Seven Question Exercise

I came upon two pieces of input, within the same hour, recently. They seem unrelated. But I went ahead and related them, as an exercise. And I’ve been thinking about this exercise since. Maybe it can be instructive.

image from here

The second thing I came upon was this short little self-help piece: “To Get to the Bottom of Any Problem, Simply Ask ‘Why?’"  It suggests asking why, and then why that, and then why that, and so on seven times. And when you reach the bottom, it should be something for which you can let go of the negative emotion.

As I read it, I was upset/angry about a post about “concentration camps” on the border. I had given Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not much more than an eyeroll over that stupid comment—or her follow-up defense and doubling down. She is not worth my time. But the comment was from a young relative, and it was aimed at the enemy—me and anyone who doesn’t agree to let any and all comers into our country. Here’s the beginning statement (following a personal intro I’ve left off for privacy):

The US is holding children in concentration camps. This could all be changed with a policy change by Trump. He is the one that started all this. This is so immoral and wrong and just pure evil. Call your reps. Vote democrat. Join protests. These innocent children should not be rotting away in squalor. This will cause permanent trauma to them.

In short, she has bought into AOC’s terminology. She—and a number of others in the thread—think that if you even point out the misuse of the term and its implication that we are evil Nazis, then we’re just arguing semantics rather than addressing the problem.

So much on Facebook I simply scroll past. Engaging in politics on a social media site is not what I typically do. But son Political Sphere had responded, which he rarely does either, and he sounded reasonable. So I responded too. I pointed out that separation of families while waiting for hearings is a continuation of Obama’s policies. (I didn’t say this, but Glenn Beck was trying to raise awareness of it way back then, because it was worse in some ways then.) I also said the people were free to leave, or not come when they knew they would be detained at the border and risk separation.

She responded to that—illogically. They can’t leave, she says, because they’re separated from their children. Wrong. All they have to do is get an official, say, “I’ve changed my mind; I don’t want asylum after all. I want to return home.” They might even be given transportation home. It might take a matter of days to retrieve a child from foster care, or from sponsoring relatives. But to imply that the US is purposely splitting up families and trying to keep them apart forever is a despicable lie.

I used the word “despicable.”

And then I found that piece about the seven why questions. So I did the exercise. It helped, until the next day when the attack started through Facebook Messenger, more privately. And on totally unrelated but very liberal topics. I have not answered there yet; I’ve been having vacation days with a granddaughter this week. But Political Sphere is handling that in logical, lawyerly fashion, and may prevent permanent extended family ruptures thereby.

Anyway, in case it helps, here is the exercise, which got harder toward the end. I may not have nailed down the right answers, if there are right answers.

Why am I upset/angry about her post about concentration camps on the border?

1.       Because it’s a gross distortion of reality and an attack on people like me personally as inhumane.

Why am I upset/angry about a gross distortion of reality and personal attack on people like me as inhumane?

2.       Because the distortion and name-calling do nothing to solve the problem, but do cause more division among people.

Why am I upset/angry that the distortion and name-calling do nothing to solve the problem, but do cause more division among people.

3.       Because I actually do have humane feelings for the people suffering at the border and would like to see the situation improve, but the division among people is in the way of any solution.

Why am I upset/angry that the situation doesn’t improve and division is in the way of any solution?

4.       Because those are two wrongs being caused by the accusers who are blaming people like me, whereas people like me could make things right if it weren’t for the interference on top of the accusations.

Why am I upset/angry about the wrongful accusations from people who are actually preventing things from being made right?

5.       Because, under these circumstances, I don’t know how to fix either the situation or defend against the accusations.

Why am I upset/angry that I don’t know how to fix either the situation or defend against the accusations?

6.       Because that makes me feel both frustrated and hurt, and powerless to do actual good.

Why am I upset/angry that I am both frustrated and hurt while feeling powerless to do actual good?

7.       Because I’m not well adapted to a fallen world. But I need to learn better how to be resilient against it, since there’s so much of our world in that fallen state.

