or the family)? Is the life of the baker considered to be as important as the Duke? Do the details of the life of a peasant get equal emphasis to that of the local feudal lord? Even during peacetime, the accounts and records will be more in depth for those of the ruling segments.
     At its worst, history can become fantasies to support the current people in power. Perhaps out of shame, genocides, massacres, and evils done by humans to other humans (such as slavery) have a great tendency to be obscured or their realities warped. Some people try to "clean" history -- change the language used within books, change scenarios and such so that it meets present-day standards. That is also a method of falsifying history. A third category is to deliberately create fake documentation to support misinformation that the person, or group, would like to present as the truth.
     A very active and well-known Anti-Semite wrote a "scholarly" book concerning his anti-semitism. At first reading, it looks very well-researched, objective, and persuasive. It is not until the "references" are further checked that the fabrication becomes clear. The references are "circular references". The references are to people and their works who then refer back to the author or to other people to whom he references. In other words, the work supports itself by having a group of people wanting to present a falsified world view support, and "authenticate", each other. There is no connection to real world events or first-hand accounts. It is all a built up fantasy that SOUNDS like it has a basis in fact.
     So, with history's inherent limitations and vulnerability to falsification, how CAN valid history be protected? To quote Pilate, from the book of John, "What is truth?"
     There isn't an easy answer. History can never present the full truth -- it is inherently limited by access to, and choices from, data. Constant vigilance is needed to prevent deliberate, unsubstantiated, changes to history and acceptance of falsified data. The primary defense that exists is a solid educational background for the general citizenry -- to allow them to judge, to research, and to understand (such as going deeply enough to locate circular references).

Elections: Why does Money Matter?

  Originally published May 29, 2017

    In the United States, we have just finished a major election cycle but elections never actually end. There are "special elections" which are held to fill positions that are vacated -- whether from causes of illness or death or that of being shifted to another position, either elected or appointed. There are local elections and state elections and special issue elections. And, there is the continuous preparation for the next election cycle.

     During any of these, unless you are remarkably successful at making yourself invisible, you will be approached by one campaign or another (sometimes both sides, or multiple candidates) to make a donation. And, if you do make a donation, you may feel assured that you will be approached again ... and again ... and again. In the age of electronic distribution of information, this may well often take the form of social media postings and/or electronic mail. Always a crisis. If the polls are "up" then this is a time to solidify the lead. If the polls are "down" then it is desperate for more money to combat the positions of the other candidates or supporters or opposers of issues.

     Money, money, money. Why in the world does it matter? It certainly should NOT matter -- an election should not go to the highest bidder within a democracy. Yet, except in a relatively small portion of elections, the person/issue that spends the most money is likely to win. Why should this be so?

     To delve into that answer, we first need to remember that what we call a "democracy" is almost always actually a "representative democracy". In other words, we do not vote on bills, or articles of government (we sometimes do get to vote on issues or referendum) -- we vote for people whom we trust to represent us. These people are supposed to have similar views and opinions to the majority of the voters who elected them.

     This is not easy. Even in the 1800 United States Census, there were counted as being 5,308,483 people (including slaves) in the United States. With 106 Representatives, that means that each Representative, on average, was to present the points of view of 50,080 individual people. (Of course, not all of those 5,308,483 people could vote -- but they were still supposed to be represented.) There were sixteen states, so there were 32 Senators -- giving a ratio of an average of 165,890 people represented by each Senator.

     So, we see that, even in 1800, there were too many people per representative for the people to know them well. (This is also true about the Electors who were appointed or elected to represent the people at the Electoral College -- another potential blog.) So, how to know? (Note also that, at present, each Representative represents approximately 740,000 people and each Senator an average of 3.2 million people -- so the ratio has not improved over time.)

     There are two basic needs for someone to be considered appropriate to represent people. The first is clear, although not necessarily obvious, and that is that her, or his, name must be known and recognized for which to vote. The second is that there must be a perceived agreement of values and judgement such that this person would be whom we would choose.

     On the first area, the requirements of the present are similar to that of 1800. Their names are known because they are talked about. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were probably "household names" due to participation in the various needs of the drive for Independence. Later Presidents (and the opposing candidates) were not necessarily known from the American Revolution but they were known for various events (wars, other political matters, etc.) that appeared in newspapers, or the neighbors talking about someone who knew someone who knew them. The media spread their names and the neighbors spread the opinions and discussions.

     Within the present day, the media has become much more important -- including what is referred to as the social media. Unfortunately (in my opinion), full and frank discussion with neighbors is much less likely. These are methods of spreading the name.

     They are also methods for providing information about the candidates. Not necessarily truthful information but information. There are two general methods of getting information -- "push" and "pull". When people are being "push"ed information, they are receiving information from others who are interested in you receiving it. On the other hand, if you are "pull"ing information, you are in control of what information you want to receive and also you are in control of the sources. While it is completely possible that information that is "pull"ed from an information source is not accurate or truthful, there is control by the recipient both in the type of information and the various sources of information (and there should be multiple sources).

     OK. Now, what about money? Isn't that the core of this blog? Information is spread by the media. The media chooses to spread information because they think that people are inherently interested or because they are paid to do so. The first is called "free publicity" and every candidate attempts to get it (some are vastly more successful than others). Some, however, must be paid for -- bumper stickers, yard signs, lapel pins, and so forth. In addition, they may have either live (people -- sometimes paid and sometimes volunteer) or automated ('bot) banks of telephone lines to call people to pass the information they want to send. There are also events to which the candidates may travel to pass their words along "directly" to people. Note these are all "push" types of data transfer. And "push" rules the day in the case of elections. Sometimes, the amount of information becomes a bombardment with so many (often contradictory) items of information coming that the receiver just stops listening.

     What about "pull" information? Well, most candidates have campaign offices and campaign websites (presently -- none existed in 1800) and this lists the official positions of the candidates. However, like the "push" information, this is information that the candidates want you to have (truthful, not truthful, or in-between and misleading). In order to get information that the candidates do NOT want you to have, it is necessary to go on other websites and check other sources of information. When a claim is made, check that claim from multiple other sites. Check the government records for recorded votes on issues. Don't be particularly surprised if you find that the candidate's position on various issues differs from the way they vote.

     Is it surprising that most of the information spread by the candidate is of the "push" variety (only a limited amount of "pull" information publicly accessible to interested people)? Unfortunately, it should not be -- candidates want you to absorb (and believe) information that they want you to have. The only way that you can increase your chances of getting accurate information is to "pull" the information from many different sources. This takes time. This takes energy. And, most importantly, this takes an open mind -- which is often very difficult to maintain after all of the bombardments of the "push" information.

     So, in summary, most of the money goes for "push" information. The exact expenses include administrative, equipment, events, media, payroll, strategy & research, technology, travel, and others. The emphasis on "push" information means that they want you to base your decisions on the information that they give to you (including the information that their opposing candidates produce on them). It is not good to rely solely on "push" information but it is the reason that money makes such a huge difference -- the majority of people who vote rely mostly on this "push" information and money allows this to reach as many people as possible and as often as possible.

     If most people did their own research, then money needs would be limited to name recognition, "pull" sites for information, and a small amount of "push" money to allow people to see/hear/touch the candidate to make that closer feel. But "push" information rules -- and so does money.