Later today, I responded to more replies in the thread directed at me, following stories about how bad things are at the border. I repeated, again, that we need better facilities for this huge influx that we did not cause or invite, but that Nancy Pelosi’s Congress has turned down funding for that specific purpose. It appears the Democrats prefer to have the issue than to actually deal with it.

I added a couple of links. One was this piece about the high number of children not genetically matched to those claiming to be their parents. Unnamed female relative says she’d rather risk them being sent to “fake” sponsors than to have to sleep without a bed in those “concentration camps” that are a “crime against humanity.” I let her know that risking sending children into child sex trafficking looks to me more despicable than risking their temporary discomfort until we can get them better facilities.

Border patrol agents in West Texas doing DNA testing on immigrant with children.
Image from CBP West Texas, found here

Another is a piece from November 2018, from a woman living in Honduras, commenting on the caravans, how they’re being recruited, and what the people are actually leaving, which means they likely do not qualify for asylum: “I’m a US Citizen Living in Honduras. Here’s What I Think About the Caravan.” 

Caravan from Honduras, November 2018
AP Photo by Oscar Rivera, found here

A third piece I shared I’ll repeat here, because I’m not sure how to link to a particular Quora answer. This was answered by Joe Flynn on June 17, 2019. The original question was, “If ALL people are endowed with inalienable rights as we claim, how is it constitutionally legal to treat those seeking happiness and refuge in the US as criminals?”

Here’s the major portion of his answer:

A man is living in a house down the street from you. He’s found that he has a rat infestation in his home and that there is also toxic mold growing in his walls. He feels he can no longer live in those conditions but knows of a place, just a bit more than a block away, where there’s a house that is well kept, clean, and with four bedrooms and only one kid, has plenty of room available.

That night, the man visits that house, breaks a rear bedroom window, and enters the house. He now makes the statement that his house in unlivable and that if he returns to his house, he is subject to getting sick because of the rats and mold.

He claims that since he’s now actually in “your” house, he has the right to remain until there is a court hearing to determine whether he will be permitted to stay or leave. Unfortunately, the courts are backlogged and that hearing won’t be for another 18 months.

And, under the basis of your question, since he has gained access to your house (legally or illegally), he now has the right to stay there.

In the meantime, while half your neighbors think you have the right to throw the guy out, the other half believe that the man has a valid right to remain in your home because of he’s a “human being” deserving of a better life. Of course, they aren’t willing to give you any funding to help feed or clothe him but they ARE willing to vote in the homeowners association to require that all homeowners who have a nice, clean, mold and rat free homes be mandated an extra association fee to pay for him to remain in your home.

And, of course, the Homeowners Association has pass a requirement that says that homeowners are not permitted to cooperate with the local police in the event of a break-in IF that break-in is simply an effort to find a better place to live.

You OK with that guy living in your house?

Bottom line ….. your and my freedoms start and end with other people. We have an absolute right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T CREATE AN IMPOSITION or interfere with OTHER people’s same rights. Those impositions are determined, in the law, by Congress, signed by the President, and interpreted as legal by the Supreme Court.

The emotionally motivated enemy of truth and justice is claiming we Americans are immoral for having boundaries such as are protected by every nation in the world. The border is a moral issue. But not the way they’re framing it.

I don’t have a high tolerance for being called a Nazi war criminal by someone gladly willing to risk sending children into sex trafficking, and maybe especially when I have known and cared about that accuser since she was born. I’m still upset/angry. I may have to ask yet another seven questions. And stay away from social media for a while.

Real Caring Requires Thinking More than Feeling

Caring looks different sometimes from what we immediately think it should look like. That will be true when we look at many issues, for example:

·         Economic inequity

·         Borders

·         Gender dysphoria

·         Healthcare

·         Affirmative action

There’s a way of looking at these and other issues that is the quick gut version of caring. And then there’s a way of looking at the same things, with a little further thinking, to see whether the quick gut version will really help. Because, if it doesn’t, then real caring requires something else.

This concept came up in a couple of things I was listening to this weekend—Jordan Peterson debates, again. In a debate with Slavoj Zizek, titled “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Communism," Jordan Peterson (on the side of capitalism) says this:

Jordan Peterson in "Happiness" debate
screenshot from here

If you’re actually concerned that the poorest people in the world rise above their starvation levels, then all the evidence suggests that the best way to do that is to implement something approximating the free market economy.

In other words, all that stuff about fairness, or getting rid of inequality, because you care about the poor—that doesn’t work. He provides data:

The one thing you can say about capitalism is that, although it produces inequality, which it absolutely does, it also produces wealth—and all the other systems don’t. They just produce inequality.

So, here’s a few free market stats: From 1800 to 2017 income growth, adjusted for inflation, grew by 40 times for production workers and 16 times for unskilled labor, while GDP rose by a factor of about .5 from 1 AD to 1800. So, from 1 AD to 1800 AD it was like nothing. Flat. And then, all of a sudden, in the last 217 years there’s been this unbelievably upward movement of wealth.

And it doesn’t only characterize the tiny percentage of people at the top, who, admittedly, do have most of the wealth…. [The absolutely poor at the bottom are] getting richer faster now than they ever have in the history of the world.

And we’re eradicating poverty in countries that have adopted moderate free market policies at a rate that’s unparalleled. So, here’s an example. One of the UN millennial goals was to reduce the absolute rate of poverty in the world by 50% between 2000 and 2015. And they defined that as $1.90 a day. Pretty low, you know. But you have to start somewhere. We hit that at 2012, three years ahead of schedule.

And you might be cynical about that and say, well, it’s kind of an arbitrary number. But the curves are exactly the same at $3.80 cents a day and $7.60 a day. Not as many people have hit that, but the rate of increase towards that is the same. The bloody UN thinks that we’ll be out of poverty, defined by $1.90 a day, by the year 2030. It’s unparalleled.

Do you really care about getting the poor out of poverty? Because we know how to do that: free markets.

In a different debate—this one was a Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris debate in Dublin, moderated by Douglas Murray, which I reviewed via a response by commentator Chris Kohls on his Mr. Reagan podcast. The debate was on the efficacy (or harm) of religion, but Harris failed to engage on that. So there was a diversion to other themes, which includes our main theme for today:

There’s just as much error on the side of empathy as there is on the side of too little empathy. And that’s a hard thing for everyone to learn, because empathy feels so good. Like, if you feel mercy towards a suffering child, that is kind of an indication that you’re an ethical person. But that’s not the basis for complex and sophisticated foreign policy.

from left, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris
in the Dublin debate, as reviewed by Mr. Reagan podcast
screenshot from here

Jordan Peterson was talking about borders, which I’ve heard him talk about elsewhere. But this is an excellent way of thinking about them, so I’ll share this version:

Borders exclude and privilege those within the borders. Yes. OK, now let’s take that seriously. Now, part of the seriousness is, poor innocent children are hurt at borders. That happens all the time. OK, the question is, are you willing to give up the borders?

Now let’s think about what borders are. Your skin is a border. And you’re prejudiced in protection of your skin. For example, you won’t just sleep with anyone; you reserve the right to keep that border intact. Right? And to be choosy about the manner in which it’s broached. You likely have a bedroom; it probably has walls. You have clothing. You have a house. You have a town. You have a state. You have a country. And those are all borders. It’s borders within borders within borders within borders. And you need those borders, because otherwise you will die. So we could not be too hypocritical about the damn borders. We don’t know how to organize fragile things without putting boundaries around them.

You see that in Genesis, right? As soon as people realize that—I’m sneaking in a little religion here, in case you didn’t notice—as soon as people realize, they become self-conscious. They wake up and realize their vulnerability. The first thing they do is manufacture a border between them and the world. And we need borders between us and the world.

 And we pay a bloody price for borders. And I say those words very carefully. We pay a bloody price for borders, and it’s often in the price of other people’s blood.

And so, then, the question might be, well, how should you conduct yourself ethically in a world where other people are paying in blood for your borders? And the answer that I’ve been trying to communicate to people is, get your damn house in order. Bear as much responsibility as you can. Act as effectively as you can as an individual in the world. Because then you can justify your privilege. You can justify your luck and your good fortune. And maybe, within the confines of your border, you can be more productive and useful than you would be in the absence of borders altogether.

You do what you can where you can. You don’t say, “I want to feel good about that poor suffering child at the border, so I’m going to insist that the whole country gives up that border.” Meanwhile, who cares what happens to the property owner right there at the border, or anyone else who is harmed by the lack of a border? And, for that matter, what does getting rid of the border do to help the poor suffering child there? It’s not a certainty that getting rid of the border would even help her.

We don’t really have room today to cover all the other issues on that list. But we can briefly cover a couple of them.

Gender Dysphoria

It might make you feel good to say, “I care about that poor person who was born a male but thinks he/she is a female.” OK, but it isn’t self-evident that the best treatment is to get the whole world to support that person in their self-deception. No matter how elaborate the costume—which could include hormones and surgery—the body will still be a male body, with male DNA in every cell. What could have been a reproductively fertile body could be rendered permanently infertile. Isn’t it worth considering whether there is another, maybe better, solution? Especially since outcomes for those who have transitioned are not very positive (suicide as high or higher, body dysphoria continues), and since many have overcome the dysphoria without transitioning, and many who have transitioned have regretted taking that drastic step.

It may be that the best way to care for that individual is to actually care for them individually, and get them the support and treatment that will do them the most good. That very well might include mental health therapy to deal with the gender dysphoria or confusion first. Certainly waiting would be a better way to deal with children—the majority of whom are likely to outgrow the problem by adulthood.

Affirmative Action

It might make you feel good to care about a student from a minority group that suffered discrimination in the past. But it isn’t self-evident that the best solution is to give that student special treatment, in college admissions, for example.

It might be that a black student scores relatively well on exams, showing he would do well in just about any state school, but would be well below the mainstream or even the bottom of students at an Ivy League school. Do you help that student by putting him in an environment where he’s not likely to thrive? High dropout rates among blacks given affirmative action shows it’s not a kindness. They’re also like to choose an easier major, avoiding STEM fields, where they would have done well enough to follow a good career path, if they’d gone to a good-enough college instead.

Malcolm Gladwell tells a story in David and Goliath, that illustrates this. A young woman black woman excelled in science and math in high school. She chose to attend Ivy League Brown, instead of University of Maryland. But it turned out to be overly competitive, and she struggled, coming to believe she was stupid and incapable, because she was comparing herself to even smarter students, and ended up giving up her lifelong science dream for an easier field.

Gladwell then says this about affirmative action:

Affirmative action is practiced most aggressively in law schools, where black students are routinely offered positions in schools one tier higher than they would otherwise be able to attend. The result? According to the law professor Richard Sander, more than half of all African-American law students in the United States—51.6 percent—are in the bottom 10 percent of their law school class and almost three-quarters fall in the bottom 20 percent. After reading about how hard it is to get a science degree if you’re at the bottom of your class, you’ll probably agree that those statistics are terrifying.[i]

Derryck Green, of Project 21, talks about the results of affirmative action in a recent PragerU video; the segment is from about 1:40 to 3:50, but you can watch the whole five-minute video below.

To summarize, we all need to take a clearer look at caring. Stop killing with kindness. Doing something  that looks like caring in order to make yourself feel good about how virtuous you are is called virtue signaling. Instead, try stepping back from the immediate emotion, and thinking through the specific case, or the full range of possible consequences. And then do a rationally kind act. And do that act yourself—instead of pushing, or even requiring, others to do it.

---

[i] Gladwell, Malcolm, David and Goliath, p. 91. The statistics he references are from Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.